Things to consider in your decision-making:

1. What are Toysmart values? What are Disney values? Would Disney respect Toysmart’s values?
2. What synergies could result from working with Disney? For example, could you share information on customers? You could feed your customer profiles to Disney in exchange for their customer profiles. What kind of data managing technology would be required for this? What ethical problems could arise from transferring customer identifying information to third parties?
3. What kind of commitment would you be willing to make to Disney in terms of product and sales? How should Disney reciprocate? For example, how long should they stick with you through sales that fall short of projections?

Things to consider in your decision-making

• Toysmart is a fairly new dot-com. While it is supported by Disney, it is still a risky venture. Should you ask them for advance payment for whatever services you render? What kind of policies does your company have for identifying and assessing financial risk?
• What kind of privacy and data security policy should you recommend to Toysmart? What kind of values come into conflict when a company like Toysmart develops and implements privacy and data security measures? (Use your STS description to answer this question.)
• Should Toysmart become bankrupt, their data base would turn into a valuable asset. What recommendations should you make to help Toysmart plan around this possibility? What values come into conflict when planning to dispose of assets during bankruptcy proceedings? What kind of obligations does a company take on during its operation that continue even after it has become bankrupt?
• Using the link provided with this module, visit the TRUSTe website and find its white paper on developing a privacy policy. Evaluate this privacy policy for Toysmart. What benefits can a strong privacy policy bring to a dot-com? Should Toysmart work to qualify to display the TRUSTe seal on its website? Examine TRUSTe procedures for transferring confidential customer PII to third parties? What obligations will this create? Would this over-constrain Toysmart?

Here are some constraints that outline your decision

• As a member of the Creditors' Committee, you have a fiduciary duty to Toysmart creditors in working to distribute fairly the remaining Toysmart assets. This would, all things being equal, lead to recommending selling the Toysmart customer data base
• There are some provisions in the bankruptcy code that may require or allow overriding fiduciary duties given prior legal commitments made by Toysmart. These commitments, in the form of strong privacy guarantees made to customers by Toysmart on its webpage, may constitute an "executory contract." See the Legal Trail table in the Toysmart case narrative and also Larren M. Nashelsky, "On-Line Privacy Collides With Bankruptcy Creditors," New York Law Journal, New York Law Publishing Company, August 28, 2000.
• Finally, Nashelsky makes an interesting argument. While deontological considerations would require setting aside creditor interests and honoring Toysmart privacy promises, a justice-based argument would recommend a compromise. Bankruptcy proceedings start from the fact that harm (financial) has been done. Consequently, the important justice consideration is to distribute fairly the harms involved among the harmed parties. Harm distributions are correlated with benefit distributions. Because Toysmart customers benefited from Toysmart offerings, they should also bear a share of the harms produced when the company goes bankrupt. This requires that they allow the distribution of their PII under certain conditions.

Things to consider in your decision-making

• How do you balance your obligations to PAN with those to other Toysmart creditors as a member of the Creditors' Committee?
• How should you approach the conflict between honoring Toysmart promises and carrying out Creditor Committee fiduciary duties? Do you agree with Nashelsky's argument characterized above?
• Should the Bankruptcy Code be changed to reflect issues such as these? Should privacy promises be considered an “executory contract” that overrides the duty to fairly and exhaustively distribute a company's assets?
• Finally, what do you think about the FTC's recommendation? The Bankruptcy Court's response? The final accommodation between Toysmart and Buena Vista Toy Company?

Instructions for Table 1:

1. Go to http://computingcases.org and review the STS description provided for the Toysmart case.
2. Pull out the elements of the STS description that are relevant to your decision point. List them under the appropriate STS component in the above table.
3. Think about possible ways in which these components of the Toysmart STS interact. For example, what kinds of legal restrictions govern the way data is collected, stored, and disseminated?
4. Develop your STS table with an eye to documenting possible ethical conflicts that can arise and are relevant to your decision point.

Instructions for Table 2:

1. This module links to another Connexions module, Socio-Technical Systems in Professional Decision-Making. There you will find short profiles of the values listed in the above table: security, privacy, property, justice, and free speech. These profiles will help you to characterize the values listed in the above table.
2. The second ethical reflection in the Toysmart case narrative (at Computing Cases) also contains a discussion of how property comes into conflict with privacy.
3. Identify those components of the Toysmart STS that embody or embed value. For example, list the values realized and frustrated by the software components discussed in the Toysmart case in the STS description.
4. Look for ways in which different elements of the STS that embed value can interact and produce value conflicts. These conflicts are likely sources for problems that you should discuss in your problem statement and address in your solution.

