Case Analysis: Toyota Acceleration Problem
IME 402
Fall 2016
Professor Erik Jackiw
Nicole Chandra
Deverell Alim
Brian Lee
Date of Delivery:December 1st, 2016
Table of Contents
I. Introduction – Deverell
II. Details of the Case – Brian
III. Test by Moral Theories
? Utilitarianism – Brian
? Professional Code of Ethics – Nicole
? Deontology (Kantian) – Deverell
IV. Interpretation of the Results – Nicole
V. Conclusion – Brian
Introduction
In today’s world, the main form of transportation is car. It doesn’t matter if the car is cheap, expensive, fancy, simple, old, or new; the fact is, most people use cars to “go from point A to point B.” With this invention available to the hands of so many people, one concern comes to mind: “How reliable can this powerful machine be to the people?” Of all the accidents that have already been caused, how many of those were the driver’s fault, and how many were due to car system malfunctioning? Toyota Motors Corporation is a Japanese leading automotive company founded in 1937 by Kiichiro Toyoda. They are known for their innovation of the Toyota Production System (Lean Manufacturing System) which enabled companies to improve quality and eliminate waste in production. In the past years, they were involved in a big case known as “Toyota Acceleration Problem.” This paper will describe the case, possible moral, factual, conceptual, and application issues, four different approaches that our group would apply to this case, and a conclusion stating which approach we believe would be the best to solve the problem in the case.
Case
Toyota Acceleration Problem case started in 2009 and can be attributed to an error in the production of Toyota car models which would stimulate the automobile to unintentionally activate the gas pedal system without the driver’s command (Ross). This would cause cars to accelerate progressively, and the driver did not have control to brake or control the amount of acceleration of the vehicle. This captured the attention of the public which lead to thorough investigations of historical incidents to see if events similar to this happened before (Ross). They found the cause of the acceleration problem to be floor mats trapping gas pedals, brake problems and “sticky” gas pedals.
Faced again with such a delicate situation, Toyota tried again to place the fault on floor mats, but this time, saying that the drivers’ were misplacing them, which were causing the acceleration to occur due to the force applied by the same (Douglas). Upon further research and investigation, conclusions stated that floor mats were not the issue with the unintended vehicle acceleration, countering Toyota’s initial announcement. The company tried to find another reason for the cause of accidents. This can be seen in the statement: “Early on, Toyota suggested that driver error was to blame, saying that some people may have hit the gas when they meant to hit the brake. Even after issuing recalls to address problematic floor mats that in some cases pinned down accelerators […]” (Douglas). Here, it becomes clear that the company tried to blame the drivers again; however, changing from misplacement of floormats into their driving skills. It is possible to observe that Toyota is putting a lot of effort to place the guilt onto something else, rather than themselves for this case.
As the ABC News supports, In August of 2009, a car crash involving a Toyota production, Lexus ES 350 Sedan occurred due to unintended acceleration, killing all four occupants in the car, Highway Patrolman Mark Saylor and three members of his family. According to the same informative television news webpage: “Saylor was able to call 911 while his car was speeding over 100 miles per hour and explain his harrowing ordeal right up until the crash that ended his life” (Ross). This statement shows how fast the unintended acceleration of the vehicle would could go up to, and how the driver had no control over it. This particular accident cause rebellion among the population because the driver was a Highway Patrol, a position that can be seen as a “government job.” Also, Saylor was able to call for help before the crash which ended his family’s life, which became evidence for the public that certainly something was wrong about Toyota’s production.
The company is faced with the issue of admitting to their mistake or hiding it as if they are not aware of it. Admitting to their mistake means they have to face public criticism and find a way to stop the issue from continuing which could mean halting production and lose money in the process. On the other hand, the company are able to hide the problem and release false statements to the public. This would mean lying to the public but they will be able to keep producing cars and selling them. However, they will be putting people’s lives at risk and letting the accidents happen knowing that it is highly likely.
