Module Introduction
Preliminary Draft distributed at APPE, 2005 in
San Antonio, TX
Engineers and other professionals work in large corporations under the supervision of managers who may lack their expertise, skills, and commitment to professional standards. This creates communication and ethical challenges. At the very least, professionals are put in the position of having to advocate their ethical and professional standards to those who, while not being opposed to them, may not share their understanding of and commitment to them.
This module is designed to give you the tools and the practice using them necessary to prevail in situations that require advocacy of ethical and professional standards. In this module you carry out several activities. (1) You will study the philosophical and ethical foundations of modern rights theory through a brief look at Kantian Formalism. (2) You will learn a framework for examining the legitimacy of rights claims. (3) You will practice this framework by examining several rights claims that engineers make over their supervisors. This examination will require that you reject certain elements, rephrase others, and generally recast the claim to satisfy the requirments of the rights justification framework. (4) Finally, in small groups you will build tables around your reformulation of these rights claims and present the results to the class. This module will help you to put your results together with the rest of your classmates and collectively assemble a toolkit consisting of the legitimate rights claims that engineers and other professionals can make over their managers and supervisors.
For more background on rights theory and the relation of rights and duties see (1) Henry Shue, Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2nd edition, Princeton, 1980 and (2) Thomas
Donaldson, The Ethics of International Business, Oxford, 1989. This exercise has been used in computer and engineering ethics classes at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez from 2002 on to the present. It is being incorporated into the textbook, Good Computing: A Virtue Approach to Computer Ethics by Chuck Huff, William Frey, and Jose Cruz.
What you need to know...
Problematic Right Claims- El derecho para actuar de acuerdo a la conciencia etica y rechazar trabajos en los cuales exista una variacion de opinones morales.
- El derecho de expresar juicio profesional, y hacer pronunciamientos publicos que sean consistentes con restricciones corporativas sobre la informacion propietaria.
- El derecho a la lealtad corporativa y la libertad de que sea hecho un chivo expiatorio para catastrofes naturales, ineptitud de administracion u otras fuerzas mas alla del control del ingeniero.
- El derecho a buscar el mejoramiento personal mediante estudios postgraduados y envolverse en asociaciones profesionales.
- .El derecho a participar en actividades de partidos politicos fuera de las horas de trabajo.
- El derecho a solicitar posiciones superiores con otras companias sin que la companis en la que trabaje tome represalias contra el ingeniero.
- El derecho al debido proceso de ley y la libertad de que se le apliquen penalidades arbitrarias o despidos.
- El derecho a apelar por revision ante una asociacion profesional, ombudsman o arbitro independiente.
- El derecho a la privacidad personal.
- These rights are taken from Etica en la Practica Profesional de la Ingenieria by Wilfredo Munoz Roman published in 1998 by the Colegio de Ingenieros y Agrimensores de Puerto Rico and Universidad Politecnica de Puerto Rico
Problematic Rights Claims (translated)- The right to act in accordance with one's ethical conscience and to refuse to work on projects that go against one's conscience or personal or professional moral views.
- The right to express one's professional judgment and to make public declarations as long as these do not violate a corporation's rights to proprietary information.
- The right to corporate loyalty and freedom from being made a scapegoat for natural catastrophes, administrative ineptitude, and other forces that are beyond the control of the individual engineer.
- The right to better oneself through postgraduate studies and through participation in one's professional society.
- The right to participate in political activities outside of work hours.
- The right not to suffer retaliation from one's current employer when one seeks better employment elsewhere.
- The right to due process under the law and freedom from the application of artibrary penalties including being fired at will without just cause.
- The right to appeal judgments made against one before a professional association, ombudsman, or independent arbitrator.
- The right to personal privacy.
Kantian Formalism, Part I: Aligning the moral motive and the moral act- Kant's moral philosophy has exercised substantial influence over our notions of right and duty. We begin with a brief summary of this theory based on the work, The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals.
- Kant states that the only thing in this world that is good without qualification is a good will. He characterizes this will in terms of its motive, "duty for duty's sake."
