Mahboobin 4:00
L12
The Difference Between Good and Best
Tanner Prime (tjp50@pitt.edu)
An Introduction to Ethics
When one generally considers the term ethics, the idea of
right and wrong arrives. Even though many ethical questions
do involve a right and wrong choice, layered with high
intensity costs for both options, perhaps the most trying
ethical questions deal with what is good and what is best. The
terms “good” and “best” might seem very similar, but my real
life example shows how these terms can be completely
separate options.
Setting the Stage
After graduating from the University of Pittsburgh in 2020
with a chemical engineering degree, as well as an
environmental engineering minor, I was employed by a sector
in the United States federal government to research and
develop a clear concise plan to harness solar energy. I worked
on this project for three years with a team that consisted of
engineers, architects, artists, and scientists from all around the
world. At the end of these three years, we designed solar
panels that could harness twice as much energy as previous
solar panels.
To accomplish this, we implemented
nanocrystal technology into our solar panels.
This
nanocrystal technology consisted of lead selenium
nanocrystals that reacted with electromagnetic waves, created
by the sun, and caused the emission of two electrons into
higher energy levels. The process of using nanotechnology,
is different from the conventional process of solar panels
because conventional solar panels are only capable of
emitting one electron. Therefore, because the new technology
allowed for a second electron to be emitted it doubled the
amount of harnessed energy [1].
With a basic understanding of the science, the team
worked on increasing the scale of this nanocrystal technique
until it could be implemented on huge corporation
headquarters. In addition, we also designed storage units for
excess energy used for (no pun intended) rainy days. As a
team member of this project, I received a lot of attention for
my work and was luckily offered a job. My job was to inspect
buildings and determine if they were Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) buildings. I could not
have been more excited with this job because I was given the
opportunity to reward companies who make steps toward a
better future for our kids, little did I know the biggest ethical
decision of my life would approach me soon.
The Trouble Begins
During my time as a LEED certification expert, I was
given the opportunity to certify Chipotle’s headquarters in
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2015/11/03
Denver, Colorado [2]. I was extremely excited to do this
because Chipotle was already doing a fantastic job by helping
their community with the “Cultivating Thought” motto, and
now they were taking steps to provide a cleaner world! As
with many of my examinations, I agreed to not disclose any
information from my examination unless approval was given
to me by the corporation. The building passed the LEED
requirements with flying colors except for one small aspect.
The building used the new nanocrystal technology solar
panels as there Energy and Atmosphere-On-Site Renewable
Energy credit. The credit they were applying for stated that
thirteen percent of their energy came from on sight renewable
energy sources. From my examination, they clearly had
enough solar panels to provide that amount of energy.
However, the electrical wiring from the panels to the storage
units looked a little abnormal, and thus I was not sure if all the
possible energy that could be obtained from those solar panels
was being harnessed. When I brought this concern up to the
manager of the building he said as of now they are getting the
correct amount of power, but he has already have had to adjust
the wiring three times since its arrival a month ago. I brought
the wiring concern to the head of the chipotle headquarters
and he assured me that he would fix the problem when a
problem actually arose. In addition, he said he would really
appreciate it if I presented the LEED certificate before the
quarter ended.
Now, my job as a LEED certification expert stated that I
must inspect the building’s design and determine if the
building provides the needed requirements. Therefore, I
could state that Chipotle’s headquarters did meet the LEED
requirements on my day of examination. However, I can also
refrain from presenting the LEED certificate if I believe the
building cannot consistently provide the requirements needed
to receive the LEED certificate.
Bring Out the Options
With this predicament set before I knew I had two
decisions; to present the LEED certificate or to not present the
LEED certificate. If Chipotle did receive the LEED
certificate, it would make the news and more people, as well
as companies, could possibly feel the push to “go green”. In
addition, the news articles would also explain all the pros,
economically and environmentally, that green buildings
create, and perhaps it would add wind to the sails of creating
a more environmentally friendly world.
On the down side, I would not be telling the whole story.
I would not be lying to say that on my examination day all the
LEED requirements were fulfilled, but I would know deep
down to myself that at any moment that building could not be
fulfilling the LEED requirements, and more importantly not
Tanner Prime
their competence” [4]. My area of competence is chemical
engineering and specifically during this time of my life
analyzing structural systems that provided clean energy. This
does not include understanding the wiring in a multistory
building.
