This semester, we have been studying the ethical decision-making process, which will culminate in the examination of a case study. Your group should begin by searching through the literature for a case in technology or engineering. It should involve a clear moral issue and have taken place within the past ten years (as far back as 2011). If the issue is too easily resolved, chances are it’s not really much of an issue. (For example, do we really need to do any analysis to determine whether or not we should exercise caution when dealing with nuclear energy?) My hope is that you will take this as an opportunity to explore a case of interest and see how moral theories may be applied. Some previously submitted paper topics include the following:
BP Oil Spill
BP Refinery Explosion
Columbia Space Shuttle
Crane Collapse Cases (New York)
Exide Technology (Toxic Battery Disposal)
Flint Michigan (Contaminated Water)
GM Ignition
I-35 Bridge Collapse
Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
New Orleans Levee System (Katrina)
Apple/Foxconn Work Conditions
Boeing 737 MAX
Toyota Acceleration Problem
PG&E Explosion
Hydraulic Fracturing Cases
Sriracha factory
TSA Body Scanner
VW Emissions Case
You will examine a single case (a specific instance, not a general issue) from the perspective of a decision-making person or entity (e.g., an engineer or company). In doing so, you should do your best to neutrally focus on the information available to the decision maker and avoid drawing premature conclusions about what is right or wrong—conclusions should be based on the application of moral theory.
As we learn moral theories, we will work towards developing decision procedures so that they may be more easily applied to cases. It is these decision procedures which will help us determine the morally permissible or morally correct course of action. Sometimes multiple moral theories may yield the same results; other times, they will diverge and force us to develop a reasoned consensus within a group.
Once you have determined the appropriate course of action, based on moral theories (i.e., the looking forward as the decision-maker), you will then step back and revisit the entire history of the case. Failure is often what allows engineers to become more innovative. So, as you look back [with hindsight], you might see if there is anything engineers should learn from the case. Were there any impediments to responsible action? It is also worthwhile to ask how well your moral decision making went. Would it have resulted in what would historically seem a mistake? If so, how do you account for that? (Mistake in application of moral theory, bad moral theory, or just unhappy consequences)
Finally, each group must select a different case. These cases with then be presented in Prof. Yazdy’s or Prof. Rodriguez’s module.
A discussion forum will be set up to allow you to see what others are doing and announce the case you’ve chosen.
REQUIREMENTS:
Papers must be typed and double-spaced, using standard fonts and margins (e.g., 1-inch margins, Arial 12) and should be roughly 16-25 pages in length for groups of 4 (roughly 4-5 pages per person). Be sure to cite your sources, whether using direct quotes or paraphrase. You should also include page numbers as part of your in-text citation (regardless of the citation style used).
Students should identify their contributions to the paper. Please create a table of contents and clearly label and detail who wrote/contributed to what section. In addition, use headings and subheadings throughout the paper which clearly indicate authorship.
ONE team member should be designated to submit the assignment via Canvas/Turnitin. That person and only that person should submit your work.
This paper is intended to be completed in stages, where earlier stages MUST be complete so the next stage may be undertaken. So, any student who fails to complete his or her contribution within the group’s deadline may be subject to penalty, including a failing assignment grade (and therefore failing course grade). NOTE: In order to effectively write a paper in stages, each stage must be complete when it’s submitted. This means that you may not go back to an earlier stage and make changes, as this would undermine your analysis. Any student who fails to complete his or her contribution by the course deadline will receive a FAILING course grade.
In addition to writing and submitting each stage of the case analysis, the group should review the similarity report and remove any plagiarized material. The previously designated team member will be responsible for resubmitting the corrected version of each stage of the paper.
Group review of each stage of the paper is NOT OPTIONAL. It will help ensure that you have properly cited your sources and give you a final opportunity to remove plagiarized material. So, submitting your paper without this review isn’t only imprudent, it’s a kind of academic fraud.
Remember, failing to cite sources is plagiarism. This and *any* kind of cheating is grounds for failing the course. This means that ALL members of the group will fail the course if a paper is submitted with plagiarized content. NO EXCEPTIONS.
As noted in the syllabus, failure to complete this culminating course project will result in a failing course grade.
NO late papers will be accepted.