The main moral issue here is should the company admit to their mistakes or hide it as if it never happened as explained above. Either option would have very different risks and results. The factual issue we observed was did acceleration problems the sole cause of the accidents. Knowing this means we know who is at fault for the accidents, whether it is the company or the driver of the car. Another factual issue to consider is what are the benefits and disadvantages to choosing either option of the moral issue, This can help make the decision-making process easier and faster.
The conceptual issue we can see here is what is considered an acceleration problem. Are these problems that arise from the car itself or from driver error. We also need to know what is considered a driver error and how to differentiate that with the problems with the car. Next, we have application issues. We want to know if the different types of acceleration problems such as problems with the gas pedals, floor mats or tires and if these are accepted as a car error or driver error.
One impediments to responsible action that would affect the decision-making process would be fear. Either option, admitting to their mistakes or hiding the problem from the public, has its own factors to fear for. For example, if they admit to their mistake, the employees may fear for losing their job and the company may risk losing a lot of money. Next, the decision could also be motivated by self-interest. The company would ultimately want to make a decision that would benefit them, whether it is their reputation or profits. Lastly, ignorance also plays a factor in making the decision. Without thorough investigation, which cost a lot of money, they wouldn’t be able to figure out the problem. Without complete information, it may be hard to choose the best course of action.
When trying to make a decision, the company would want to do the “right” thing but sometimes they are not as ethical as they think they are. In making a decision, they have to assess their own actions and make sure they uphold their ethical standards. For example, if they choose to admit their mistake, they may be saving lives and may gain good reputation but at the same time, they may choose to let go the employees responsible for the problem. Next, if they choose to hide the problem, they save money and their jobs but will risk people’s life whose cars has acceleration problem. Either way, there is a blind spot in every decision they make.
Tests by Moral Theories
Utilitarianism Approach
We have to place ourselves in “the shoes” of Toyota Engineers. The mistake in the manufacturing has already been done, cars are having malfunctioning in their acceleration system, so now we need to do something. If utilitarianism is the moral theory being utilized in this case, the best option would be the one which produces the higher utility, or greater “happiness” among not only the parties involved, but also to the population or community around. This means that the decision taken should be the one that benefits the greatest number of people. In order to apply utilitarianism into this case, two forms have to be considered: Act Utilitarianism, and Rule Utilitarianism. The difference between them is, while Act Utilitarianism consists of figuring the option which would produce a higher utility, Rule Utilitarianism conforms to a rule of conduct, which the rule should produce more utility than any other applicable rule.
If Act Utilitarianism is applied, five steps must be taken into account. The first step is to identify the moral issue under consideration. In this case, Toyota consumers are being put to life risk because a mistake made by the company. Other people’s lives are also being put at risk, since the cars are accelerating unintentionally, so accidents are more prone to happen. The second step is to note available options for us (Toyota Engineers who need to make a decision about this situation). One option would be to assume the mistake, and handle with the cost of the consequences. Another option would be to ignore our company’s error and keep saying that is the customer’s’ fault in all those accidents. The third step is to identify the audience; that is, those affected by the decision. Here, the audience are: Toyota, Toyota consumers, and the people near Toyota cars in traffic. The fourth step is to determine to happiness for each audience under each option. To clearly picture the effects of each option, I created a table to ease the understanding:
Option Toyota Toyota Consumers Others around
Toyota assumes the mistake Pay a lot of money for mistake and recall, possibly billions No more life risk due to car malfunctioning, possibly get their money from the car back No life risk due to nearby Toyota cars malfunctioning
Toyota doesn’t assume the mistake At first nothing. If proven guilty, will have to pay a lot of money for undercovering a mistake and consequences. Potentially lose a vast amount of consumers Will still be at risk of life, but most people will probably buy cars from other brands Will be at risk of life if nearby Toyota cars that have system malfunctioning
The fifth and last step for the Act Utilitarianism is to determine which decision would cause the greater net happiness. In this case, Toyota assuming the mistake would be the best decision. From the table above, it’s clear that if Toyota assumes the mistake, they would be “providing” happiness to Toyota customers and the ones around. Although they would have to pay a lot of money for the mistake (which is not happiness for their party), if they chose not to assume the mistake, and were proven guilty, they would still have to pay not only the money for the mistake, but also for lying and trying to undercover it. As result, assuming the error would lead to two parties being happy (Toyota customers, and others), while not assuming the error would lead to no party being happy; maybe Toyota, if not proven guilty.