Generate solutions to the problem(s) you have specified in Exercise 1. This requires that...

• each member of your group develop a list of solutions,
• the group combines these individual lists into a group list, and...
• the group reduces this preliminary list to a manageable number of refined and clarified solutions for testing in the next stage.

2. Problems can be formulated as interest conflicts. In this case different solution options are available.

• Gather Information. Many disagreements can be resolved by gathering more information. Because this is the easiest and least painful way of reaching consensus, it is almost always best to start here. Gathering information may not be possible because of different constraints: there may not be enough time, the facts may be too expensive to gather, or the information required goes beyond scientific or technical knowledge. Sometimes gathering more information does not solve the problem but allows for a new, more fruitful formulation of the problem. Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins in Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases show how solving a factual disagreement allows a more profound conceptual disagreement to emerge.
• Nolo Contendere. Nolo Contendere is latin for not opposing or contending. Your interests may conflict with your supervisor but he or she may be too powerful to reason with or oppose. So your only choice here is to give in to his or her interests. The problem with nolo contendere is that non-opposition is often taken as agreement. You may need to document (e.g., through memos) that you disagree with a course of action and that your choosing not to oppose does not indicate agreement.
• Negotiate. Good communication and diplomatic skills may make it possible to negotiate a solution that respects the different interests. Value integrative solutions are designed to integrate conflicting values. Compromises allow for partial realization of the conflicting interests. (See the module, The Ethics of Team Work, for compromise strategies such as logrolling or bridging.) Sometimes it may be necessary to set aside one's interests for the present with the understanding that these will be taken care of at a later time. This requires trust.
• Oppose. If nolo contendere and negotiation are not possible, then opposition may be necessary. Opposition requires marshalling evidence to document one's position persuasively and impartially. It makes use of strategies such as leading an "organizational charge" or "blowing the whistle." For more on whistle-blowing consult the discussion of whistle blowing in the Hughes case that can be found at computing cases.
• Exit. Opposition may not be possible if one lacks organizational power or documented evidence. Nolo contendere will not suffice if non-opposition implicates one in wrongdoing. Negotiation will not succeed without a necessary basis of trust or a serious value integrative solution. As a last resort, one may have to exit from the situation by asking for reassignment or resigning.

3. Solutions can be generated by readjusting different components of the STS.

• Technical Puzzle. If the problem is framed as a technical puzzle, then solutions would revolve around developing designs that optimize both ethical and technical specifications, that is, resolve the technical issues and realize ethical value. In this instance, the problem-solver must concentrate on the hardware and software components of the STS.
• Social Problem. If the problem is framed as a social problem, then solutions would revolve around changing laws or bringing about systemic reform through political action. This would lead one to focus on the people/groups/roles component (working to social practices) or the legal component.
• Stakeholder Conflict. If the problem is framed as a conflict between different stakeholder interests, then the solution would concentrate on getting stakeholders (both individuals and groups) to agree on integrative or interest compromising solutions. This requires concentrating on the people/group/role component of the STS. (Note: A stakeholder is any group or individual with a vital interest at play in the situation.)
• Management Problem. Finally, if the problem is framed as a management problem, then the solution would revolve around changing an organization's procedures. Along these lines, it would address the (1) fundamental goals, (2) decision recognition procedures, (3) organizational roles, or (4) decision-making hierarchy of the organization. These are the four components of the CID (corporate internal decision) structure described in the “Ethical Reflections” section of the Toysmart case.
• Nota Bene: Financial issues are covered by the feasibility test in the solution implementation stage. As such, they pose side issues or constraints that do not enter into the solution generation phase but the solution implementation phase.

4. Brainstorming. Moral creativity, which involves designing non-obvious solutions, forms an essential part of solution generation. Here are some guidelines to get you started.