CASE ANALYSIS – Section Breakdown
I. Introduction: Provide overview of case, state the moral tests that will be used to determine the morally appropriate action, and what that action is. [Hint: write this last]
II. Provide relevant details of case: Identify the person or entity who is the decision-maker; what obligations does this person or entity have? Explain.
Identify factual, conceptual, application, and moral issues. Select the central moral issue, which will then be the focus of the rest of the paper.
Identify and discuss any impediments to morally responsible actions AND blind spots. Remember, you’re still looking forward, so look for anything that would constitute an impediment to morally responsible judgment making. (If you prefer, you can instead include this section near the end of the paper. Your task, in that case, would be to use hindsight to determine if some impediment or blind spots led to poor decisions.)
**Each person must contribute research to this section, using a different source. No more than one person may cite Wikipedia. This is to make sure you’re in agreement as to the basic facts of the case. As a group, you should then integrate your research together, creating one cohesive, non-repetitive section.**
III. Test by Moral Theories: Select moral theories to be used. [Note: If a moral theory has multiple tests, you are expected to apply all tests associated with that theory.]
Remember, your goal is to put yourself in the place of the decision-maker and then use the moral theories (from the decision making procedures handout) to make a decision. In other words, the decision should be made without the benefit of hindsight.
Explain the moral theory being applied in your OWN words (e.g., what is utilitarianism and what tests may be derived from the theory). Your goal is to show that you understand the material. Then, explain the application of the theory and results.
ALL group members must apply a different moral theory from the list below, beginning with theories i, ii, and iii. All groups should apply theories i-iii, regardless of group size. Additional members should look to iv-vi for their theories to apply. Remember, your group members should not apply the same theories.
Available Moral Theories
Consequentialism: Utilitarianism
Deontology: Kantian Ethics (or Respect for Persons)
Virtue Ethics
Professional Codes of Ethics
Existentialist Ethics
Creative Middle Ways
**When explaining moral theories (i-iii), you must make reference to our text, A Concise Introduction to Ethics or The Fundamentals of Ethics, by the same author. You’ll need to use other sources to explain the other theories.**
IV. Interpretation of Results: Now that three or more tests have been applied, what may be decided? Do all the theories point to the same solution? If they differ, the group must decide how to handle the conflicting results. Doing so requires a reasoned argument which shows why it is reasonable, preferable, etc., to act as you decided. To do this, please note:
A. Each person in the group should provide a reasoned analysis of the results and draw a conclusion (i.e., based on what everyone has said, what should be done & why).
B. Then, as a group, you must review the individual analyses/interpretations and come to some agreement as to what ought to be done. All should contribute to interpreting the results of the analysis as well as the final editing and smoothing out of the entire paper. The paper should read seamlessly and not appear choppy (with the exception of the individual analyses).
V. Hindsight/Conclusion: You should not only recap the results of your analysis… you should also now use your understanding of the history of the case (what the decision-maker decided and what happened after the decision was made) to explain what you have learned and what other engineers should learn from the case. Was there a difference between the “want” and “should” self in this case? Would application of moral theory have averted the incident or avoided the problem? If not, any thoughts on how we need to modify our decision-making so as to avoid problems like this in the future.
Tasks to Complete Case Analysis
Stage One: DUE November 5
Group Selection/Assignment
Selection of Moral Theories each group member will apply
Case Analysis Topic Selection
Case Analysis Research
Moral Issue Selection
Complete Case Analysis Sections I-III
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE
Stage Two: DUE November 19
Addition of Individual Analyses / Group Interpretation
Formulate Conclusion
Reflections: Hindsight
Complete Case Analysis Sections IV-V
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE[supanova_question]
IME 4020 Case Analysis (Group Paper): Looking Forward, Looking Back This semester,
IME 4020 Case Analysis (Group Paper): Looking Forward, Looking Back
This semester, we have been studying the ethical decision-making process, which will culminate in the examination of a case study. Your group should begin by searching through the literature for a case in technology or engineering. It should involve a clear moral issue and have taken place within the past ten years (as far back as 2011). If the issue is too easily resolved, chances are it’s not really much of an issue. (For example, do we really need to do any analysis to determine whether or not we should exercise caution when dealing with nuclear energy?) My hope is that you will take this as an opportunity to explore a case of interest and see how moral theories may be applied. Some previously submitted paper topics include the following:
BP Oil Spill
BP Refinery Explosion
Columbia Space Shuttle
Crane Collapse Cases (New York)
Exide Technology (Toxic Battery Disposal)
Flint Michigan (Contaminated Water)
GM Ignition
I-35 Bridge Collapse
Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
New Orleans Levee System (Katrina)
Apple/Foxconn Work Conditions
Boeing 737 MAX
Toyota Acceleration Problem
PG&E Explosion
Hydraulic Fracturing Cases
Sriracha factory
TSA Body Scanner
VW Emissions Case
You will examine a single case (a specific instance, not a general issue) from the perspective of a decision-making person or entity (e.g., an engineer or company). In doing so, you should do your best to neutrally focus on the information available to the decision maker and avoid drawing premature conclusions about what is right or wrong—conclusions should be based on the application of moral theory.
