Study Guide for Exam 1

I. Here's the take-home portion of Exam 1:

Identify and then list some problematic clause(s) in the "Code of Ethics for Engineers." Present a criticism against the selected clause(s). Describe some way that the code might be modified in efforts to rectify the problems resulting from the problematic feature(s).

• This take-home portion of Exam 1 must be typed. It should be either ONE page or TWO pages long (double-spaced). No longer.
• People hoping to get satisfactory grades on this portion of Exam 1 should write in a professional manner. The style (punctuation, syntax, spelling, usage, etc.) must be clean. Feel free to read my old teacher's essay about punctuation and syntax on the class web site.
• No "take-home" portions of Exam 1 will be accepted after the in-class portion of Exam 1 transpires.

II. Here are some other questions that will likely appear on Exam I:

1. De George claims that engineers are morally PERMITTED to go public with information about the safety of a product if the following conditions are met:

1. the harm that will be done by the product to the public is serious and considerable;
2. they make their concerns known to their superiors; and
3. getting no satisfaction from their immediate superiors, they exhaust the channels available within the corporation, including going to the board of directors.

De George continues on to claim that Engineers are morally OBLIGATED to go public with information about the safety of a product if the following conditions are met:

1. the harm that will be done by the product to the public is serious and considerable;
2. they make their concerns known to their superiors;
3. getting no satisfaction from their immediate superiors, they exhaust the channels available within the corporation, including going to the board of directors;
4. the engineer has documented evidence that would convince a reasonable, impartial observer that his view of the situation is correct and that the company policy is wrong; and
5. there must be strong evidence that making the information public will in fact prevent the threatened serious harm.

   A. Describe precisely why De George believes that conditions (4) and (5) must be met in order for an engineer to be morally obligated to blow the whistle because of (alleged) safety-related problems with a product.

   B. Do you agree with De George that conditions (4) and (5) must be met in order for an engineer to be morally obligated to blow the whistle because of (alleged) safety-related problems with a product? Explain why or why not.

2. We spent some time thinking about the possibility of having moral obligations to future generations. Some of those who are skeptical about such obligations have presented the following argument in efforts to solidify their positions.

1. Future generations do not exist.
2. If future generations do not exist, then future generations do not have rights.
3. If future generations do not have rights, then we have no moral obligations to them.
4. Therefore, we have no moral obligations to future generations.

Select what you take to be a controversial premise and then present an objection against the selected premise. Finally, evaluate the objection. Is it a good one? Explain why or why not.

3. Here is Golding’s Argument against Obligations to Distant Future Generations:

1. We do not know what will constitute a good for members of distant future generations.
2. If (1), then members of distant future generations are not part of our moral community.
3. If distant future generations are not part of our moral community, then we do not have moral obligations to benefit distant future generations.
4. Therefore, we do not have moral obligations to benefit distant future generations.

   I did first step in the PEEing process for you: I presented the argument in valid form. Now Explain and Evaluate the argument. When explaining the argument, make sure to give a definition or account for each technical term. This argument has two technical phrases: members of distant future generations and moral community. Be sure to provide an account or definition for each of them. Also be sure to give a rationale for each premise--a reason, sub-argument, or example illustrating why a defender of the argument would believe the premise to be true. Please do not lump your rationales together in one big paragraph. Keep them separate so that I can evaluate them independently. Finally, evaluate the argument. Say whether the argument is valid or not. Say what the logical form of the argument is. Comment on whether the argument is sound or not. Remember: if you believe the argument to be unsound, you must pick a line and state an objection.

4. Be able to state classical act utilitarianism. Be able to define 'maximizes' and 'hedonic utility'. Finally, be able to discuss and evaluate an objection against act utilitarianism (in an informal manner).

5. Be able to state GR. Be able to PEE an argument against GR.