Phil 215 – Engineering Ethics Paper 1 Due: September 28

Phil 215 – Engineering Ethics Paper #1 Due: September 28th Format: 4

Using the case of Gerald Wahr, discuss whether accepting an engineering job that conflicts with personal ethical beliefs can be considered morally permissible or immoral. Apply various moral theories—such as Kantian duty, intuitionism, Aristotelian virtue, Confucian virtue, utilitarianism, egoism—and principles like autonomy, goodness, honesty, justice, and the value of life to evaluate Gerald’s moral obligation and the ethical implications of his employment decision. Consider the costs and benefits of accepting or rejecting the job and argue whether Gerald should pursue the position or not, supporting your reasoning with ethical principles. Explore possible conflicts Gerald faces between personal convictions, professional obligations, and broader social values. Include analysis of how he should respond to ethically challenging questions during the interview, especially regarding pesticide use. Reflect on the importance of alignment between personal ethics and job roles, criteria for resignation or whistleblowing, and personal or organizational examples of similar dilemmas.

Paper For Above instruction

Gerald Wahr’s dilemma exemplifies a profound ethical conflict faced by many professionals: whether to accept employment that seemingly contradicts personal moral convictions. As a soon-to-be graduate in chemical engineering with a strong commitment to organic farming and environmental sustainability, Gerald’s situation vividly illustrates the tension between professional opportunity and ethical integrity. Applying the framework of various ethical theories offers insight into his moral obligation and the possible pathways he can take regarding this employment decision.

From a Kantian perspective, morality hinges on duty and adherence to moral principles. Kant’s categorical imperative emphasizes acting according to maxims that one would will to become universal laws (Kant, 1785). Gerald’s commitment to organic farming and opposition to pesticides aligns with a moral duty to uphold environmental and health standards. Accepting a pesticide company’s job might violate this duty if Gerald treats the company's interests merely as means to personal or familial ends without regard to its broader ethical implications (Johnson, 2008). Therefore, Kantian ethics would likely advise Gerald against accepting the position if it involves supporting practices he deems morally wrong.

Utilitarianism, which evaluates actions based on their consequences in maximizing overall happiness and reducing suffering (Mill, 1863), offers a different view. If Gerald accepts the job, it might provide financial stability for his family, potentially alleviating hardship and promoting well-being. Conversely, working for a pesticide company could contribute to environmental degradation and health risks, undermining societal welfare. If the net outcome favors harm, utilitarian ethics would suggest that Gerald should decline the job, especially if alternative solutions—such as seeking employment in environmentally aligned sectors—are available. When considering acceptance, Gerald must weigh personal gains against broader societal impacts, ultimately leaning toward the action that maximizes collective well-being (Singer, 2011).

Virtue ethics, rooted in Aristotelian philosophy, emphasizes character development and moral virtues such as honesty, integrity, and courage (Aristotle, 350 BCE). Gerald’s virtue of integrity requires him to act consistently with his principles of environmental stewardship. Accepting a pesticide-related position might compromise this virtue unless Gerald believes he can influence the company toward sustainable practices. Virtue ethics encourages Gerald to cultivate virtues that reflect his moral identity, potentially advocating for honest dialogue during the interview and considering resignation if the work conflicts irreconcilably with his character (Hursthouse, 1999).

Confucian virtue ethics highlights the importance of harmony, righteousness, and role responsibilities within social relationships (Confucius, c. 5th BCE). Gerald’s filial duty to support his family aligns with their immediate needs, yet he also has a moral obligation to uphold harmony and righteousness in society, which may oppose pesticide use harming the environment. Navigating this conflict requires balancing filial piety with societal righteousness, perhaps by seeking employment that aligns with both familial responsibilities and ethical commitments, or by advocating for sustainable methods within the organization.

Principles of autonomy, honesty, justice, and respect for life further inform this ethical analysis. Gerald’s decision should respect his capacity for autonomous judgment and honesty about his beliefs. Accepting a position that conflicts with his values might compromise his integrity and honesty, risking either moral compromise or professional dissatisfaction. Justice considerations involve assessing whether the industry’s practices are morally justified and whether Gerald’s participation perpetuates unjust environmental or health burdens (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). The value of life emphasizes the importance of actions that protect human health and ecological well-being, guiding Gerald to reject employment that promotes harm.

Analyzing the costs and benefits, if Gerald accepts the job, the immediate benefit is financial support for his family, potentially preventing foreclosure and supporting the community farm’s survival. The long-term costs involve moral dissonance, potential complicity in environmentally harmful practices, and personal regret. Conversely, rejecting the job might sustain his moral integrity but entails economic hardship. If alternative employment opportunities aligned with his values are unavailable, Gerald faces a difficult trade-off—balancing economic needs against ethical standards.

Given these considerations, the ethical analysis suggests that Gerald should prioritize his core values and moral duties. It would be ethically justifiable for him to decline the position if it directly conflicts with his commitment to organic farming and environmental protection. However, if he perceives an opportunity to influence the employer towards more sustainable practices or to advocate for change within the industry, engagement might be morally permissible—provided he can do so without compromising his integrity or inadvertently endorsing harmful practices.

During the interview, when asked about pesticide use, Gerald should honestly communicate his environmental concerns while framing his response constructively. For example, he might express support for integrated pest management or advocate for sustainable agricultural practices, thus aligning his technical expertise with his ethical commitment. Such an approach respects his integrity and demonstrates professional responsibility, fostering potential influence within the organization (Goleman, 1998).

Implications for job selection highlight the importance of alignment between personal ethics and professional roles. Many ethicists argue that engineers and scientists bear responsibility not only for their work outcomes but also for ensuring their employment supports societal good (Martin & Schinzinger, 2005). Candidates may ethically refuse jobs that involve activities they find morally objectionable or may consider resigning if ethical conflicts arise during employment. Personal principles could include criteria such as environmental sustainability, social justice, and honesty—serving as benchmarks for job acceptance or resignation decisions (Buchholz & Rosenthal, 2011).

Whistleblowing is another ethical obligation, especially when organizational practices cause significant harm. Gerald, if aware of unethical industry practices, should act transparently and responsibly, prioritizing societal welfare over personal gain or job security (Jubb, 1999). However, whistleblowing entails risks and requires thorough consideration of potential repercussions and available protections (Near & Miceli, 1985).

Organizationally, rejects could be based on a company's ethical record or practices. Many would refuse employment with firms actively engaged in environmentally destructive practices, or where ethical standards contradict personal morals. Personal experience with such dilemmas varies, but a consistent theme is the importance of aligning personal values with professional conduct to maintain integrity and social trust.

In conclusion, Gerald Wahr’s situation underscores the complex interplay of moral principles, personal integrity, societal impact, and professional obligation. Ethical theories collectively suggest that he should carefully evaluate whether his employment aligns with his core values and whether he can influence positive change. When faced with ethical conflicts, transparency, honest communication, and a commitment to core principles guide moral decision-making, ensuring that professional conduct upholds both individual integrity and societal well-being.

References

• Aristotle. (350 BCE). Nicomachean Ethics.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. Bantam Books.
• Hursthouse, R. (1999). On Virtue Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Jaiswal, R. (2017). Must-haves for a Customer Centric Leader. Customer Relationship Management Journal.
• Jubb, P. B. (1999). Ethical Issues in Corporate Change. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(4), 489-503.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Martin, M. W., & Schinzinger, R. (2005). Ethical Problems in the Practice of Engineering. McGraw-Hill.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.