Part A
1.Describe the case that you want to analyse
We chose to analyse the first case, which is about the natural gas extraction in the province of
Groningen, in the north of the Netherlands. These gas extractions cause displacements in the
earth. These gas extractions cause displacements in the ground. Residents have claimed that these
displacements have caused damage to their houses, and that the gas corporation is to blame and
therefore is responsible for the repair. The gas corporation’s own research shows that the
displacements are evenly distributed over the area and are thus not the source of the damage. The
research of an independent engineer Sebastiaan van Dam shows that the displacements are not
evenly distributed - however, he is not sure that his measurements are correct.
This situation poses a moral problem because it presents a trade-off. If the results from Mr. van
Dam are presented as inconclusive, the residents will be held responsible themselves for the costs
of the reparation of their homes. If, however, the results of the research are presented as
conclusive, this will urge the gas corporation to pay for the repairs, which will lead to bankruptcy,
and, as a result, damage to the local economy as well as unemployment for many thousands of
people. The moral problem statement is here: ‘Who should Sebastiaan choose to be held
responsible for the costs of the repairs?’
2. Options for Action
There are three main courses of action for Sebastiaan van Dam. The first action he can take is to
present his results as inconclusive. This will not give any details about the cause of the
displacements in the region, and will therefore hold no one accountable for the damage caused to
the houses. This course of action will lead to the fact that the residents of the area have to pay for
the repairs of their homes themselves. In the meantime, the corporation can keep drilling for gas,
possibly increasing the damage done to the area, leading to more displacements, earthquakes, and,
potentially, deaths. However, this action will not cause the corporation to go bankrupt, and will
not cause a disturbance in the regional economy and employment, thereby delivering a positive
effect for the province.
The second course of action is that the firm presents their results as conclusive. This means that
the gas company is to blame for the damaged houses. The inhabitants of these houses can claim
money for the repairs from the gas company. However, this will result in the gas company going
bankrupt, as they were already at the verge of insolvency. Also, the gas company provides
thousands of jobs for the province of Groningen which will disappear, making several thousands
of people lose their jobs and damaging the regional economy severely.
The third course of action is that Sebastiaan does a retake on his measurements, so that they are
more conclusive. In that way, he can accurately point to the responsible party and no unnecessary
damage to either party will be done. However, this will prolong only the decision time and reduce
the uncertainty - eventually, a decision will have to be made.
3. Utilitarianism
The act utilitarian approach looks at the morality of an act in question in and upon itself, and its
direct consequences for the overall happiness. In contrast, the rule utilitarian focuses mainly on
the indirect and long-term consequences on the level of overall happiness of individual acts.
In the act utilitarian approach, it would be better in this case to declare the results of the research
conclusive, and have the corporation pay for the damage of the homes. This has as a direct
consequence that the happiness of the stakeholders increases: many people will get their home
repaired, making them happier, whilst only the board members of the company are unhappy about
the payments that are due to the residents. This is not an unambiguous judgement, since we cannot
know exactly the values of the happiness of board members and the inhabitants of the region - we
can not make a reliable cost and benefit analysis for this case. If, for some reason, the happiness
of the board members may increase more than the total happiness of the inhabitants if the other
strategy is followed, then declaring the research as inconclusive would be the best course of
action.
In the rule utilitarian approach, the best course of action would be to report the research as
inconclusive. Reporting the research as conclusive would lead to two main negative
consequences. First, assuming that research is valid whilst a researcher actually is not sure about
the validity of its results, would mean ignoring possible risks. If the outcome of the research is
proven to be invalid in retrospect, this would greatly decrease the overall trust in scientific
research and its influence on society. Second, if the results are presented as conclusive, this would
put blame on the corporation, meaning that it would be held responsible for the payments to the
residents of the area for their damaged properties. This would mean bankruptcy and
unemployment for thousands. These are bad long term consequences and should therefore be
avoided.
However, this result is ambiguous. Following the first approach by declaring the research as
inconclusive would lead to lack of trust in the company from the public - the residents of the area
would have to pay for the repairs themselves and would feel that the company did not take
responsibility. In addition, continuing to drill for gas in this area might lead to more severe
consequences, such as pollution of natural reservoirs, more ground displacements (and thus
damage), and so on.
4. Kant
The first formulation of the categorical imperative states that an act is only wrong if it cannot be
universalized. Concepts will break down eventually if no one follows the rules that apply in the
categorical imperative. According to Kant, we should strive for equality. When looking at the case
from this point of view, it is right to declare the research as inconclusive. If all scientific research
would be based on invalid data (or data of which the researchers are not sure that they are valid),
the concept of scientific research would break down. This is a clear and unambiguous judgement:
according to Kant, it is not right to lie or to present something as a truth when it may not be a
truth.
The second formulation of the categorical imperative states that people should not be used as a
mere means to an end: people and their autonomy should be respected. This means that acts are
only morally right if people are not merely used or taken advantage of, but are also seen as
autonomous and to-be-respected individuals. In this case, the right course of action would be to
declare the research as conclusive. If the research is declared inconclusive, the residents have to
pay for the damage to their homes, and this is immoral, as it uses people as a means to solve the
conflict of responsibility. This is an unambiguous result as this categorical imperative only looks
at people, not entities such as the corporation.