If applying the Rule Utilitarianism instead of Act, there are six steps to approach the case under study. Five of those six steps are similar to Act Utilitarianism, which were already covered in the previous paragraph. The only difference would be a step between the second and third steps for Act Utilitarianism; this step is to imagine a rule that would guide your decision decision behavior, and the rule must be applied universally. Let’s consider two factors for making this rule. First, each individual’s life is of same importance as your own life. Second, two wrongs do not make a right. If those two concepts were applied, us, as Toyota Engineers have to acknowledge that everyday a malfunctioning car is out there, there is potential for a life loss of someone, and their lives are as important as our own lives for ourselves. Also, failing to assume a mistake that we already know is present, would be to act wrong upon an already existing wrong action. That would be doing two wrongs, which does not make a right. Therefore, if Rule Utilitarianism was to be applied, the best decision would also be to admit to the mistake and deal with the consequences of this case.
Professional Code of Ethics Approach
The Professional Code of Ethics is a document stating the ethical and moral responsibilities for professionals all around the world. It should be accepted by every member of the profession. These codes play eight highly essential roles: serving and protecting the public, providing guidance, offering inspiration, establishing shared standards, supporting responsible professionals, contributing to education and mutual understanding, for deterrence and discipline and strengthening a profession’s image (Schinzinger). For the case, we will be looking at the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers as well as the Toyota Code of Conduct.
The NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers highlights six fundamental codes that every member should uphold (Code). They are:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession. (Code)
The Toyota Code of Conduct is a document stating the moral and ethical responsibilities of every single toyota employee and the corporation itself. It consists of three chapters divided by work environment, work activities and relationship with society. In this case analysis, we will be looking at the third chapter of the code of conduct which includes seven basic rules toyota agrees to abide to in relation to society.
The moral issue here is should the company ignore the issue at hand or admit to their mistakes and take responsibility for it. We will be examining the two available options and determining which one is more viable based on if the option upholds or violates the Code of Ethics.
The first option is to ignore the numerous complaints they have been receiving and let the problem unfold on its own. Doing so is putting people’s life at risk and increasing the number of accidents happening due to unintended acceleration. However, the company will be able to save money and continue car sales by hiding the issue and releasing false statements. Looking at the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Toyota engineers are obviously violating the first, third and fifth code, which are prioritizing the safety, health and welfare of the public, issuing truthful public statements and avoiding deceptive acts (Code). In Chapter III of the Toyota Code of Conduct, titled “Society and Us”, states that the company should be “Communicating facts in an accurate and timely fashion.” as well as “Being Open and Fair” (Toyota). This option violates both of this codes as the company is hiding the problem and issuing false statements to cover up their mistakes. They are not being open or fair to the public, both the car owners and everyone else who drives as if a car malfunctions, it could risk the lives of other people on the street. Based on this analysis, option one should not be taken as it violates the code of ethics.
The second option is to take responsibility, admit to their mistakes and initiate a recall even if it means losing money in the process. This would mean issuing a public statement on their defective product and having to fix the issue before selling any more cars. They may lose money in the process as they have to dedicate a group of engineers to solve the problem and put a halt in production of cars. By owning up to their problem and fixing their issue, they could enhance their reputation and society will respect them more. Based on the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Toyota is upholding the first, third, fifth and sixth code. They are putting people’s safety first, issuing truthful statements by telling the public the truth, not conducting any deceptive acts and were able to work ethically, honorably and responsibly which can enhance their reputation (Code). The second option upholds the code which means that it can be taken.