- Consider the following example. You see a boy drowning. Even though the water is rough and the current strong you are a good enough swimmer to save him. So while your inclination may be to give way to fear and walk away, you are duty-bound to save the drowning boy.
- An action (saving or not saving the drowning boy) has moral worth depending on the the correct correlation of right action and right motive. The following table shows this.
Duty for Duty's Sake
| |
Motive = Inclination (desire for reward or fear) |
Motive = Duty |
| Act Conforms to Duty |
You save the drowning boy for the reward. Act conforms to duty but is motivated by inclination. Has no moral worth. |
You save the drowning boy because it is your duty. Act conforms to duty and is for the sake of duty. Your act has moral worth. |
| Act violates a duty. |
You don't save the drowning boy because you are too lazy to jump in. Act violates duty motivated by inclination. |
You drown trying to save the drowning boy. He also dies. Act fails to carry out duty but is motivated by duty anyway. The act miscarries but since the motive is duty it still has moral worth. |
Part II of Kantian Formalism: Giving content to Duty for Duty's Sake- Kant sees morality as the expression and realization of the rational will. The first formulation of this rational will is to will consistently and universally.
- This leads to the Categorical Imperative: I should act only on that maxim (=personal rule or rule that I give to myself) that can be converted into a universal law (a rule that applies to everybody) without self-contradiction.
- This formulation is an imperative because it commands the will of all reasonable beings. It is categorical because it commands without exceptions or conditions. The CI tells me unconditionally not to lie. It does not say, do not like unless it promotes your self interest to do so.
- The following table shows how to use the Categorical Imperative to determine whether I have a duty not to lie.
Applying the Categorical Imperative
| 1. Formulate your maxim (=personal rule) |
Whenever I am in a difficult situation, I should tell a lie. |
| 2. Universalize your maxim. |
Whenever anybody is in a difficult situation, he or she should tell a lie. |
| 3. Check for a contradiction (logical or practical) |
When I lie, I will the opposite for the universal law. Put differently, I will that everybody (but me) be a truth-teller and that everybody believe me a truth-teller. I then make myself the exception to this universal law. Thus my maxim (I am a liar) contradicts the law (everybody else is a truth-teller) |
Kantian Formalism, Part III: The Formula of the End- When I will one thing as universal law and make myself the exeception in difficult circumstances, I am treating others, in Kantian terms, merely as means.
- This implies that I subordinate or bend them to my interests and projects without their consent. I do this by circumventing their autonomy through (1) force, (2) fraud (often deception), or (3) manipulation. Treating them with respect would involve telling them what I want (what are my plans and projects) and on this basis asking them to consent to particpate and help me. The extreme case for treating others merely as means is enslaving them.
- We do on occasion treat others as means (and not as mere means) when we hire them as employees. But this is consistent with their autonomy and rational consent because we explain to them what is expected (we give them a job description) and compensate them for their efforts. For this reason there is a world of difference between hiring others and enslaving them.
- The Formula of the End = Act so as to treat others (yourself included) always as ends and never merely as means.
Some Key Definitions for a Rights Framework- Kantian formalism provides a foundation for respect for the intrinsic value of humans as autonomous rational beings. Using this as
a point of departure, we can develop a method for identifying,
spelling out, and justifying the rights and duties that go with
professionalism. This framework can be summarized in four
general propositions:
- 1. Definition: A right is an essential
capacity of action that others are obliged to recognize and
respect. This definition follows from autonomy.
Autonomy can be broken down into a series of specific capacities.
Rights claims arise when we identify these capacities and take
social action to protect them. Rights are inviolable and cannot be
overridden even when overriding would bring about substantial
public utility.
- 2. All rights claims must satisfy three
requirements. They must be (1) essential to the autonomy of
individuals and (2) vulnerable so that they require special
recognition and protection (on the part of both individuals and
society). Moreover, the burden of recognizing and respecting a
claim as a right must not deprive others of something essential. In
other words, it must be (3) feasible for both individuals and
social groups to recognize and respect legitimate rights
claims.
