The Home Page · The Integral Worm · My Resume · My Show Car · My White Papers · Organizations I Belong To
Introduction to Philosophy · Critical Reasoning & Argumentation · Asian Philosophy
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia
Coming Soon
Deductive Logic · Philosophy of Science · Philosophy of Language
A Brief Guide to Ethical Theories and Principles
Ethical Paper 2 · Ethical Paper 3 · Ethical Paper 4
Introduction:
ZCORP is a manufacturer of computer parts in the city of Gilbane. In the process of manufacturing computer parts ZCORP discharges lead and arsenic into the sanitary sewer of the city. According to recent tests, at current manufacturing levels the amount of arsenic and lead that is dumped into the river is slightly above the legal limit allowed by the city ordinances. Currently, the factory is only operating at 40% efficiency. ZCORP has recently merged with a Japanese company and within the next five years will be increasing production by 500%. This will dramatically increase the amount of lead and arsenic ZCORP will be dumping into the river. The major concern here is that lead and arsenic are known to be toxic and that these substances accumulate in the human body and within the soil. Currently, the water is dumped into an area where it becomes slurry which is then used to create fertilizer and sold to local farmers. The danger is that these contaminants will be absorbed into the farmer's crops and passed to human beings through the food chain. The other environmental problem is that these heavy metals will also seep through the soil into the water table, thereby contaminating the drinking water.
David Jackson is a junior engineer employed by ZCORP within the environmental affairs department of ZCORP. David is caught in a dilemma. The problems he faces are first, as an engineer he has a moral obligation to uphold the safety of the public. This means that he must do something about the situation. Second, he has an obligation to his company to promote the best interests of the company. Third, as an engineer he has a professional obligation to being honest with the city in reporting data about the discharge of heavy metals to the city. Fourth, David has an obligation to himself to protect and promote his own career.
Stakeholders:
Technical Issues:
ZCORP is dumping heavy metals into the water. According to the tests mandated by the City of Gilbane, ZCORP is within limits. There is now a new test which is more effective in detecting heavy metals in the discharge water. This test indicates that at present manufacturing levels, ZCORP has been in violation of the code from time to time. Over the next five years, ZCORP intends to increase production by 500% which will increase the heavy metal waste by the same amount. No one is sure exactly how much waste the river can tolerate. ZCORP is currently only operating at 40% operating capacity, hence the company is not very viable nor in a position to be able to afford the investment of upgrading their current filtration system. There is a technical loophole in the law that ZCORP intends to take full advantage of. The law only regulates effluent discharge in terms of the amount of toxic material for a given volume of discharge, not in terms of the total quantity of contaminant. So a plant can always operate within Gilbane standards by simply increasing the volume of water to the amount of heavy metals they dump.
Ethical Issues:
The primary issue raised in the case is whether David should blow the whistle on ZCORP for not properly handling the issue of dumping heavy metals into the environment. The secondary issues are David's obligation as an engineer to uphold the safety of the general public, ZCORP's management has a moral obligation to be honest with the community of Gilbane, the issue of the fairness of by the City of Gilbane towards the local manufacturing plants, the problems raised for individuals and groups by the necessity for action in the face of inconclusive scientific evidence, and the relationship of law and morality.
Analysis:
Diane Collins the Vice President of the plant is using egoism, altruism, ethical relativism, and emotivism in her argument. When David brings up the problem of the heavy metals, Diane cites that we are in the business to make computers and not sludge she is arguing from the point of egoism; that the actions the company is performing are right and that they satisfy the interests of the company. Diane is operating from ethical relativism when she states that it is up to the water treatment people to find that the heavy metal emissions are too high. She also uses emotivism by telling everyone at the meeting she believes the problem is within the environmental department of ZCORP. Basically Diane is appealing to their emotions in making them think about their jobs being on the line if they continue to carry on. Diane also utilizes altruism in the sense that ZCORP provides to the city 1000's of jobs and a tax base operating in Gilbane.
Phil Port also argues from the standpoint of ethical relativism for he also cites that nothing has been heard from the water people basically saying that it their problem to catch us in the act of doing something wrong and then ZCORP will act accordingly to become compliant.
Winslow Massin uses emotivism in his appeal to David not to go public by stating that David will lose his job if he goes public with the information. Winslow also argues from the viewpoint of ethical relativism by citing it's the city's problem that the law is flawed.
All of these people are arguing from a weak position. David is the only one who has a strong argument. David's is using the principle of virtue; that what ZCORP is doing is morally wrong. David is also operating from the viewpoint of consequentialism in the sense that reducing the heavy metals put out by the plant produces the most good for the citizens of Gilbane. David is also using deontology that regardless of what happens to him he knows that he is carrying out his duty in protecting the general public's safety. Lastly, David is arguing from the standpoint of moral foundationalism; that the moral rules are derived from rational constraint of self interest.
Recommendations:
My recommendation to David would be to bring this problem to the attention of the CEO at the head office. I would do it in writing through certified mail so he received a receipt that the letter was received and who it was received by to document everything. In addition I would have already started writing a log documenting what has been said and what days and times they were said. One of the biggest problems that David has is that management deliberately takes care of things of this nature verbally so that way there are no paper traces of what was actually said. This way it becomes more difficult in a court of law to fight the case from the standpoint of a "he said, she said." Without the documentation it will be very difficult to support his case and most lawyers wouldn't bother touching it.
The Home Page · The Integral Worm · My Resume · My Show Car · My White Papers · Organizations I Belong To
Contact Me · FAQ · Useful Links