The last two canons somewhat overlap in their assistance
to this scenario. These canons come from the NSPE Code of
Ethics and they are “Issue public statements only in an
objective and truthful manner” and “Avoid deceptive acts”
[4]. Considering the former canon, I am forced to decide to
choose from stating the truth, that the building does meet the
LEED requirements, or stating the entire truth, that the
building meets the LEED requirements but perhaps will not
in a month or two. Therefore, depending on how one views
the truth I could or could not be following that canon with my
decision. In addition, the “Avoid deceptive acts” becomes
very tricky. Yes, I could possibly be deceiving the public by
stating that this building is a LEED building even though its
solar panels could not be harnessing all the energy it should
be harnessing. However, at the time of examination they were
working and it is just a hunch of mine that the wiring might
produce problems in the future for harnessing power. Once
again, depending on how I craft my statements about the
Chipotle headquarters, I could or could not be following this
canon.
In addition to reviewing the different codes of ethics that
apply, it is also helpful to review articles related to ethics
when thinking through an ethical scenario. In this case, I felt
the Engineering Council and Royal Academy of
Engineering’s article, “Statement of Ethical Principles”, was
helpful to arrive at a decision. Specifically the line “They
(engineers) hold a privileged and trusted position in society,
and are expected to demonstrate that they are seeking to serve
wider society and to be sensitive to public concerns”
specifically pertained to my scenario [5]. Obviously as an
engineer, I want to help society through my actions. Not
allowing Chipotle’s headquarters to be considered a LEED
building would cause little effect in society, other than
boosting my profession career as a strict LEED certificate
specialist. But allowing Chipotle’s headquarters to receive
the LEED certificate could inspire a wave of movement
towards a cleaner industrialization. Thus, the decision to give
the LEED certificate to Chipotle seems to serve society as
well as, take care of public concerns focused on the safety of
the environment. By not stopping research with only one
article on ethics, I stumbled upon another article that helped
push me towards my decision.
The article “Learning from Failures”, by Nathan Khal,
appeared in the CEES Ethics Column and it considered the
collapse of the Koror-Babelthaup Bridge. The bridge was
clearly not inspected well because three months after its
refurbishment, in 1996, it collapsed under almost no pressure
from the weather or from traffic. As a result, two people died
[6]. This article brought to mind the consequences some
engineers face when they do not do a detailed examination of
a building. However, as I related this past event to my
be helping the environment as much as it can. In addition, if
another LEED certifier examined the building on a day that
the wiring was not working to full potential then my
profession career could be hurt by my inaccuracy of
examining this building.
Now on the other hand, if I chose not to present Chipotle
headquarters with the LEED certificate not much on the
surface would happen. Although, it would not be surprising
to find that my profession carrier was dragged through the
mud by the corporate executives of Chipotle because I did not
provide them with this certificate over one little uncertainty.
In addition, other companies could hear about Chipotle’s
failure in receiving the LEED requirement and then be
deterred from following suit and “going green”.
Developing a Decision
As any good engineer would when encountered with an
ethical decision, I examined my Code of Ethics. I reviewed
the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) and
American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AICE) Code of
Ethics’. From the NSPE Code of Ethics, I found four canons
that are important to consider when faced with this scenario,
and because of a lot of overlap between the two Codes only
one canon from the AICE that seemed applicable to this
scenario. The one canon from the American Institute of
Chemical Engineers stated to “hold paramount the safety,
health, and welfare of the public and protect the environment
in performance of their professional duties” [3]. This canon
is very similar to the first canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics,
except the AICE Code of Ethics includes the protection of the
environment. At a glance, it seems that if I presented the
Chipotle headquarters with the LEED certificate I would be
harming the environment by letting the Chipotle headquarters
reap the benefits of the certificate without forcing the building
to do all it is supposed to for the environment. However, if
the situation is closely examined, one would notice that
whether or not I give the Chipotle headquarters the certificate,
the impact it makes on the environment will not be changed
because the certificate does not change any of the already
implemented structural designs that affect the environment.