- 3. Definition: A duty is a rule or principle
requiring that we both recognize and respect the legitimate rights
claims of others. Duties attendant on a given right fall into three
general forms: (a) duties not to deprive, (b) duties to prevent deprivation, and (c) duties to aid the deprived.
- 4. Rights and duties are correlative; for
every right there is a correlative series of duties to recognize
and respect that right.
- These four summary points together form a system of professional and occupational rights and
correlative duties.
Right Claim Justification Framework- Essential: To say that a right is essential to autonomy is to
say that it highlights a capacity whose exercise is necessary to
the general exercise of autonomy. For example, autonomy is based on
certain knowledge skills. Hence, we have a right to an education to
develop the knowledge required by autonomy, or we have a right to
the knowledge that produces informed consent. In general, rights
are devices for recognizing certain capacities as essential to
autonomy and respecting individuals in their exercise of these
capacities.
- Vulnerable: The exercise of the capacity protected under the
right needs protection. Individuals may interfere with us in our
attempt to exercise our rights. Groups, corporations, and
governments might overwhelm us and prevent us from exercising our
essential capacities. In short, the exercise of the capacity
requires some sort of protection. For example, an individual’s
privacy is vulnerable to violation. People can gain access to our
computers without our authorization and view the information we
have stored. They can even use this information to harm us in some
way. The right to privacy, thus, protects certain capacities of
action that are vulnerable to interference from others. Individual
and social energy needs to be expended to protect our
privacy.
- Feasible: Rights make claims over others; they imply duties
that others have. These claims must not deprive the correlative
duty-holders of anything essential. In other words, my rights
claims over you are not so extensive as to deprive you of your
rights. My right to life should not deprive you of your right to
self-protection were I to attack you. Thus, the scope of my right
claims over you and the rest of society are limited by your ability
to reciprocate. I cannot push my claims over you to recognize and
respect my rights to the point where you are deprived of something
essential.
Types of Duty Correlative to a Right- Duty not to deprive: We have a basic duty not to violate the
rights of others. This entails that we must both recognize and
respect these rights. For example, computing specialists have the
duty not to deprive others of their rights to privacy by hacking
into private files.
- Duty to prevent deprivation: Professionals, because of their
knowledge, are often in the position to prevent others from
depriving third parties of their rights. For example, a computing
specialist may find that a client is not taking sufficient pains to
protect the confidentiality of information about customers.
Outsiders could access this information and use it without the
consent of the customers. The computing specialist could prevent
this violation of privacy by advising the client on ways to protect
this information, say, through encryption. The computing specialist
is not about to violate the customers’ rights to privacy. But
because of special knowledge and skill, the computing specialist
may be in a position to prevent others from violating this
right.
- Duty to aid the deprived: Finally, when others have their
rights violated, we have the duty to aid them in their recovery
from damages. For example, a computing specialist might have a duty
to serve as an expert witness in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff
seeks to recover damages suffered from having her right to privacy
violated. Part of this duty would include accurate, impartial, and
expert testimony.
Application of Right/Duty Framework- We can identify and define specific rights such as due
process. Moreover, we can set forth some of the conditions involved
in recognizing and respecting this right.
- Due Process can be justified by showing that it is essential
to autonomy, vulnerable, and feasible.
- Right holders can be specified.
- Correlative duties and duty holders can be specified.
- Finally, the correlative duty-levels can be specified as the
duties not to violate rights, duties to prevent rights violations
(whenever feasible), and the duties to aid the deprived (whenever
is feasible).
Example Rights Table: Due Process
| Right: Due Process |
Justification |
Right-Holder:Engineer as employee and member of professional
society. |
Correlative Duty-Holder: Engineer's Supervisor, officials in
professional society. |
Duty Level |
| Definition: The right to respond to organizational decisions
that may harm one in terms of a serious organizational grievance
procedure.Necessary Conditions:1. Several levels of appeal.2. Time
limits to each level of appeal.3. Written notice of grievance.4.
