Question

ETHICS 445

Scenario

It is 2020, and General Foryota Company opens a plant in which to build a new mass-produced hover-craft. This hover-craft will work using E-85 Ethanol, will travel up to 200 mph, and will reduce pollution worldwide at a rate of 10 percent per year. It is likely that when all automobiles in the industrial world have been changed over to hovercrafts, emission of greenhouse gasses may be so reduced that global warming may end and air quality will become completely refreshed.

However, the downside is that during the transition time, GFC's Hover-Vee (only available in red or black), will most likely put all transportation as we know it in major dissaray. Roadways will no longer be necessary, but new methods of controlling traffic will be required. Further, while the old version of cars are still being used, Hover-vee's will cause accidents, parking issues, and most likely class envy and warfare. The sticker price on the first two models will be about four times that of the average SUV (to about $200,000.) Even so, GFC's marketing futurists have let them know that they will be able to pre-sell their first three years of expected production, with a potential waiting list which will take between 15 and 20 years to fill.

The Chief Engineer (CE) of GFC commissions a study on potential liabilities for the Hover-vees. The preliminary result is that Hover-vees will likely kill or maim humans at an increased rate of double to triple over automobile travel because of collisions and crashes at high speeds -- projected annual death rates of 100,000 to 200,000. However, global warming will end, and the environment will flourish.

The U. S. Government gets wind of the plans. Congress begins to discuss the rules on who can own and operate Hover-vees. GFC's stock skyrockets. The Chief Engineer takes the results of the study to the Chief Legal Counsel (CLC), and together they agree to bury the study, going forward with the production plans. The Chief Project Manager (CPM), who has read the study and agreed to bury it, goes ahead and plans out the project for the company, with target dates and production deadlines.

Somebody sent a secret copy of the report to you at your home address. It has no information in it at all, except for the report showing the proof of the increase in accidents and deaths. The report shows, on its face, that the CE, CLC, CPM, and your Congressional Representative have seen copies of this report. On the front there are these words typed in red: They knew — they buried this. Please save the world!

As an Engineer on the GFC team, I feel a very loyal tie to my boss and my company/country. I have mortgage, and family to feed. It is likely if I blow the whistle on this report, I will lose my job and my livelihood. I'm not even sure who wrote the study in the envelope or who actually sent it to me.

Utilizing my profession's code of ethics, what should be my first step?

Who should I talk to first?

should I go to the press?

should I go to your boss?

Should I react at all?

What professional ethics codes with international scope can I use to see the guidance given for dilemmas such as this.

Answer 1

The ethical dilemma in present case study is professional loyalty vs humanity and right to information. My professional code of ethics require me to first think about the company but as stated in report hover- craft will increase annual death rate due to collision. If the issue is debated in public , there is scope that law makers and civil society will work together to form new traffic rules and take necessary precautions before launching this vehicle saving many human lives instead of hasty launch. I will first go to my boss and try to convince him with my logic that GFC is doing noble thing by trying to curb pollution. People have so much trust in this company as stock prices are rising we can not betray them by burying this report. Once the vehicle is launched and accidents start to happen, production may suffer in long run, thus it is best to take necessary precaution and try to find solution.

If he does not agree i will warn him that I will make report public