• Individually make out a list of solutions before the group meeting. Work quickly to realize a pre-established quota of five to ten solutions. After composing a quick first draft, revise the list for clarity only; make no substantial changes.
• Start the group brainstorming process by having the group review and assemble all the individual solutions. Do this quickly and without criticism. Beginning criticism at this stage will kill the creativity necessary for brainstorming and shut down the more timid (but creative) members of the group.
• Review the list and identify solutions that are identical or overlap. Begin the refining process by combining these solutions.
• Having reviewed all the brainstormed solutions, it is now time to bring in criticism. Begin by eliminating solutions with major ethical problems such as those that violate rights, produce injustices, or cause extensive harm.
• Identify but do not eliminate solutions that are ethical but raise serious practical problems. Do not initially eliminate an ethical solution because there are obstacles standing in the way of its implementation. Be descriptive. Identify and impartially describe the obstacles. Later, in the solution implementation stage, you may be able to design creative responses to these obstacles.
• Identify solutions that do not "fit" your problem statement. These require a decision. You can throw out the solution because it does not solve the problem or you can change the problem. If a solution does not fit the problem but, intuitively, seems good, this is a sign that you need to take another look at your problem statement.
• Don’t automatically reject partial solutions. For example, sending memos through email rather than printing them out and wasting paper may not solve the entire recycling problem for your company. But it represents a good, partial solution that can be combined with other partial solutions to address the bigger problem.
• Through these different measures, you will gradually integrate criticism into your brainstorming process. This will facilitate working toward a manageable, refined list of solutions for testing in the next stage.

Exercise 3: Develop a Solution List

• Have each member of your team prepare a solution list and bring it to the next group meeting. Set a quota for this individual list, say, 5 to 10 solutions.
• Prepare a group list out of the lists of the individual members. Work to combine similar solutions. Be sure to set aside criticism until the preliminary group list is complete.
• Make use of the following table.
• Refine the group list into a manageable number of solutions for testing in the next stage. Combine overlapping solutions. Eliminate solutions that do not respond to the requirements and the problem statement that you prepared in the previous exercise. Eliminate solutions that violate important ethical considerations, i.e., solutions that violate rights, produce harms, etc.
• Check your refined solution list with your problem statement. If they do not match, eliminate the solution or redefine the problem

Setting up for the test.

• Identify the agent perspective from which the decision will be made
• Describe the action as concisely and clearly as possible.
• Identify the stakeholders surrounding the decision, i.e., those who will suffer strong impacts (positively or negatively) from the implementation of your decision. Stakeholders have a vital or essential interest (right, good, money, etc) in play with this decision.
• In the harm/beneficence test, identify the likely results of the action and sort these into harms and benefits.
• For the reversibility test, identify the stakeholders with whom you will reverse positions.
• For the public identification test, identify the values, virtues, or vices your action embodies. Associate these with the character of the agent.

Harm/Beneficence Test

1. What are the harms your solution is likely to produce? What are its benefits? Does this solution produce the least harms and the most benefits when compared to the available alternatives?
2. Pitfall—Too much. In this "Paralysis of Analysis" one factor in too many consequences. To avoid the fallacy restrict the analysis to the most likely consequences with the greatest magnitude (Magnitude indicates the range and severity of impact).
3. Pitfall—Too Little. A biased or incomplete analysis results when significant impacts are overlooked. Take time to uncover all the significant impacts, both in terms of likelihood and in terms of magnitude.
4. Pitfall—Distribution of Impacts. Consider, not only the overall balance of harms and benefits but also how harms and benefits are distributed among the stakeholders. If they are equally or fairly distributed, then this counts in the solution's favor. If they are unequally or unfairly distributed, then this counts against the solution. Be ready to redesign the solution to distribute better (=more equitably or fairly) the harmful and beneficial results.

Reversibility Test

1. Would this solution alternative be acceptable to those who stand to be most affected by it? To answer this question, change places with those who are targeted by the action and ask if from this new perspective whether the action is still acceptable?
2. Pitfall—Too much. When reversing with Hitler, a moral action appears immoral and an immoral action appears moral. The problem here is that the agent who projects into the immoral standpoint loses his or her moral bearings. The reversibility test requires viewing the action from the standpoint of its different targets. But understanding the action from different stakeholder views does not require that one abandon himself or herself to these views.
3. Pitfall—Too little. In this pitfall, moral imagination falls short, and the agent fails to view the action from another stakeholder standpoint. The key in the reversibility test is to find the middle ground between too much immersion in the viewpoint of another and too little.
4. Pitfall—Reducing Reversibility to Harm/Beneficence. The reversibility test requires that one assess the impacts of the action under consideration on others. But it is more than a simple listing of the consequences of the action. These are viewed from the standpoint of different stakeholders. The reversibility test also goes beyond considering impacts to considering whether the action treats different stakeholders respectfully. This especially holds when the agent disagrees with a stakeholder. In these disagreements, it is important to work out what it means to disagree with another respectfully.
5. Pitfall—Incomplete survey of stakeholders. Leaving out significant stakeholder perspectives skews the results of the reversibility test. Building an excellent death chamber works when one considers the action from the standpoint of Hitler; after all, it’s what he wants. But treating an individual with respect does not require capitulating to his or her desires, especially when these are immoral. And considering the action from the standpoint of other stakeholders (say the possible victims of newer, more efficient gas chambers) brings out new and radically different information.
6. Pitfall—Not Weighing and Balancing Stakeholder Positions. This pitfall is continuous with the previous one. Different stakeholders have different interests and view events from unique perspectives. The reversibility test requires reviewing these interests and perspectives, weighing them against one another, and balancing out their differences and conflicts in an overall, global assessment.

