3.3 Theory building activities: "responsibility and incident at  (Page 7/7)

Designing engineer: fred

• Examine Fred's actions and participation from the standpoint of the three responsibilty frameworks mentioned above.
• Develop a two minute position paper summarizing Fred's interests, concerns, and rights.
• Anticipate questions that the Commission might raise about Fred's position and develop proactive and effective responses..
• Be sure to use the three responsibility frameworks. Is Fred to blame for what happened? In what way? What can professional societies do to provide moral support to members in difficult situations? How can interested parties provide moral support? Finally, what opportunities arose in the video practicing moral responsibility as a virtue? (Think about what an exemplary engineer would have done differently.)

Phaust management: wally and chuck

• Chuck and Walley made several decisions reponding to the parent company's budget cuts that placed Fred under tight constraints. Identify these decisions, determine whether there were viable alternatives, and decide whether to justify, excuse,or explain your decisions.
• Develop a two minute position paper that you will present to the commission.
• Anticipate Commission questions into your responsibility and develop effective responses to possible attempts by other groups to shift the blame your way.

Corporate governance: french parent company

• You represent the French owners who have recently required Phaust Chemical. You have recently shifted funds from Phaust operations to finance further mergers and acquisitions for your company.
• What are your supervisory responsibilities in relation to Phaust?
• Develop a preliminary two minute presentation summarizing your position and interests.
• Anticipate likely commission questions along with possible attempts by other groups to shift the blame your way.

Engineering professional society

• You represent the professional engineering society to which Fred belongs.
• Develop a two minute presentation that outlines your group's interests and position.
• Anticipate possible Commission questions, develop responses, and anticipate attempts by other groups to shift the blame your way.
• Respond to whether your professional society should extend moral support to engineers in difficult positions like Fred's. Should they clarify code provisions? Provide legal support and counseling? Make available a professional/ethical support hotline?

Investigative commission

Module time line

• Module Preparation Activities: Read module and visit niee.org to get general orientation to "Incident at Morales"
• Class One : Watch Video. Receive group role. Begin preparing your group role.
• Class Two : Work within your group on preparing your group's statement, anticipating questions, and developing responses.
• Class Three : Participate in the Public Hearing. The group representing the Mexican Commission will convene the public hearing, listen to the group's statements, ask questions, and prepare a brief presentation on the Commission's findings
• Class four : Class will debrief on the previous class's public hearing. This will begin with the Commission's findings

Incident at morales and jeopardy

Jeopardy and incident at morales

Jeopardy on socio-technical systems in incident at morales

What have you learned?

Listen to the findings of the mexican government commision. write a short essay responding to the following questions. be prepared to read parts of your essay to your professor and to your classmates.

1. Do you agree with the Commissions findings? Why or why not? Be sure to frame your arguments in terms of the responsibility frameworks provided above.
2. Were there any opportunities to offer Fred moral support by those who shared responsibility with him? What were these opportunities. How, in general, can professional societies support their members when they find themselves in ethically difficult situations?
3. What opportunities arise for exercising resonsibility as an excellence? Which were taken advantage of? Which were lost?
4. Finally, quickly list themes and issues that were left out of the public hearing that should have been included?

References

1. F. H. Bradley (1962) Ethical Studies, Essay I. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2. Herbert Fingarette. (1967) On Responsibility. New York: Basic Books, INC: 3-16.
3. Larry May (1992) Sharing Responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Larry May (1996) The Socially Responsive Self: Social Theory and Professional Ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 28-46.
5. Michael Pritchard (2006) Professional Integrity: Thinking Ethically. Lawrence,KS: University of Kansas Press.
6. Lawrence Blum (1994) Moral Perception and Particularity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 30-61
7. Aristotle. Nichomachean Ethics, Book 3, Chapters 1-3.
8. Edmund L. Pincoffs (1986) Quandaries and Virtues: Against Reductivism in Ethics. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
9. W.H. Walsh (1970) "Pride, Shame and Responsibility," The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol 20, no 78, January 1970: 1-13.
10. Albert Flores and Deborah G. Johnson (1983) "Collective Responsibility and Professional Roles" in Ethics April 1983: 537-545.