As we learn moral theories, we will work towards developing decision procedures so that they may be more easily applied to cases. It is these decision procedures which will help us determine the morally permissible or morally correct course of action. Sometimes multiple moral theories may yield the same results; other times, they will diverge and force us to develop a reasoned consensus within a group.
Once you have determined the appropriate course of action, based on moral theories (i.e., the looking forward as the decision-maker), you will then step back and revisit the entire history of the case. Failure is often what allows engineers to become more innovative. So, as you look back [with hindsight], you might see if there is anything engineers should learn from the case. Were there any impediments to responsible action? It is also worthwhile to ask how well your moral decision making went. Would it have resulted in what would historically seem a mistake? If so, how do you account for that? (Mistake in application of moral theory, bad moral theory, or just unhappy consequences)
Finally, each group must select a different case. These cases with then be presented in Prof. Yazdy’s or Prof. Rodriguez’s module.
A discussion forum will be set up to allow you to see what others are doing and announce the case you’ve chosen.
REQUIREMENTS:
Papers must be typed and double-spaced, using standard fonts and margins (e.g., 1-inch margins, Arial 12) and should be roughly 16-25 pages in length for groups of 4 (roughly 4-5 pages per person). Be sure to cite your sources, whether using direct quotes or paraphrase. You should also include page numbers as part of your in-text citation (regardless of the citation style used).
Students should identify their contributions to the paper. Please create a table of contents and clearly label and detail who wrote/contributed to what section. In addition, use headings and subheadings throughout the paper which clearly indicate authorship.
ONE team member should be designated to submit the assignment via Canvas/Turnitin. That person and only that person should submit your work.
This paper is intended to be completed in stages, where earlier stages MUST be complete so the next stage may be undertaken. So, any student who fails to complete his or her contribution within the group’s deadline may be subject to penalty, including a failing assignment grade (and therefore failing course grade). NOTE: In order to effectively write a paper in stages, each stage must be complete when it’s submitted. This means that you may not go back to an earlier stage and make changes, as this would undermine your analysis. Any student who fails to complete his or her contribution by the course deadline will receive a FAILING course grade.
In addition to writing and submitting each stage of the case analysis, the group should review the similarity report and remove any plagiarized material. The previously designated team member will be responsible for resubmitting the corrected version of each stage of the paper.
Group review of each stage of the paper is NOT OPTIONAL. It will help ensure that you have properly cited your sources and give you a final opportunity to remove plagiarized material. So, submitting your paper without this review isn’t only imprudent, it’s a kind of academic fraud.
Remember, failing to cite sources is plagiarism. This and *any* kind of cheating is grounds for failing the course. This means that ALL members of the group will fail the course if a paper is submitted with plagiarized content. NO EXCEPTIONS.
As noted in the syllabus, failure to complete this culminating course project will result in a failing course grade.
NO late papers will be accepted.
CASE ANALYSIS – Section Breakdown
I. Introduction: Provide overview of case, state the moral tests that will be used to determine the morally appropriate action, and what that action is. [Hint: write this last]
II. Provide relevant details of case: Identify the person or entity who is the decision-maker; what obligations does this person or entity have? Explain.
Identify factual, conceptual, application, and moral issues. Select the central moral issue, which will then be the focus of the rest of the paper.