Deontology Approach
In solving this problem using a deontology approach, we will take a look at how Kantian ethics play a role. Before we start off, we have to know what Kantian ethics mean and how it works. Based on the book The Fundamentals of Ethics 3rd Edition by Russ Shafer Landau, Kantian ethics is a moral theory that takes a duty oriented moral approach to solving ethical issues. In other words, on making a decision we have to based it on a person’s duty and not based on the outcome of the result. This principle is also called the maxim.
There are two formulations that Kantian uses to decide whether an action is morally acceptable or not. Kant’s first formulation says that one should treat the maxim as a universal law. In simpler words, if you feel it is fine for you to do a specific action towards someone, vice-versa you should also be fine if others do it towards you. It is basically like how equality would work. The second Kant’s formulation says that “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” (Fieser). In other words, people should not be treated like objects but as a human with values and dignity. For example, there are some things in life that we would take for granted. We would not know how valuable the item is until we lose them. Therefore, we have to appreciate for what they are and not what they are able to do. In Kantian ethics, these two formulations are used to make moral decisions. If both formulations are satisfied, we can say that an action is morally satisfied.
Now let us look at this case from the approach of Kantian ethics. To begin with the case, we have to establish a maxim to make the best decision. In this particular case, our maxim would be to keep the credibility of Toyota and ensure the safety of customers as professional engineers. Moreover, the first formulation of Kantian ethics says that in order for Toyota’s action to be morally acceptable their maxim has to match their action. While for the second formulation, we would be looking at whether Toyota are using humanity as a means to an end. We will follow these procedures in order to give the best solution based on Kantian ethics.
In the real world, Toyota has two options to deal with their issue, they can either ignore the issue and make a statement that it is not their fault or admit their mistake as a professional. However, based on Kantian ethics, they would have to make a decision based on one’s duty as a professional in order to make a moral decision. Analyzing the first option we have, which is to ignore the issue, we can see that Toyota has failed to keep their customers’ safety as a priority. This can be said due to the fact that they choose to avoid the trouble of cleaning up their mistake and spend more money to fix the problem over the safety of their customers. If they continue with this option, their credibility in the auto industry would significantly decrease in the future and Toyota’s maxim to keep their customers safe would be invalid. Based on Kant’s first formulation, we can conclude that they fail to keep up with their maxim as they did not prioritize the customer’s safety and the credibility of the company.
Now let us analyze the second option they have. Their second option is to admit their mistake and go through all the troubles as their responsibility. If they choose this option, they prioritize the safety of the customers and the credibility of the company over the amount of money they would have to spend on fixing the issue. As we can see, this second option obeys the maxim and follows the aspects of Kantian ethics which are to respect people, and make rational decisions. As far as the second option goes, the first formulation of Kant’s ethics has been followed and agreed upon. Now for the second formulation, Toyota has to treat humans as not means to an end. By being responsible of their actions and admitting their mistake, they have abide to satisfy the second formulation. Through these actions, they have valued the life and dignity of human beings and not treat them as objects. It is safe to say that the best solution is to follow the second option.
First Formulation of Kantian Ethic Second Formulation of Kantian Ethic
Admitting their mistakes Obeyed ; prioritize customer’s safety and credibility of company Obeyed ; value and respect the life of their customers
Not admitting their mistakes Not obeyed ; prioritize profit of company and not safety Not obeyed ; does not treat their customers as human beings with values but instead as objects they make money off
In conclusion of our findings in this case, it is best for Toyota to admit their mistakes and be responsible of the mess they have made even if they have to lose profit. Since through this decision, they can uphold the credibility of the company and also the safety of the customers. By choosing the second option , Toyota’s decision would obey both formulation of Kantian ethics and result in a morally acceptable solution. Even though they have to lose money, customer’s safety is a priority due to their duty as a company and engineers.