Publicity (or Public Identification) Test

1. Would you want to be publicly associated or identified with this action? In other words, assume that you will be judged as a person by others in terms of the moral values expressed in the action under consideration. Does this accord with how you would want to or aspire to be judged?
2. Pitfall—Failure to association action with character of agent. In the publicity test, the spotlight of analysis moves from the action to the agent. Successfully carrying out this test requires identifying the agent, describing the action, and associating the agent with the action. The moral qualities exhibited in the action are seen as expressing the moral character of the agent. The publicity test, thus, rests on the idea that an agent's responsible actions arise from and express his or her character.
3. Pitfall—Failure to appreciate the moral color of the action. The publicity test assumes that actions are colored by the ends or goods they pursue. This means that actions are morally colored. They can express responsibility or irresponsibility, courage or cowardice, reasonableness or unreasonableness, honesty or dishonesty, integrity or corrpution, loyalty or betrayal, and so forth. An analysis can go astray by failing to bring out the moral quality (or qualities) that an action expresses.
4. Pitfall—Reducing Publicity to Harm/Beneficence Test. Instead of asking what the action says about the agent, many reduce this test to considering the consequences of publicizing the action. So one might argue that an action is wrong because it damages the reputation of the agent or some other stakeholder. But this doesn't go deep enough. The publicity test requires, not that one calculate the consequences of wide-spread knowledge of the action under consideration, but that one draws from the action the information it reveals about the character of the agent. The consequences of bad publicity are covered by the harm/beneficence test and do not need to be repeated in the public identification test. The publicity test provides new information by turning from the action to the agent. It focuses on what the action (its moral qualities and the goods it seeks) says about the agent.

Comparing the Test Results: Meta-Tests

1. The ethics tests will not always converge on the same solution because each test (and the ethical theories it encapsulates) covers a different dimension of the action: (1) harm/beneficence looks at the outcomes or consequences of the action, (2) reversibility focuses on the formal characteristics of the action, and (3) publicity zeros in on the moral character of the agent.
2. The meta-tests turn this surface disagreement into an advantage. The convergence or divergence between the ethics tests become indicators of solution strength and weakness.
3. Convergence. When the ethics tests converge on a given solution, this indicates solution strength and robustness.
4. Divergence. When tests diverge on a solution—a solution does well under one test but poorly under another—this signifies that it needs further development and revision. Test divergence is not a sign that one test is relevant while the others are not. Divergence indicates solution weakness and is a call to modify the solution to make it stronger.

Exercise 3: Summarize your results in a Solution Evaluation Matrix

1. Place test results in the appropriate cell.
2. Add a verbal explanation to the SEM table.
3. Conclude with a global feasibility test that asks, simply, whether or not there exist significant obstacles to the implementation of the solution in the real world.
4. Finish by looking at how the tests converge on a given solution. Convergence indicates solution strength; divergence signals solution weakness.

Resource Constraints:

• Does the situation pose limits on resources that could limit the realization of the solution under consideration?
• Time. Is there a deadline within which the solution has to be enacted? Is this deadline fixed or negotiable?
• Financial. Are there cost constraints on implementing the ethical solution? Can these be extended by raising more funds? Can they be extended by cutting existing costs? Can agents negotiate for more money for implementation?
• Resource. Are necessary resources available? Is it necessary to plan ahead to identify and procure resources? If key resources are not available, is it possible to substitute other, more available resources? Would any significant moral or non-moral value be lost in this substitution?

