i need help in writing my paper

BER Case Analyses + format + example

I. The goal is to decide what an engineer in a particular NSPE Board of Ethical Review (BER) case should do. In these cases, deciding what the right thing to do is difficult because all the available options seem to be ethically bad.

II. For each case, analyze it as an ethical dilemma as follows.

D1: Either X or Y.

D2: X violates standard S1

D3: Y violates standard S2

III. Determine what you think the relevant engineer in the case should do by employing one of the following strategies:

A. Strategy 1: (False Dichotomy) [avoid dilemma by rejecting D1]

1. Recommendation: Engineer should do Z.

2. Justification:

a. There is a viable alternative Z.

b. Z does not violate S1.

c. Z does not violate S2.

B. Strategy 2: (Spirit of the Law) [avoid dilemma by rejecting either D2 or D3]

1. Recommendation: Engineer should do X (or Y)

2. Justification:

a. The spirit of S1 (S2) is L.

b. X (Y) does not really violate L.

C. Strategy 3: (Lesser of Two Evils) [accept the dilemma]

1. Recommendation: Engineer should do X (or Y)

2. Justification:

a. Consequences of doing X are C1.

b. Consequences of doing Y are C2.

c. C1 is better than C2.

IV. Write this up using the following format:

format

Case: _______​​​​​_______ NAME:__________________

I. Relevant Facts

1.

2.

3. .... (may have to make some assumptions)

II. Dilemma

D1: Either X or Y.

D2: X violates standard S1

2.1: Doing X will result in R1

2.2: R1 violates S1 because…

D3: Y violates standard S2

3.1: Doing Y will result in R2

3.2: R2 violates S2 because...

III. Resolution

A. Recommendation: Engineer should do ....

B. Justification: (depends on strategy employed)

(False Dichotomy):

1. Z is a viable option Z

2. Z does not violate S1 because...

3. Z does not violate S2 because...

4. So, engineer should do Z.

(Spirit of the Law)

1. The spirit of S1 is T.

2. X does not violate T.

3. So, engineer should do X

(Lesser of Two Evils)

1. Violating S1 will result in consequences C1.

2. Violating S2 will result in consequences C2.

3. C1 is better than C2.

4. So, enfgineer should do X.

C. Contingency: (Optional: What should engineer do if first recommended action fails?)

Example

Case: 08-2 : Quality of Products--Defective Chips NAME: William S. Larkin

I. Relevant Facts

1. Engineer A is an electrical engineer working in quality control at a computer chip plant.

2. Engineer B informs Engineer A that Engineer A’s quality control staff is rejecting too many chips, which is having an effect on overall plant output and, ultimately, company profitability.

3. Engineer B advises A’s staff to allow a higher percentage of chips to pass through quality control,

4. B notes that these issues can be best handled by the company’s warranty policy under which the company agrees to replace defective chips based upon customer complaints.

5. Assume: defective chips do not cause serious injury or death when they fail.

II. Dilemma

D1: Engineer A can either do what Engineer B advises or not.

D2: Doing what Engineers B advises violates either Fundamental Canon 3 or Professional Obligation 2.2 of the NSPE Code

2.1: Doing what B advises will require either claiming falsely that certain chips meet quality control criteria when they do not or lowering the quality control standards so more chips will meet them.

2.2: But then either A would violate fundamental canon 3 of the NSPE code that says engineers shall “issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner,” or A would violate the professional obligation 2.2 that says engineers shall not “complete...plans...that are not in conformity with applicable engineering standards.“

D3: Not doing what Engineer B violates Fundamental Canon 4 of the NSPE Code.

3.1: Not doing what B advises would fail to respect a proper management decision about the best way to handle budget and customer relations.

3.2: But that would violate the principle of being a faithful agent for one’s employer.

III. Resolution

A. Recommendation: Engineer A should propose that an investigation be undertaken to determine why so many defective chips are being produced and how the rate can be minimized.

B. Justification: False Dichotomy 1. Recommending an investigation into the manufacturing processes to produce higher rate of quality chips is a viable option.

2. Doing this would not violate faithful agency, because Engineer A is acting in the best interests of the company.

3. Doing this would not involve lying or failing to conform to engineering standards because the problem is taken care of by improving the manufacturing process not lying about or changing quality control standards.

C. Contingency: 1. If the investigation reveals that the rate of defective chips cannot be significantly lowered, then A should do what B advises by lowering the chip standards. Doing so will not be out of conformity with applicable standards if all feasible steps were taken to reduce the rate of defective chips.

D. 2. If Engineer B rejects the proposal, then, in accordance with NSPE rule of practice 1.1, Engineer A needs to consider whether defective chips can endanger life or property. If so, then A shall notify employer or client and appropriate authorities. If not, then A should do as B advises as a way of respecting what is a proper management decision.