A GENERAL METHOD FOR ANALYZING CASES

Note: Unless indicated otherwise, quotations and page references are to the
textbook: Harris, Pritchard and Rabins, Engineering Ethics, second edition
(Wadsworth 2000).

Taken together, chapters two and three present a basic, practical method for analyzing
problems in engineering ethics. The key components of this method are:

1. distinguishing factual, conceptual, application, and moral questions and issues;

2. comparing test cases with paradigms (and, where possible, the associated
attempt to "draw lines"); and
3. seeking creative "middle way" solutions.

1. Distinguishing factual, conceptual, application and moral questions and issues

Although the terms "question" and "issue" are often used interchangeably, we might
distinguish them as follows.

An issue arises when there is controversy over what the answer to a question is,
and it matters, practically speaking, how the question gets answered.

Thus "How many trees were there in Brazos County on January 1, 1444?" is a
question, but it is hardly an issue, whereas "Is elective abortion murder?" is both a
question and an issue.

In the lecture on chapter two, we already began to distinguish among the four kinds of
questions and issues mentioned in the title of this section. To help nail down the
distinctions more clearly, so that you can put them to better use in analyzing cases, we
should say a bit more about what makes something a factual question vs. a moral
question.

Factual questions

The textbook authors do not give an explicit definition of "factual question," but we
can fairly characterize what they mean in terms of a standard definition of what
counts as an empirical question:

A question is empirical if and only if it could, at least in principle or under ideal

conditions, be resolved through observation or experiment.

So we might say that factual questions concern "data." But note the following related
points:

1. "Observation or experiment" covers a very broad range of things, all the way
from simply going and looking around the house or listening to what a person
says, through taking photographs outside of the visual wavelengths and

1
 measuring the chemical content of water with instruments, to tracing the
trajectories of subatomic particles in a cloud chamber.
 For this reason, not all empirical questions are properly characterized
as "scientific" questions. The latter term is best reserved for the subset
of empirical questions which formal scientific training and practice
would be required to answer.
2. And thus, not all factual questions are about things that are directly
observable; sometimes the data we rely on in resolving them are indirect
indicators of the things in question.
 For instance, just as physicists make inferences about the presence and
causal properties of subatomic particles from their trajectories in cloud
chambers, we make inferences about the presence and causal
properties of mental states using "folk psychology," the common sense
way of explaining the behavior of people [and some animals] in terms
of their beliefs and desires.
 In saying this about mental states, we need not commit ourselves to
any very specific answers to complex questions in the philosophy of
mind. All we are committing outselves to is the claim that there is a
fact of the matter about what beliefs, desires, etc., people have, and
that what they do and say is at least normally a reliable indicator of
these.
 If you want some background on the philosophy of mind, you could
begin by visiting these links:
 four on-line lectures on the philosophy of mind by Colin Allen,
or
 the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on The Identity
Theory of Mind.
3. A special instance of the foregoing are causal claims, for these are not just
about what in fact occurred and was thus observable. Causal claims are also
about what did not in fact occur, but would have, under certain
(counterfactual) conditions.
 Thus statements about causal relationships have a special, and
philosophically interesting, status. For to say that, generally, "Xs cause
Ys" is to say not only that whenever an X occurs, a Y follows, but also
that if an X had occurred (when it in fact did not), then a Y would have
occurred too. And to make the singular claim that "X was the cause of
Y in this case" is to say that if (contrary to fact) X had not occurred,
then Y would not have occurred.
 If you want some background on the meaning and logical status of
counterfactuals, you could begin by visiting this link:
 The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on
counterfactual theories of causation.

(Note: If you followed more than one of the above links for optional background
information, then you should seriously consider changing your major to philosophy.
For information on that, click here.)

Moral questions

2
In philosophy, a traditional way of distinguishing moral from factual questions is in
terms of distinguishing between questions about what is (which is what factual
questions are about) and what ought to be (which is what moral questions are about).

There is near universal agreement that moral questions cannot be answered by

observation alone. This is what is meant by "the is-ought gap": from purely factual
premises (about what is the case) you cannot validly infer a moral conclusion (about
what ought to be).