Interest Constraints

• Does the solution threaten stakeholder interests? Could it be perceived as so threatening to a stakeholder’s interests that the stakeholder would oppose its implementation?
• Individual Interests. Does the solution threaten the interests of supervisors? Would they take measures to block its realization? For example, a supervisor might perceive the solution as undermining his or her authority. Or, conflicting sub-group interests could generate opposition to the implementation of the solution even though it would promote broader organizational objectives.
• Organizational Interests. Does the solution go against an organization's SOPs (standard operating procedures), formal objectives, or informal objectives? Could acting on this solution disrupt organization power structures? (Perhaps it is necessary to enlist the support of an individual higher up in the organizational hierarchy in order to realize a solution that threatens a supervisor or a powerful sub-group.)
• Legal Interests. Are there laws, statutes, regulations, or common law traditions that oppose the implementation of the solution? Is it necessary to write an impact statement, develop a legal compliance plan, or receive regulatory approval in order to implement the solution?
• Political/Social/Historical Constraints. Would the solution threaten or appear to threaten the status of a political party? Could it generate social opposition by threatening or appearing to threaten the interests of a public action group such as an environmental group? Are there historical traditions that conflict with the values embedded in the solution?

Technical Constraints

• Technology does not yet exist. Would the implementation of the solution require breaking new technological ground?
• Technology Protected by Patent. The technology exists but is inaccessible because it is still under a patent held by a competitor.
• Technology Requires Modification. The technology required to implement solution exists but needs to be modified to fit the context of the solution. Important considerations to factor in would be the extent of the modification, its cost, and how long it would take to bring about the modification.

In this module, you have…

• studied a real world case that raised serious problems with intellectual property, privacy, security, and free speech. Working with these problems has helped you to develop a better “working” understanding of these key concepts,
• studied and practiced using four decision-making frameworks: (1) using socio-technical analysis to specify the problem in a complex, real world case, (2) practiced brainstorming techniques to develop and refine solutions that respond to your problem, (3) employed three ethics tests to integrate ethical considerations into your solutions and to test these solutions in terms of their ethics, and (4) applied a feasibility analysis to your solutions to identify and trouble-shoot obstacles to the implementation of your ethical solution,
• explored the analogy between solving ethical and design problems,
• practiced the skills of moral imagination, moral creativity, reasonableness, and perseverance, and…
• experienced, through key participant perspectives, the challenges of ethics advocacy “under the gun.”

Debrief on your group work before the rest of the class

1. Provide a concise statement and justification of the problem your group specified
2. Present the refined solution generation list your group developed in exercise 2.
3. Present and provide a quick summary explanation of the results of your group’s solution evaluation matrix.
4. Show your group’s feasibility matrix and summarize your assessment of the feasibility of implementing the solution alternatives you tested in exercise three.

Group Debriefing

1. Were there any problem you group had working together to carry out this case analysis? What were the problems and how did you go about solving them?
2. What problems did you have with understanding and practicing the four frameworks for solving problems? How did you go about solving these problems? Does your group have any outstanding questions or doubts?
3. Now that you have heard the other groups present their results, what differences emerged between your group’s analysis and those of the other groups? Have you modified your analysis in light of the analyses of the other groups? If so how? Do the other groups need to take into account any aspects of your group’s debriefing?

References

1. Brincat, Cynthia A. and Wike, Victoria S. (2000) Morality and the Professional Life: Values at Work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2. Cruz, J. A., Frey, W. J. (2003) An Effective Strategy for Integration Ethics Across the Curriculum in Engineering: An ABET 2000 Challenge, Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(4): 543-568.
3. Davis, M., Ethics and the University, Routledge, London and New York, 1999: 166-167.
4. Richard T. De George, "Ethical Responsibilities of Engineers in Large Organizations: The Pinto Case," in Ethical Issues in Engineering, ed. Deborah G. Johnson (1991) New Jersey: Prentice-Hall: 175-186.
5. Charles Harris, Michael Pritchard and Michael Rabins (2005) Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 3rd Ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth: 203-206.
6. Huff, Chuck and Jawer, Bruce, "Toward a Design Ethics for Computing Professionals in Social Issues in Computing: Putting Computing in its Place, Huff, Chuck and Finholt, Thomas Eds. (1994) New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
7. Solomon, Robert C. (1999) A Better Way to Think About Business: How Personal Intgrity Leads to Corporate Success. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8. Anthony Weston. (2001) A Practical Companion to Ethics, 2nd ed. USA: Oxford University Press, 2001, Chapter 3.
9. Carolyn Whitbeck (1998) Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research. U.K. Cambridge University Press: 55-72 and 176-181.
10. Wike, Victoria S. (2001) "Professional Engineering Ethics Bahavior: A Values-based Approach," Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Session 2461.