Interpretation of Results
Brian Lee
Based on the information provided above, it is possible to observe that all three methods (Utilitarianism, Professional Codes of Ethics, and Deontology) point into one direction: Toyota admitting that the company indeed has a problem with the car production, and that some immediate action has to be taken. Although the company will have to pay a lot of money for their mistake, the lives of multiple people will be saved from accidents regarding Toyota malfunctioning cars. If the options of Toyota assuming their mistake and Toyota not assuming their mistake are compared to one another as the approaches did, it is very clear that having Toyota not assume their mistake points into not only a worst case scenario, but also leads the company to breaking rules and codes for purposely lying in hopes to have the blame place on something or someone else. By having Toyota own up to their mistakes, the company would have to pay a lot of money, but they would be making an ethical decision regarding people’s lives and what is the correct thing to be done based on the moral theories.
Deverell Alim
After reading my groupmates’ responses on their analysis of the case using different moral theories approach, we can conclude that Toyota should be responsible of their mistake. Even though it might cause the company severe financial problems and reputation, the life of the customers weigh much more than just a loss in the company’s profit. Interpreting the conclusions of the three different moral theory approach, the most ethical way is for Toyota to own up for their mistake. It would also be a great chance for Toyota to learn from their mistake. I believe that through the mistake Toyota made and the loss of profit experienced, they will be more critical in doing quality control and safety of the customers. By owning up to their mistake, Toyota might lose the customers’ credibility but in the future they will realize how loyal Toyota is to the customers by showing them that the customers’ safety is a priority for the company.
Nicole Chandra
Reading through my other group member’s analysis, all the theories do point to the same solution which is Toyota should own up to their mistakes. Usually, there is a gray area between what is right and what is wrong but in this case, there is none. Although the decision may cost the company financially, it is most ethical to admit to their mistakes. The decision would affect specific individuals who as a result may lose their jobs and have a tainted reputation in the industry. On the other hand, admitting to their mistakes would mean that there will be no or less accidents in the future. This could become a lesson for everyone in the company and people who read their stories to not repeat the same mistakes and prevent future problems.
Group Decision
After getting together as a group and having each member explain a little better how each approach can have an effect on the case, we realized that the approach methods that our group chose to expand on were pointing into the same direction. All the methods were clearly showing that faced with such situation, the best decision for Toyota company is to admit the mistake, and essentially deal with the consequences and expenses that will show up due to the flaw committed. We believe that in this acceleration problem case, the main concern at stake is not the money spent by either Toyota nor the customer, but the lives of people that are being put at risk because of an engineering mistake in the acceleration system of Toyota models.
Alongside with the direction in which the approaches were pointing, we asked each if anyone had an opinion or decision that would differ from the “recommended” by the approaches. All the members in our group supported the decision that Toyota made a mistake in the production line, and they must admit it; therefore, our final decision for what should be done under these circumstances is the same as what we believe the majority of people would also do, admit that error and be responsible for all the effects that the mistake caused. Fear of losing money and hiding the truth to maintain a good reputation is not a justification for lives of civilians to be taken.
Conclusion
In conclusion to this case analysis, we wanted to compare our group decision for what should have been done, to what Toyota actually did at the time. After trying to place the blame somewhere else, or someone else, which is unethical behavior, Toyota finally took “guilt” for the problem that was being caused. The company admitted that there was a problem with the acceleration system of Toyota car models, and that recall was necessary for a considerable amount of the vehicles that were already sold to the public. Not only money for the recall was going to be spent, but also for the damages that the mistake had previously caused. Some statements from Toyota employees might have contributing to the ultimate decision made by the company. On January of 2010, an unidentified employee said: “Idiots! Someone will go to jail if lies are repeatedly told. I cannot support this,” (Ross). This statement has a heavy impact when released to the public. The words “lies” and “repeatedly told” infer that not only the company might have been lying to the population, but also that they might have been performing this unethical action for a while. Another statement that supports this can be encountered when a Toyota official stated: “The cover up is always going to be worse than the original sin,” (Ross). Again, this reinforces that Toyota was aware of their “sin,” yet they were still trying to cover up, or hide it from the public. The case conclusion resulted in Toyota having to pay a fine of 1.2 billion dollars for trying to hide a deadly safety issue from the media, which can be considered a crime. This serves as lesson to demonstrate that unethical behaviors and decisions can result in massive consequences to the parties involved.