Examples

With all of the above in mind, we can now discuss some examples of each category.
Two problematic examples are indicated in blue. In these two cases, "ought" and
"should" are used, but it is not clear that these are really examples of moral questions.

Conceptual Application
Factual questions Moral questions
Line questions questions
1 Are all of the cats Who are "the Is Tom one of Should we let the
in the house? cats"? "the cats"? cats outside?
2 How does What features are Is engineering a Should engineers
Webster's define characteristic of a profession? think of themselves
"professional"? profession? as professionals?
How ought
"engineer" to be
defined?
3 How much How much Was the amount What ought to have
radiation was radiation is released at been done to
released by the hazardous? Chernobyl compensate the
Chernobyl hazardous? victims?
accident?
4 What would have What counts as Did Bush really Should Gore have
happened if Gore winning a win the conceded the election
had won the 2000 presidential election? to Bush?
election? election?
5 How many trees What distinguishes Is a yaupon a ?????
were there in a tree from a tree or a shrub?
Brazos County on shrub?
January 1, 1444?
6 Do people believe What makes Does elective Ought governments
that elective something count as abortion count to permit elective
abortion is murder? "murder"? as murder? abortions?
7 Did Victor take the What features do Did Victor's trip Is taking bribes
trip to Jamaica? bribes have? count as taking wrong? Should
a bribe? Victor have taken the
trip?

Some things to note regarding the above examples:

3
  For the reasons given below, don't believe that the above distinctions are
always obvious, absolute, and clear-cut.
 Sometimes it seems artificial to separate the question of how to define a
concept from the question of how to apply it. See, for example, line 5 above.
 Conceptual and application questions come in both factual and moral varieties.
For example, compare lines 2, 3, 4, and 6 above.
 To some extent, words like "should," "ought," "must," etc. get used
interchangeably in the contexts of both moral and prudence, but you should be
careful to keep the two separate in your thinking (on this score, see in
particular, lines 7 and 1).
 And there are still other normative, but neither moral nor prudential senses of
these same terms (see, for instance, line 2).

2. Comparing test cases with paradigms

In the preceding lecture/chapter, concerning the case of Victor's trip to Jamaica, we

saw how to use the textbook's method for comparing test cases to paradigms. In
chapter three, the authors point out that this can be extended to all kinds of cases
where engineers have ethical questions about what they ought to do. Basically, you
can compare a problematic or puzzling case to a range of "positive paradigm cases,"
cases where you are completely convinced that what an engineer did was morally OK,
along with a similar range of "negative paradigm cases," where you are similarly
convinced that what they did was morally wrong, to guide your judgment in problem
cases.

(Note that you could do the same thing with a code of professional ethics; that is, by
comparing the features of a particular case to ones that you are sure do or don't violate
the code, whether or not you thought that doing so would also be immoral.)

The notion of "line drawing" is related in the following, rather loose way. After using
the above technique to consider a range of related cases, you might find a pattern in
which cases you judge unacceptable and which acceptable, and you might be able to
arrange these cases on a continuum in terms of how they score on one or more
features. You might then "draw a line" on this continuum and conclude that cases on
one side of line were all acceptable but those on the other side are unacceptable.

However, the authors caution, with good reason, that:

1. "imposing a line of demarcation between some of the cases in a series involves

an element of arbitrariness," and
2. "concentrating on only one feature will usually be insufficient to determine
where on the continuum to place a given case" (p. 63).

So while "line-drawing" is a natural enough goal of the paradigm and test case
comparisons, it is a somewhat idealized goal.

3. Creative middle way solutions

4
The authors close chapter three by emphasizing how often it is possible to find
"creative, middle way solutions." They advocate attempting this where "some real and
[similarly] important values" are at stake, but where it appears (at least initially) that it
is impossible "to honor each of them" (65).

They use the example of Dr. Martin Luther King, who attempted to honor his
commitments to both the rule of law and to protesting racial injustice in this country.
King settled upon a middle way insofar as he resolved both to protest in a dramatic
way, by violating the laws he thought unjust, and to non-violently accept the
consequences, willingly allowing himself to be jailed for doing so.

