2.4 Gray matters for the hughes aircraft case  (Page 4/14)

Alternatives: since they have clear evidence, goodearl and ibarra should blow the whistle. evaluate each of the following ways in which they could blow the whistle

1. Blow the whistle to Hughes’ Board of Directors. In this way they can stop the test skipping but will also be able to keep the whole affair “in house.”
2. Blow the whistle to the local news media. In this way they will shame Hughes into compliance with the testing requirements.
3. Take the evidence to the U.S. Department of Defense, since they are the client and are being negatively impacted by Hughes’ illegal actions.
4. Some other mode of blowing the whistle….

Ethics tests: set up and pitfalls

Iii. solution evaluation tests

• REVERSIBILITY: Would I think this is a good choice if I were among those affected by it?
• PUBILICITY: Would I want to be publicly associated with this action through, say, its publication in the newspaper?
• HARM/BENEFICENCE: Does this action do less harm than any of the available alternatives?
• FEASIBILITY: Can this solution be implemented given time, technical, economic, legal, and political constraints?

Harm test set-up

• Identify the agent (=the person who will perform the action). Describe the action (=what the agent is about to do).
• Identify the stakeholders (individuals who have a vital interest at risk) and their stakes.
• Identify, sort out, and weight the expected results or consequences.

Harm test pitfalls

• Paralysis of Action--considering too many consequences.
• Incomplete analysis--considering too few results.
• Failure to weigh harms against benefits.
• Failure to compare different alternatives.
• Justice failures--ignoring the fairness of the distribution of harms and benefits.

Reversibility test set-up

• Identify the agent
• Describe the action
• Identify the stakeholders and their stakes
• Use the stakeholder analysis to select the relations to be reversed.
• Reverse roles between the agent (you) and each stakeholder: put them in your place (as the agent) and yourself in their place (as the target of the action
• If you were in their place, would you still find the action acceptable?

Reversibility pitfalls

• Leaving out a key stakeholder relation.
• Failing to recognize and address conflicts between stakeholders and their conflicting stakes.
• Confusing treating others with respect with capitulating to their demands (Reversing with Hitler).
• Failing to reach closure, i.e., an overall global reversal assessment that takes into account all the stakeholders the agent has reversed with.

Public identification set-up

• Set up the analysis by identifying the agent, describing the action under consideration, and listing the key values or virtues at play in the situation.
• Associate the action with the agent.
• Identify what the action says about the agent as a person. Does it reveal him or her as someone associated with a virtue/value or a vice?