Work Cited
CBS News. “Toyota “Unintended Acceleration” Has Killed 89” CBS News. May 25, 2010.
Web. June 4th, 2016.
“Code of Ethics.” National Society of Professional Engineers. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 June 2016.
Douglas, Danielle. “Toyota reaches $1.2 billion settlement to end probe of accelerator
problems” The Washington Post. March 19th, 2014. Web. June 4th, 2016.
Fieser, James. “THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE.” 11 Mar. 2012. Web. 03 June 2016.
Ross, Brian. “Toyota to Pay $1.2B for Hiding Deadly ‘Unintended Acceleration’” ABC
News. March 19th, 2014. Web. June 4th, 2016.
Schinzinger, Roland, and Mike W. Martin. “2.2 Codes of Ethics.” Introduction to Engineering Ethics. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2000. 40-41. Print.
Toyota Motor Corporation. TOYOTA CODE OF CONDUCT (n.d.): n. pag. Mar. 2006. Web. 2
June 2016.
IME 402 Case Analysis: Looking Forward, Looking Back
This quarter, we have been studying the ethical decision-making process, which will culminate in the examination of a case study. Your group should begin by searching through the literature for a case in technology or engineering. It should involve a clear moral issue and have taken place within the past ten years (as far back as 2006). If the issue is too easily resolved, chances are it’s not really much of an issue. (For example, do we really need to do any analysis to determine whether or not we should exercise caution when dealing with nuclear energy?) My hope is that you will take this as an opportunity to explore a case of interest and see how moral theories may be applied. Some previously submitted paper topics include the following:
Big Dig Ceiling Collapse
BP Oil Spill
BP Refinery Explosion
Charles de Gaulle Airport
Columbia Space Shuttle
Crane Collapse Cases (New York)
Exide Technology (Toxic Battery Disposal)
Flint Michigan (Contaminated Water)
GM Ignition
I-35 Bridge Collapse
Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
New Orleans Levee System (Katrina)
Apple/Foxconn
Three Gorges Dam
Toyota Acceleration Problem
PG&E Explosion
Hydraulic Fracturing Cases
Sriracha factory
TSA Body Scanner
VW Emissions Case
You will examine the case from the perspective of a decision-making person or entity (e.g., an engineer or company). In doing so, you should do your best to focus on the information available to the decision maker and avoid drawing conclusions about what is right or wrong—that is something we will do based on moral theory.
As we learn moral theories, we will work towards developing decision procedures so that they may be more easily applied to cases. It is these decision procedures which will help us determine the morally permissible or morally correct course of action. Sometimes moral theories may yield the same results; other times, they will diverge and force us to develop a reasoned consensus within a group.
Once you have determined the appropriate course of action, based on moral theories (i.e., the looking forward as the decision-maker), you will then step back and revisit the entire history of the case. Failure is often what allows engineers to become more innovative. So, as you look back [with hindsight], you might see if there is anything engineers should learn from the case. Were there any impediments to responsible action? It is also worthwhile to ask how well your moral decision making went. Would it have resulted in what would historically seem a mistake? If so, how do you account for that? (Mistake in application of moral theory, bad moral theory, or just unhappy consequences)
Finally, the case you select should NOT be one that is thoroughly covered in either module of this course. If there is any doubt, please see the instructor.
