UNIT-2

VARIETY OF MORAL ISSUES

It would be relevant to know why and how do moral issues (problems) arise in a profession or why do people behave unethically? The reasons for people including the employer and employees, behaving unethically may be classified into three categories:

1.  Resource Crunch

Due to pressure, through time limits, availability of money or budgetary constraints, and technology decay or obsolescence. Pressure from the government to complete the project in time (e.g., before the elections), reduction in the budget because of sudden war or natural calamity (e.g., Tsunami) and obsolescence due technology innovation by the competitor lead to manipulation and unsafe and unethical execution of projects. Involving individuals in the development of goals and values and developing policies that allow for individual diversity, dissent, and input to decision-making will prevent unethical results.

2.  Opportunity

(a) Double standards or behaviour of the employers towards the employees and the public. The unethical behaviours of World Com (in USA), Enron (in USA as well as India) executives in 2002 resulted in bankruptcy for those companies, (b) Management projecting their own interests more than that of their employees. Some organizations over-emphasize short-term gains and results at the expense of themselves and others, (c) Emphasis on results and gains at the expense of the employees, and (d) Management by objectives, without focus on empowerment and improvement of the infrastructure. This is best encountered by developing policies that allow ‘conscience keepers’ and whistle blowers and appointing ombudsman, who can work confidentially with people to solve the unethical problems internally.

3.  Attitude

Poor attitude of the employees set in due to

(a) Low morale of the employees because of dissatisfaction and downsizing,

(b) Absence of grievance redressal mechanism,

(c) Lack of promotion or career development policies or denied promotions,

(d) Lack of transparency,

(e) Absence of recognition and reward system, and

(f) Poor working environments.

Giving ethics training for all, recognizing ethical conduct in work place, including ethics in performance appraisal, and encouraging open discussion on ethical issues, are some of the directions to promote positive attitudes among the employees.

To get firm and positive effect, ethical standards must be set and adopted by the senior management, with input from all personnel.

TYPES OF INQUIRIES

The three types of inquiries, in solving ethical problems are: normative inquiry, conceptual inquiry, and factual or descriptive inquiry.

The three types of inquiries are discussed below to illustrate the differences and preference.

1.  Normative Inquiry

It seeks to identify and justify the morally-desirable norms or standards that should guide individuals and groups. It also has the theoretical goal of justifying particular moral judgments. Normative questions are about what ought to be and what is good, based on moral values. For example,

1. How far does the obligation of engineers to protect public safety extend in any given situation?

2. When, if ever, should engineers be expected to blow whistle on dangerous practices of their employers?

3. Whose values ought to be primary in making judgment about acceptable risks in design for a public transport system or a nuclear plant? Is it of management, senior engineers, government, voters or all of them?

4. When and why is the government justified in interfering with the organisations?

5. What are the reasons on which the engineers show their obligations to their employees or clients or the public?

2.  Conceptual Inquiry

It is directed to clarify the meaning of concepts or ideas or principles that are expressed by words or by questions and statements. For example,

(a) What is meant by safety?

(b) How is it related to risk?

 (c) What is a bribe?

 (d) What is a profession?

When moral concepts are discussed, normative and conceptual issues are closely interconnected.

3.  Factual or Descriptive Inquiry

It is aimed to obtain facts needed for understanding and resolving value issues. Researchers conduct factual inquiries using mathematical or statistical techniques. The inquiry provide important information on business realities, engineering practice, and the effectiveness of professional societies in fostering moral conduct, the procedures used in risk assessment, and psychological profiles of engineers. The facts provide not only the reasons for moral problems but also enable us to develop alternative ways of resolving moral problems. For example,

1. How were the benefits assessed?

2. What are procedures followed in risk assessment?

3. What are short-term and long-term effects of drinking water being polluted?

4. Who conducted the tests on materials?

MORAL DILEMMA

Dilemmas are situations in which moral reasons come into conflict, or in which the application of moral values are  problems, and one is not clear of the immediate choice or solution of the problems. Moral reasons could be rights, duties, goods or obligations. These situations do not mean that things had gone wrong, but they only indicate the presence of moral complexity. This makes the decision making complex. For example, a person promised to meet a friend and dine, but he has to help his uncle who is involved in an accident — one has to fix the priority. There are some difficulties in arriving at the solution to the problems, in dilemma. The three complex situations leading to moral dilemmas are:

 1. The problem of vagueness:  One is unable to distinguish between good and bad (right or wrong) principle. Good means an action that is obligatory. For example, code of ethics specifies that one should obey the laws and follow standards. Refuse bribe or accept the gift, and maintain confidentiality

2. The problem of conflicting reasons: One is unable to choose between two good moral solutions. One has to fix priority, through knowledge or value system.

3. The problem of disagreement: There may be two or more solutions and none of them mandatory. These solutions may be better or worse in some respects but not in all aspects. One has to interpret, apply different morally reasons, and analyse and rank the decisions. Select the best suitable, under the existing and the most probable conditions.