They emphasize that "Not all creative middle ways are satisfactory, or at least equally
satisfactory" (66) [and, I would emphasize, a creative middle way is not always going
to be available], but they encourage us to "consider a range of solutions" (67) and
seek out ones which "honor each" of the important values at stake in a case [which
certainly seems like a good strategy!].

Summary

A template for analyzing cases

5
Note: Unless indicated otherwise, quotations and page references are to
the textbook, Harris, Pritchard and Rabins, Engineering Ethics, second
edition (Wadsworth 2000).

We have now studied two sets of tools for analyzing cases:

1. The techniques, discussed in chapters two and three, for distinguishing

factual, conceptual, application, and moral questions and issues;
comparing test cases with paradigms (and, where possible, the
associated attempt to "draw lines"); and seeking creative "middle way"
solutions.
2. The moral theories of philosophers discussed in chapter four.

Here, drawing on all of these tools together, is an overall template for

analyzing cases.

I. Identify the concerned parties and the available options:

A. Who is the agent? Who needs to make a decision?
B. What are the available options?
C. Whose interests are at stake?
D. Who will be affected by the agent's decision?

II. Distinguish among factual, conceptual, application, and moral issues

as described in chapters two and three, and as practiced on the first
writing assignment.

III. Attempt to resolve relevant factual issues, making it clear which ones
are, for purposes of the analysis, incapable of being resolved.

Remember that, as the textbook points on in chapter 2:

A. "Disagreements that appear to be about moral issues often turn out to

be about the relevant facts,"
B. "Factual issues are sometimes very difficult to resolve," and

"Once the factual issues are clearly isolated, moral disagreement can
reemerge on another and often more clearly defined level" (pp. 41-43).

IV. Attempt to resolve the conceptual and application issues identified

above.

When discussing questions in professional ethics, the codes of ethics of

various professional societies can serve as a guide.

Remember, however, that it is often impossible to draw clear lines between

cases which fit a concept and those which do not

6
V. After resolving as many of the factual issues as you can, attempt to
clarify the moral issues that do remain by stating what would be the
right thing to do from each of the following perspectives:
A. Common morality: What general principles of common morality might
be violated? (For starters, see the list of shared traits and related
background principles of common morality on pp. 32-33.)
B. Act utilitarianism: What option available to the agent would maximize
aggregate happiness in this case? (Note the textbook procedure for
application, bottom of p. 81.)
C. Rights views: Whose rights would be violated under various options?
(Note the list of commonly invoked rights and corresponding
obligations in figure 4.1, on p. 90, and the procedure for application, top
of p. 92.)
D. Rule utilitarianism: What options available to the agent are consistent
with the rules which would produce the greatest happiness in society if
everyone followed them? Note: (Note the textbook procedure for
application, bottom half of p. 83.)
1. When discussing questions of professional ethics, specifically, it
makes sense to reformulate this question as: What options are
consistent with the rules which would produce the greatest
aggregate happiness if all engineers followed them?

Relatedly, one place to look for guidance in such cases are the various codes
of ethics of the professional engineering societies.

VI. Look for a "creative middle way solution," as described in chapter

three, §3.
A. This is an attempt to "honor each" of the important values at stake in a
case (p. 65). In terms of the above theories, that means finding a
solution that seems acceptable from the perspective of each one.

Of course "Not all creative middle ways are satisfactory, or at least equally
satisfactory" (p. 66) (and, I would emphasize, a creative middle way is not
always going to be available), but to "consider a range of solutions" (p. 67) is
certainly a good strategy!

VII. Ask yourself the "Harey" question: Is this a situation where the
agent is justified in violating a principle of common morality or of
professional ethics, or violating commonly invoked individual rights?
A. In Hare's terms: Is this a case where you can trust your critical thinking
to justify you in violating principles of common morality or of
professional ethics, or in violating commonly invoked rights of
individuals?
B. More specifically:
1. Is it, generally, the kind of case where you can trust your critical
thinking?
2. Are all of the facts relevant to your critical thinking known for
certain?

Are the harms to be avoided by doing so sufficiently momentous?

7
8