CASE ANALYSIS: COMPLETE Draft Due No Later Than June 2nd via Blackboard/Turnitin
(This will allow you to review originality report & resubmit final analysis)
Final Due Date: June 9th via Blackboard / Turnitin.com
CASE ANALYSIS (GROUP PAPER) — DUE June 2
Papers must be typed and double-spaced, using standard fonts and margins (e.g., 1-inch margins, Arial 12) and should be roughly 12-20 pages in length (roughly 4-5 pages per person). An electronic copy of the group paper will be due no later than June 2nd at 8pm via Blackboard/Turnitin. Please designate a team member to submit the assignment; the group should then review the originality report and the same designated team member will submit the final version of the paper. (This is NOT optional. It will help ensure that you have properly cited your sources and give you the opportunity to make any needed changes.) Remember, failing to cite sources is plagiarism and is grounds for failing the course. This means that ALL members of the group will fail the course if a paper is submitted with plagiarized content.
NO late papers will be accepted.
Students should identify their contributions to the paper. Please create a table of contents and clearly label who wrote/contributed to what section.
As noted in the syllabus, failure to complete this culminating course project will result in a failing course grade.
I. Introduction: Provide overview of case, state the moral tests that will be used to determine the morally appropriate action, and what that action is. [Hint: write this last]
II. Provide relevant details of case: Identify the person or entity who is the decision-maker; what obligations does this person or entity have? Is there a difference between the “want” and “should” self in this case? Explain.
Identify factual, conceptual, application, and moral issues. Select the central moral issue, which will then be the focus of the rest of the paper.
Identify and discuss any impediments to morally responsible actions AND blind spots. Remember, you’re still looking forward, so look for anything that would constitute an impediment to morally responsible judgment making. (If you prefer, you can instead include this section near the end of the paper. Your task, in that case, would be to use hindsight to determine if some impediment or blind spots led to poor decisions.)
III. Test by Moral Theories: Select moral theories to be used. [Note: If a moral theory has multiple tests, you are expected to apply all tests associated with that theory.]
Remember, your goal is to put yourself in the place of the decision-maker and then use the moral theories (decision making procedures) to make a decision. In other words, the decision should be made without the benefit of hindsight.
EXPLAIN the moral theory being applied in your OWN words (e.g., what is utilitarianism and what tests may be derived from the theory). Your goal is to show that you understand the material. Then, explain the application of the theory and results.
A. Regardless of group size, at least three moral theories must be used. (Groups must have all members apply a theory.)
a. Available Moral Theories
i. Utilitarianism
ii. Kantian Ethics (or Respect for Persons)
iii. Virtue Ethics
iv. Existentialist Ethics
v. Professional Codes of Ethics
vi. Creative Middle Ways
***Note: If you have SIX persons in your group, you should have 3 students examine one moral issue and the remaining 3 students work on a different moral issue. (This will require additional related analysis.)
IV. Interpretation of Results: Now that three or more tests have been applied, what may be decided? Do all the theories point to the same solution? If they differ, the group must decide how to handle the conflicting results. Doing so requires a reasoned argument which shows why it is reasonable, preferable, etc., to act as you decided. To do this, please note:
A. Each person should provide a reasoned analysis of the results and draw a conclusion (i.e., based on what everyone has said, what should be done).
B. Then, as a group, you must review the individual analyses/interpretations and come to some agreement as to what ought to be done. All should contribute to interpreting the results of the analysis as well as the final editing and smoothing out of the entire paper. The paper should read seamlessly and not appear choppy (with the exception of the individual analyses).
V. Hindsight/Conclusion: You should not only recap the results of your analysis… you should also now use your understanding of the history of the case (what the decision-maker decided and what happened after the decision was made) to explain what you have learned and what other engineers should learn from the case. Would application of moral theory have averted the incident or avoided the problem? If not, any thoughts on how we need to modify our decision-making so as to avoid problems like this in the future.
