X-VMS-To: in%"ethics-l@polygraf.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 09:58:00 EST
From:         JIM DOWNEY <JDOWNEY@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>
Subject:      Second response to Nilges on Ethic Positions (Part III)
Comments: To: ethics-l%polygraf.bitnet@MITVMA.MIT.EDU

Perhaps we can now debate cases?  Present a problem and have the proponents
and opponents of an issue outline what the ethical foundations are as they
outline the empirical facts and/or concerns?

>> But if we buy your posit, then we have to say that the person(s) who made
>> the mistake(s) that caused Bhopal (i.e. the manger who did not address
>> the safety issues, the engineer who saw a leak and didn't shut down
>> the plant for repairs, etc.) do not have any share in the tragedy...

> In the Challenger disaster, the engineers for Morton Thiokol warned
> managers that the O rings on the shuttle could fail in the unusually
> cold weather that obtained on the day of the crash.  However, their
> managers convinced them (partially by their veiled control of the
> engineer's very jobs!) that management knew what it was doing.  One
> engineer was asked to "stop thinking like an engineer; think like a
> manager."

This is culturally relative thought in action...  It sets the managers, and
those they direct, above the rights of those who rely upon what they do...
or don't do...  The moral crises that you point to are brought about by the
very ethical stances that you espouse...

> Your fine-sounding but absurdly overdrawn appeal to
> INDIVIDUAL responsibility demands that every technician be prepared
> at a moment's notice to be a whistleblower, in a society than
> ensures that whistleblowers are always punished.

Again, this is the culturally relative value system...  Loyalty to
an organization that is committing moral atrocities is more valued than
truth, rights, indivdual choices, etc.

> You also try to
> make me make the strong claim that the engineers in (say) the
> Challenger disaster have clean hands; they don't.  But it is clear
> to me that justice won't fully be served until the very system of
> "stop thinking like an engineer, eg. a person with integrity, and
> start thinking like an empty suit" is dismantled.

And dismantling such a cultrually relative view requires one to take
action against all who did wrong...  The managers certainly were wrong,
but so are the engineers who signed off on it...  Treat all the
transgressions as transgressions and act with justice tempered with
reason, truth and mercy...  Because all four qualities are part and
parcel of human nature...

> The Challenger engineers had dirty hands, for (under pressure) they
> signed-off on the O rings.  This does NOT imply that they should
> be punished, for their guilt is attenuated by their initial
> resistance to management demands.

Bull...  Lives were lost as a direct result of their inaction...
And they knew it would/could happen... (Here you depart from Kant!)

> The managers, and the Morton Thiokol SYSTEM of "please the managers
> and fuck the slide rule boys"), is guilty.

Again, the perfect culturally relative decision-making model...

> Again, computer people need to be very careful about these fine-
> sounding ethics conferences and codes.  Their very idealism can
> be used against them for they are, by participating in discussions
> of ethics, signing-off on a need to be ethical over and above
> obeying the boss.  This means it is they who may be sacrificed
> in a society that punishes individuals but allows, for example,
> ad agencies to peddle Camel cigarettes to children.

Idealism is a term I see bantied about whenever the issue of doing what is
right is unpleasant...  Your complaint in the last sentence above is valid...
mostly because it continues to identify culturally relative values that
avoid basic issues of right...

>>That means if I was in the military and ordered to kill civilians by a
>>ranking officer that I would be harmless from consequence (we know how
>>this was viewed in the Calley case).

> That's amusing.  Rusty Calley was held responsible.  But because of
> domestic political considerations and because he killed Third World
> people, Rusty Calley was allowed to serve a reduced sentence in his
> own home.  Your example makes it clear that vast systems will attenuate
> or exagerrate individual culpability in order to presevre themselves.

Since it is not a case of computer-related ethics, I'll let this pass...
But you really should read the court martial transcript...

>>> Successful addiction recovery has long been based
>>> on precisely the recognition of "powerlessness", and acceptance
>>> that the addictive substance is making part of one's choices.
>>
>>That is one model of treatment that has been widely accepted, but do
>>the emipirical data support the notion that it is successful...  That
>>is a case-in-point that fails you because we are seeing some studies
>>that show as low as tewnty-five to thirty percent ACTUAL recovery
>>rates, while we see up to a 70% recidivism/substitution (of substance)
>>rate...  I guess it would depend on your definition of success...
>
> You neglect to point out that AA-based and other 12 Step programs'
> LIMITED success is, even at the scale you quote, much, much higher
> than ANY other treatment methodology, especially methods that treat

Again, this isn't computer-related, but your data is faulty...  There
is no empirical evidence that strongly suggests or prooves the 12-Step
programs are the most effective treatment approach... If you find some,
send it to me via private e-mail (JDOWNEY@ECN.MASS.EDU)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU