2.4 Gray matters for the hughes aircraft case  (Page 14/14)

3. outline your ethics experiment by examining the action you advocate using the three ethics tests.

• Reversibility . How does your action look when you reverse with the key stakeholders? Project into their shoes avoiding the extremes of too much identification and too little identification.
• Harm . What harms have you envisioned through your dramatic rehearsal? Are these harms less quantitatively and qualitatively than the action actually taken in the case?
• Publicity . Finally, project the action taken in your rehearsal into the career of a moral professional. Is it consistent with this career or does it embrace (or neglect) values out of place in such a career. In other words, carry out the publicity test by associating the values embedded in the action you portray with the character of a good or moral agent carrying out a moral, professional career.

4. value and interest conflicts in your drama.

• All these decision points involve some kind of conflict. How did you characterize this conflict in your dramatization? Pose your conflict in terms of values. How did your drama "resolve" this value conflict?

5. recognizing and dealing with the constraints you found in your decision point.

Story boards

Suggestions for story boards

• Divide your dramatization into four to six frmaes. Now draw a picture in each frame, one that captures a key moment of your dramatization.
• Check for continuity. Each frame should present elements that show how it emerges from the previous frame and how it transitions into the subsequent frame. The first frame should help the reader find the context in which your drama takes place. The last frame should provide as much closure as your drama permits.
• In general, your storyboard should summarize the dramatization you acted out in front of the rest of the class. But while acting through your drama, you received feedback from the class and, perhaps, began to rethink things. So feel free to make changes in your storyboard to reflect your deeper understanding of your decision point. If you make changes in your storyboard, discuss this in your dramatic reflections. Explain why you decided to change things.

Hughes case media files

Hughes case and dialogue points

What if dramatic rehearsals

Debating topics for admi 4016, spring 2011

Jeopardy: responsible dissent

Jeopardy for codes of ethics

Bibliography

• Martin Benjamin. (1990). Splitting the Difference: Compromise and Integrity in Ethics and Politics. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
• Chuck Huff and William Frey. "The Hughes Whistleblowing Case." In Reena Raj (Ed.) Whistleblowing: Perspectives and Experiences , 75-80. 2008, Hyderabad India: Icfai University Press.
• Charles Harris, Michael Pritchard, Michael Rabins. "Engineers as Employees," in Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 2nd Edition . Wadsworth Thompson Learning, 2000. Section 8.8 of Chapter 8 discusses DeGeorge's criteria for whistle-blowing.
• Richard T. DeGeorge. "Ethical Responsibilities of Engineers in Large Organizations," in Business and Professional Ethics Journal , Vol 1, no. 1: 1-14.
• Stephen H., Unger, Controlling Technology: Ethics and the Responsible Engineer: 2nd Edition , New York: John Wiley and Sons, INC, 1994.
• Richard T. De George, "Ethical Responsibilities of Engineers in Large Organizations: The Pinto Case," in Ethical Issues in Engineering , ed. Deborah G. Johnson (1991) New Jersey: Prentice-Hall: 175-186.
• Carolyn Whitbeck (1998) Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research . U.K. Cambridge University Press: 55-72 and 176-181. See also 2nd edition (2011) Chapter 7.
• Charles Harris, Michael Pritchard and Michael Rabins (2005) Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 3rd Ed . Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth: 203-206.
• Gardner, J. (1978). On Moral Fiction . New York: Basic Books.
• Johnson, M. (1994). Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.