In fact, with the understanding that the effects on the
environment created by the building are constant whether or
not the building receives the certificate, then the only real
environmental effects can come from the possibility that other
businesses will try to follow the leader and “go green” too. In
return, denying chipotle headquarters the LEED certificate
would cause the absence of the possibility of chipotle to be a
leader and push for a better world thus hurting the
environment by depraving it from the possibility of less
environmentally friendly buildings.
The next canon to be considered comes from the NSPE and
is the second canon in the Code of Ethics. This canon is
actually not helpful in the decision making process, but it is
does provide a reason on why I would not examine the wiring
myself. The canon states “Perform services only in areas of
2
Tanner Prime
scenario, I realized that no real harm could come from my notso-closely examination. The only real damage that could
occur would be on my professional career reputation. If
another examiner examined Chipotles headquarters and
refuted my decision, I would look like an inadequate
examiner and possibly lose my job.
Lastly, before I come to my decision I have two final
sources of information that are instrumental to my thought
process. First, is the piece of advice my stepdad told me in
high school. Summed up, in the best way I can, he said “at
the end of your day when you are brushing your teeth and
looking at yourself in the mirror you and God are the only two
people who know whether or not you completely gave
everything you could, whether you cheated yourself, and
whether you can live with the decisions you make”. This
piece of advice helps me to clearly think about my decisions,
and make sure that I can stand by the decisions, regardless of
the consequences. In addition, I am also a firm believer that
referring to the past can us help decide on what we should and
should not do in tough situations.
For this particular scenario I look back at WWII. It was
not a good decision to send American soldiers into Europe to
fight and die during WWII, when one thinks about the many
American sons, husbands, and fathers that would die.
However, it was the best decision to send American troops
into WWII to stop the overwhelming murder of innocent
people that could have occurred without American
intervention in Europe. The bottom line in this aspect of
history and in many aspects of history is that sometimes a
good decision is not the best decision. Sometimes people
have to sacrifice for the overall good of society.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Patch. (2004). “Solar Crystals Get 2-for-1.”
Technology
Research
News.
(Online
article).
http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2004/051904/Solar_crystals
_get_2-for-1_051904.html
[2] “Corporate Offices & Headquarters”. Chipolte. (2015)
(Website). http://corporateofficehq.com/chipotle-corporateoffice/
[3] “Code of Ethics”. American Institute of Chemical
Engineers.
(2015).
(Online).
http://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics
[4] “NSPE Code of Ethics”. National Society of Professional
Engineers.
(2015).
(Online)
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[5] “Statement of Ethical Principles-for the Engineering
Profession”. Engineering Council and Royal Academy of
Engineer.
(April
2014)
(Online
Article).
http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/other/statement-ofethical-principles
[6] Nathan Khal. “Learning from Failures”. CEES Ethics
Column. National Academy of Engineers. (November 2009).
(Online
Article).
http://www.onlineethics.org/Topics/LegalIssues/LegalEssay
s/Failures.aspx
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
“Public Health and Safety-Delay in Addressing Fire Code
Violations” National Society of Professional Engineers.
(2013)
(Online).
http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/BER%20Case%20No
%2013-11-FINAL.pdf
“The Cost of Integrity” Web guru- Guide for Undergraduate
Research.
(1999).
(Online).
http://www.webguru.neu.edu/professionalism/casestudies/cost-integrity
“What's the Angle? (Case 1010)”. National Institute for
Engineering Ethics. (1 October 2014) Texas Tech University.
(Online).
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.ph
p
The Decision and Future Thoughts
In this given scenario, after reviewing and analyzing all the
sources presented above and weighing the outcomes of each
decision, I would present the headquarters of Chipotle with
the LEED certificate. I come to this conclusion because the
effects of giving Chipotle the LEED certificate, even though
at some point in time it might not be fulfilling those
requirements, can inspire other companies to take action and
create more environmentally friendly buildings. Thus, the
small lie, or lack of detail in my work, will create a much
larger and positive impact in the world. For future engineers
that might stumble upon a tough ethical scenario like the one
presented above, I would recommend that they first go
through the code of ethics in their respected disciplines, and
make sure they are following these codes. Then I would
beseech them to put away their own tendencies of what is
good, in their eyes, and choose what is best for the world as a
community.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Market Central for providing an
environment where I can revise my paper, as well as, satisfy
my hungry. I would also like to thank the boys on my floor
for all of their moral support as I went on this ethical journey.
.
3
Tanner Prime
4