Peer representation.5. Outside arbitration. |
| Essential: Due Process is essential in organizations to
prevent the deprivation of other rights or to provide aid in the
case of their deprivation. |
| Vulnerable: Rights in general are not recognized in the
economic sphere, especially in organizations. |
| Feasible: Organizations, have successfully implemented due
process procedures. |
|
Professionals who are subject to professional codes of
ethics. Supports professionals who are ordered to violate
professional standards. |
Human Resources, Management, Personnel
Department.(Individuals with duty to design, implement, and enforce
a due process policy)Corporate directors have the duty to make sure
this is being done. |
| Not to Deprive:Individuals cannot be fired, transferred, or
demoted without due process |
| Prevent Deprivation: Organizations can prevent deprivation
by designing and implementing a comprehensive due process
policy. |
| Aid the DeprivedBinding arbitration and legal measures must
exist to aid those deprived of due process rights |
|
What you are going to do...
Exercise: Develop a Rights Table- You will be divided into small groups and each will be assigned a right claim taken from the above list.
- Describe the claim (essential capacity of action) made by the right. For
example, due process claims the right to a serious
organizational grievance procedure that will enable the right-holder to respond to a decision that has an adverse impact on his or her interests. It may also be necessary in some situations to specify the claim’s necessary
conditions.
- Justify the right claim using the rights justification framework. In other words show that the right claim is essential, vulnerable, and feasible.
- Be sure to show that the right is essential to autonomy. If it is vulnerable be sure to identify the standard threat. (A standard threat is an existing condition that threatens autonomy.)
- Provide an example of a situation in which the right
claim becomes operative. For example, an engineer may claim a right
to due process in order to appeal what he or she considers an unfair dismissal, transfer, or performance evaluation.
- Identify the correlative duty-holder(s)
that need to take steps to recognize and respect the right. For
example, private and government organizations may be duty-bound to
create due process procedures to recognize and respect this
right.
- Further spell out the right by showing what actions the correlative duties involve. For example, a manager should not violate an employee's due process right by firing him or her without just cause. The organization's human resources department might carry out a training program to help managers avoid depriving employees of this right. The organization could aid the deprived by designing and implementing binding arbitration involving an impartial third party.
Be prepared to debrief on your right claim to the rest of the class. When other groups are debriefing, you are free to challenge them on whether their claim is essential to autonomy, whether they have identified a valid "standard threat," and whether the correlative duties are feasible or deprive others of something essential. Your goal as a class is to have a short but effective list of rights that professionals take with them to the workplace.
Conclusion
Conclusion: Topics for Further Reflection- Not every claim to a right is a legitimate
or justifiable claim. The purpose of this framework is to get you
into the habit of thinking critically and skeptically about the
rights claims that you and others make. Every legitimate right
claim is essential, vulnerable, and feasible. Correlative duties
are sorted out according to different levels (not to deprive,
prevent deprivation, and aid the deprived); this, in turn, is based
on the capacity of the correlative duty holder to carry them out.
Finally, duties correlative to rights cannot deprive the
duty-holder of something essential.
- Unless you integrate your right and its
correlative duties into the context of your professional or
practical domain, it will remain abstract and irrelevant. Think
about your right in the context of the real world. Think of
everyday situations in which the right and its correlative duties
will arise. Invent cases and scenarios. If you are an engineering
student, think of informed consent in terms of the public’s right
to understand and consent to the risks associated with engineering
projects. If you are a computing student think of what you can do
with computing knowledge and skills to respect or violate privacy
rights. Don’t stop with an abstract accounting of the right and its
correlative duties.
- Rights and duties underlie professional
codes of ethics. But this is not always obvious. For example, the
right of free and informed consent underlies much of the engineer’s
interaction with the public, especially the code responsibility to
hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare. Look at the
different stakeholder relations covered in a code of ethics. (In
engineering this would include public, client, profession, and
peer.) What are the rights and duties outlined in these stakeholder
relations? How are they covered in codes of ethics?
- This module is effective in counter-acting
the tendency to invent rights and use them to rationalize dubious
actions and intentions. Think of rights claims as credit backed by
a promise to pay at a later time. If you make a right claim, be
ready to justify it. If someone else makes a right claim, make them
back it up with the justification framework presented in this
module.