Debriefing on Ethics Bowl Dr William J Frey

Debriefing on Ethics Bowl Dr. William J. Frey

Why I posed these two scenarios • Responding to Wally’s Questions • Concept: Confidentiality (What is it and what are its limits) – Exploring Confidentiality (right/duty grounded in property) – Difficulty with tension between protecting IP and disseminating IP • Fred has to work with diplomatic skills but be ready to exercise moral courage • A value consideration: – How can Fred develop a response that balances reasonableness with responsibility? (To Chemitoil and Phaust) • Wally’s dilemma • Balancing environmental values with safety. All of this within flexible cost constraints. • Go back to Mountain Terrorist Dilemma – One way to respond is to reject Wally’s dilemma – Recognizing a dilemma in two very different contexts – Problem framing and specification • Question rigorously whether, given strict financial constraints, we have to trade off safety and environmental security

Why I posed these two scenarios? • Inkjet • Analogy between ethics and design – solutions realize specifications and respond to constraints • Need to integrate ethics into design upstream • Multiple framings/definitions of an ethical problem • Therac • Making ethical decisions in face of uncertainty – Uncertainty implies risk – Where does risk fall? (Patients? Company? Manufacturer? ) • Issue of whistle-blowing • Best practices in resolving ethical problems – forming interest groups to exchange info and exert pressure • Hager: a moral exemplar in action…

Inkjet – Defining problem as carrying out social responsibility • Solution needs to respond to and integrate social/employment problem with environmental problem • Realizing value within financial constraints • Develop an effective recycling program (advertise, set up facility, solicit community/government support, “sell” solution to Board of Directors) – Defining problem as developing a technical solution that realizes key ethical values • Designing cartridges as recyclable • Designing new printers (laser technology) • Finding best practices in cartridge/ printer design or developing new technologies • Feasibility? What do you do until you “discover” new technology?

Therac • Whistle-Blowing – Morally Permissible • Clear and present danger • Notification of immediate supervisors • Exhaustion of internal channels – Morally Obligatory (1 -3 plus…) • Documented Evidence • Reasonable chance of success • Consequences of Whistle-Blowing – Disrupts trust within an organization – Harms the whistle-blower – Justified as a last resort in the face of overwhelming evidence of an impending serious and considerable harm

Outcomes • Inkjet • Turning toward laser technology • Outsourcing printers and technology to other companies • Finding new applications for inkjet technology (medicine) • Therac • Hager worked carefully with operator to recreate error sequence • AECL sent representatives to Texas • Went to FDA who required CAPs from AECL • Notified patients and other operators • Formed Therac user groups

What you did well • You presented forcefully, courageously, and eloquently • You responded to intensive criticism by practicing the virtue of perseverance • Integrated broad moral considerations (integrity, responsibility, reversibility, whistle-blowing, patient safety/informed consent) • You tested/debated Intermediate Moral Criteria – Safety, Confidentiality, Social Responsibility, Environmental Integrity • You practiced and realized reasonableness

Communication Gaps • Intended Message • Received Message • How you interpreted the criteria and what you intended to communicate • What your opponents and peer review teams heard – We gave an intelligible presentation – We integrated ethical concerns – We dealt with feasibility issues – We exercised moral imagination and creativity – We had trouble following parts… – We had trouble identifying the ethical considerations that guided your presentation – Your solution strikes us as unrealistic – You really didn’t understand our disagreement and the other team’s position

Responding to the Gap • Treat it as a challenge, not as a criticism or put down • If you said it and they didn’t hear it, then say it more carefully and say it again. – Tell us what you are going to say, say it, tell us what you said… • Listen carefully to opponents and try to “negotiate” criteria – “What I heard you saying” – “Have you considered interpreting it as X as well as Y? ” • Use this as an opportunity to practice the skills and virtues of reasonableness

Some Best Practices • Intelligibility – Tell us what you are going to say/do – Say/Do it – Summarize: Tell us what you have done • Ethical Integration – Use the values and the tests • Our solution is good because it is just • Our solution is reversible, minimizes harm, and stands up to the light of publicity • Feasibility – Be proactive and anticipate an implementation problem (id resource, interest, and technical constraints – Solve that problem • Moral Imagination/Creativity – Somebody might disagree with our position. They might say the following… – Think out of the box on inkjet cartridges (using technology for something else) – Strength: projecting into standpoint of employees in PR town or patients in Therac

Use the software development cycle • 1. Problem Specification • 2. Solution Generation • 1. Intelligibility and Moral Imagination (more than one perspective) • 3. Solution Testing • 2. Moral Creativity • 4. Solution Implementation • 3. Ethical Integration (integrate by testing solutions) • 4. Use the feasibility test to id latent problems: resource, interest, and technical constraints can block solution implementation

Be Prepared to Be Lucky… • Go to module, “Practical and Professional Ethics Bowl Activity: Follow-Up In-Depth Case Analysis” m 13759 • Start by filling out worksheets – – STS, STS + Values Develop a defensible problem statement plus other framings Fill out a Solution Evaluation Matrix Fill out a Feasibility Matrix • Deepen your solution and arguments • Start closing out you group activities for semester – Review goals – Identify some of the obstacles you encountered – Review and describe some of your best practices and cautionary tales

Final exam • May 7: last class – Assessment of Frey and course modules • May 11: 9: 45, F 329 Groups Carry Out Exercise Three, Team Work Module • May 17: Turn in Group materials/final exam from 7: 30 to 4: 30

Areas for attention and improvement • Right claim framework: essential, vulnerable, and feasible. (Connect to autonomy) • Reversibility: Project yourself into the shoes of another (=stakeholder) – How does the action look from the receiving end? – Avoid extremes of too much (getting lost) and too little (no sympathy) • Keep working on values/virtues – Each virtue can be specified into mean between extremes of too much and too little – Build virtues into ethics bowl debate. Our solution realizes X values/virtues for Y and Z reasons.

What you need to focus on now • In depth case study analysis (Using STA to formulate problems, brainstorming lists, SEM, and Feasibility) – Execute the software development cycle • Respond to the feedback from the ethics bowl (and tell me in your self-evaluations) • Review m 13759 (Practical and Professional Ethics Bowl Activity: Follow-Up In-Depth Case Analysis) – Include the charts + verbal explanations – Process is as important as product. (Brainstorming lists, refined lists, explanation of process)

What you need to focus on now • Return to Ethics of Team Work Module (m 13760) and carry out exercise three (final group self-evaluation) • Review preliminary report – What did you change? – What did you learn? – What were your obstacles and how did you overcome them? • Individual member evaluation forms – Each team member fills one out anonymously – Evaluate yourself and your team members

What you need to focus on now • Case Summaries • Concentrate on… – STS + Values table for STS of case – simple problem statement – Brainstorming list of solutions + refining – solution evaluation matrix – Feasibility matrix – Solution + Justification (ethics and feasibility)

What is important now • Closing out the ethics bowl – Debating and reflecting on the challenges of ethics advocacy – Peer Reviewing and how to instantiate the virtue of reasonableness (active/critical listening) • Building reactions into self-evaluation