Steps to Solve Dilemma

The logical steps in confronting moral dilemma are:

1. Identification of the moral factors and reasons. The clarity to identify the relevant moral values from among duties, rights, goods and obligations is obtained (conceptual inquiry). The most useful resource in identifying dilemmas in engineering is the professional codes of ethics, as interpreted by the professional experience. Another resource is talking with colleagues who can focus or narrow down the choice of values.

2. Collection of all information, data, and facts (factual inquiry) relevant to the situation.

3. Rank the moral options i.e., priority in application through value system, and also as obligatory, all right, acceptable, not acceptable, damaging, and most damaging etc. For example, in fulfilling responsibility, the codes give prime importance to public safety and protection of the environment, as compared to the individuals or the employers (conceptual inquiry).

4. Generate alternate courses of action to resolve the dilemma. Write down the main options and sub-options as a matrix or decision tree to ensure that all options are included.

5. Discuss with colleagues and obtain their perspectives, priorities, and suggestions on various alternatives.

6. Decide upon a final course of action, based on priority fixed or assumed. If there is no ideal solution, we arrive at a partially satisfactory or ‘satisficing’ solution.

MORAL AUTONOMY

Moral autonomy is defined as, decisions and actions exercised on the basis of moral concern for other people and recognition of good moral reasons. Alternatively, moral autonomy means ‘self-determinant or independent’. The autonomous people hold moral beliefs and attitudes based on their critical reflection rather than on passive adoption of the conventions of the society or profession. Moral autonomy may also be defined as a skill and habit of thinking rationally about the ethical issues, on the basis of moral concern. Viewing engineering as social experimentation will promote autonomous participation and retain one’s professional identity. Periodical performance appraisals, tight-time schedules and fear of foreign competition threatens this autonomy. The attitude of the management should allow latitude in the judgments of their engineers on moral issues. If management views profitability is more important than consistent quality and retention of the customers that discourage the moral autonomy, engineers are compelled to seek the support from their professional societies and outside organizations for moral support. It appears that the blue-collar workers with the support of the union can adopt better autonomy than the employed professionals. Only recently the legal support has been obtained by the professional societies in exhibiting moral autonomy by professionals in this country as well as in the West. The engineering skills related to moral autonomy are listed as follows:

1. Proficiency in recognizing moral problems in engineering and ability to distinguish as well as relate them to problems in law, economics, and religion,

2. Skill in comprehending, clarifying, and critically-assessing arguments on different aspects of moral issues,

3. Ability to form consistent and comprehensive view points based on facts,

4. Awareness of alternate responses to the issues and creative solutions for practical difficulties, 5. Sensitivity to genuine difficulties and subtleties, including willingness to undergo and tolerate some uncertainty while making decisions,

6. Using rational dialogue in resolving moral conflicts and developing tolerance of different perspectives among morally reasonable people, and

7. Maintaining moral integrity.

Autonomy which is the independence in making decisions and actions, is different from authority. Authority provides freedom for action, specified within limits, depending on the situation. Moral autonomy and respect for authority can coexist. They are not against each other. If the authority of the engineer and the moral autonomy of the operator are in conflict, a consensus is obtained by the two, upon discussion and mutual understanding their limits.

KOHLBERG THEORY

Moral development in human being occurs overage and experience. Kohlberg suggested there are three levels of moral development, namely pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional, based on the type of reasoning and motivation of the individuals in response to moral questions.

In the pre-conventional level, right conduct for an individual is regarded as whatever directly benefits oneself. At this level, individuals are motivated by obedience or the desire to avoid punishment or to satisfy their own needs or by the influence by power on them. All young children exhibit this tendency.

 At the conventional level, people respect the law and authority. Rules and norms of one’s family or group or society is accepted, as the standard of morality. Individuals in this level want to please or satisfy, and get approval by others and to meet the expectations of the society, rather than their self-interest (e.g., good boy, good girl). Loyalty is regarded as most important. Many adults do not go beyond this level.

At the post-conventional level, people are called autonomous. They think originally and want to live by universally good principles and welfare of others. They have no self-interest. They live by principled conscience. They follow the golden rule, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. They maintain moral integrity, self-respect and respect for others. Kohlberg believed that individuals could only progress through these stages, one stage at a time. He believed that most of the moral development occurs through social interactions.

GILLIGAN’S THEORY

Carol Gilligan found that Kohlberg’s theory had a strong male bias. According to Gilligan’s studies, men had a tendency to solve problems by applying abstract moral principles. Men were found to resolve moral dilemma by choosing the most important moral rule, overriding other rules. In contrast, women gave importance to preserve personal relationships with all the people involved. The context oriented emphasis on maintaining personal relationships was called the ethics of care, in contrast with the ethics of rules and rights adopted by men. Gilligan revised the three levels of moral development of Kohlberg, as stages of growth towards ethics of caring. The pre-conventional level, which is same as that of Kohlberg’s first one, right conduct, is viewed in a selfish manner solely as what is good for oneself. The second level called conventional level, the importance is on not hurting others, and willing to sacrifice one’s own interest and help others. This is the characteristic feature of women. At the post-conventional level, a reasoned balance is found between caring about others and pursuing the self-interest. The balance one’s own need and the needs of others, is aimed while maintaining relationship based on mutual caring. This is achieved by context-oriented reasoning, rather than by hierarchy of rules.