5. Virtue Ethics
The virtues that people in general should have to be able cope with this situation and make a
justifiable decision would be honesty, a feeling for what is just, and empathy. Honesty plays an
important role in this context because it allows people to give an honest representation of the
truth. A feeling for what is just helps people in this situation to decide what is the most fair
solution to the problem. Empathy gives insight in what the stakeholders of the problem
experience, think, and feel. In addition, because we are dealing with a professional environment,
we can sum the virtues of engineers that play a role in this situation.
Engineers should have a number of virtues, but we feel the following are most important:
reporting work carefully, expertise and professionalism, clear and informative communication,
objectivity and an eye for detail. Based on the virtues mentioned above, Sebastiaan van Dam
should declare his research as inconclusive (clear and informative communication, objectivity,
and an eye for detail), and redo the measurements to be certain that he delivers a solution based on
truths, so that he does not place responsibility for the costs of the repairs on the wrong
stakeholders (feeling for justice, objectivity, empathy). This is not an unambiguous judgement - if
we need people to be empathetic to make the best decision, one could argue that Sebastiaan
should choose the solution where as few people as possible get disadvantaged.
6. Concluding Discussion
Looking back at the analyses of the three main ethical theories, we feel that in this particular case,
Sebastiaan van Dam should choose to declare his research as inconclusive. This is the right course
of action in three of the five ethical considerations - rule utilitarianism, the first categorical
imperative of Kant’s theory, and virtue ethics. Personally, we also feel that this is the right course
of action, originating from our own sense of engineering virtues. We feel that it is morally unjust
to declare research as conclusive when you are not sure that the results will hold. In this particular
situation, we would advise to declare the research as inconclusive, and, in addition, to redo the
measurements.
Part B
Values
Our technological dream is the bionic prosthetic: a non-self extension to the body that will allow
amputees to live their lives as normal as possible. The three values that play a role in this dream
are safety, respect (for the user and the human body as a separate entity) and sensible design.
Safety is important because these prosthetics should not harm their users or people in their direct
or indirect environment during use or abuse. The prosthetics should also be incorporated in the
healthcare system in such a way that they express respect towards the user, as well as the human
body, so that no advantage or disadvantage is taken off anybody, and the prosthetics are not used
in the wrong way. Sensible design must ensure ergonomic, sustainable, and cheap solutions for
the prosthetics to make them suit the needs of many.
2. Utilitarianism
From the utilitarian perspective, the introduction of the bionic limb will reinstate the happiness
and freedom of movement of amputees. From the hedonistic view characteristic of classic
utilitarianism, this is desirable and should therefore be motivated. The dilemma here, however, is
what people can potentially do with these prosthetics - if prosthetics can be made to fully reinstate
functionality of missing limbs, they can also be made to bear higher strains, or, ultimately, kill.
Amputees could be made to have more advanced bodily functions than others or harm people in
their surroundings, for example by adding a modified weapon to the prosthetic. If one person or a
group of persons with a dangerous prosthetic as such hurts people in his surroundings, then a
utilitarian would try to prevent this development, as the happiness of one small group of
stakeholders does not measure up to the safety and happiness of many others.
The value respect can also be regarded from a utilitarian perspective. When a purposeful
modification to the human body leads to dehumanisation of the subject by, for example,
delivering the perfect worker with tools for hands and legs, the utilitarian might approve because
it would deliver beneficial outcomes for a large group of society, whilst only delivering negative
consequences for one person, the amputee. If, however, this prosthetic makes an amputee more
suitable than a candidate with all his or her natural limbs in place for a certain profession, this will
disadvantage a larger group in society whilst only a small group is advantaged. This is thus an
undesirable outcome for the utilitarian philosophers.
From the utilitarian point of view, the sensible design value is the most important because it
actively adds to the happiness of the subject. When the prosthetics are ergonomic, fit their purpose
well, are energy efficient and cheap, and look pretty, people will wear and use them with joy,
pride, and happiness. This is a desirable outcome for utilitarianism in the hedonistic way of
thinking.
3.Kantian Analysis
In our opinion, Kantian theory would agree to the idea that the prosthetics can enhance human
value. The introduction of the fully functional prosthetic would help regard human beings as an
end in itself - we care for them and respect their autonomy, therefore we allow the reinstatement
of their bodily functions by mimicking natural limbs, and we allow them to reintegrate into
society as equals.
Overall, however, Kantian theory firmly disagrees with the introduction of the bionic limb.
According to the first formulation of the categorical imperative of Kantian theory, we should
strive for actions and decision-making that can be universalized. If we make the application of the
bionic arm or leg universal, the concept of ‘the natural limb’ or ‘the human body’ will break
down. That is, if everybody would adopt the bionic limb as a part of their body, the concept of
body loses its meaning. This is strictly related to the value of respect for the human body as a
separate entity.
In terms of the second formulation of the categorical imperative, Kantian theory would also object
to the bionic prosthetics. The second formulation states that people should never be merely used
as means to an end. As elaborated above, the bionic limb could be altered and specialized in such
a way that it would lead to dehumanization on, for example, the factory floor, by adding tools for
hands. Similarly, the bionic limb could be improved so that amputees with the prosthetic have
advantages over others in several occupations or social situations. In both cases, the idea of endin-itself is lost: in the former, the user of the prosthetic is used as a tool to optimize work
efficiency; in the latter, the user has an advantage over others, thereby obscuring their worth,
freedom, and autonomy. Overall it could be stated that the bionic prosthetic can only be used as a
replacement of the missing limb, and not as an improvement.