Identify and discuss any impediments to morally responsible actions AND blind spots. Remember, you’re still looking forward, so look for anything that would constitute an impediment to morally responsible judgment making. (If you prefer, you can instead include this section near the end of the paper. Your task, in that case, would be to use hindsight to determine if some impediment or blind spots led to poor decisions.)
**Each person must contribute research to this section, using a different source. No more than one person may cite Wikipedia. This is to make sure you’re in agreement as to the basic facts of the case. As a group, you should then integrate your research together, creating one cohesive, non-repetitive section.**
III. Test by Moral Theories: Select moral theories to be used. [Note: If a moral theory has multiple tests, you are expected to apply all tests associated with that theory.]
Remember, your goal is to put yourself in the place of the decision-maker and then use the moral theories (from the decision making procedures handout) to make a decision. In other words, the decision should be made without the benefit of hindsight.
Explain the moral theory being applied in your OWN words (e.g., what is utilitarianism and what tests may be derived from the theory). Your goal is to show that you understand the material. Then, explain the application of the theory and results.
ALL group members must apply a different moral theory from the list below, beginning with theories i, ii, and iii. All groups should apply theories i-iii, regardless of group size. Additional members should look to iv-vi for their theories to apply. Remember, your group members should not apply the same theories.
Available Moral Theories
Consequentialism: Utilitarianism
Deontology: Kantian Ethics (or Respect for Persons)
Virtue Ethics
Professional Codes of Ethics
Existentialist Ethics
Creative Middle Ways
**When explaining moral theories (i-iii), you must make reference to our text, A Concise Introduction to Ethics or The Fundamentals of Ethics, by the same author. You’ll need to use other sources to explain the other theories.**
IV. Interpretation of Results: Now that three or more tests have been applied, what may be decided? Do all the theories point to the same solution? If they differ, the group must decide how to handle the conflicting results. Doing so requires a reasoned argument which shows why it is reasonable, preferable, etc., to act as you decided. To do this, please note:
A. Each person in the group should provide a reasoned analysis of the results and draw a conclusion (i.e., based on what everyone has said, what should be done & why).
B. Then, as a group, you must review the individual analyses/interpretations and come to some agreement as to what ought to be done. All should contribute to interpreting the results of the analysis as well as the final editing and smoothing out of the entire paper. The paper should read seamlessly and not appear choppy (with the exception of the individual analyses).
V. Hindsight/Conclusion: You should not only recap the results of your analysis… you should also now use your understanding of the history of the case (what the decision-maker decided and what happened after the decision was made) to explain what you have learned and what other engineers should learn from the case. Was there a difference between the “want” and “should” self in this case? Would application of moral theory have averted the incident or avoided the problem? If not, any thoughts on how we need to modify our decision-making so as to avoid problems like this in the future.
Tasks to Complete Case Analysis
Stage One: DUE November 5
Group Selection/Assignment
Selection of Moral Theories each group member will apply
Case Analysis Topic Selection
Case Analysis Research
Moral Issue Selection
Complete Case Analysis Sections I-III
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE
Stage Two: DUE November 19
Addition of Individual Analyses / Group Interpretation
Formulate Conclusion
Reflections: Hindsight
Complete Case Analysis Sections IV-V
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE[supanova_question]
IME 4020 Case Analysis (Group Paper): Looking Forward, Looking Back This semester,
IME 4020 Case Analysis (Group Paper): Looking Forward, Looking Back
This semester, we have been studying the ethical decision-making process, which will culminate in the examination of a case study. Your group should begin by searching through the literature for a case in technology or engineering. It should involve a clear moral issue and have taken place within the past ten years (as far back as 2011). If the issue is too easily resolved, chances are it’s not really much of an issue. (For example, do we really need to do any analysis to determine whether or not we should exercise caution when dealing with nuclear energy?) My hope is that you will take this as an opportunity to explore a case of interest and see how moral theories may be applied. Some previously submitted paper topics include the following:
BP Oil Spill
BP Refinery Explosion
Columbia Space Shuttle
Crane Collapse Cases (New York)
Exide Technology (Toxic Battery Disposal)
Flint Michigan (Contaminated Water)
GM Ignition
I-35 Bridge Collapse
Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
New Orleans Levee System (Katrina)
Apple/Foxconn Work Conditions
Boeing 737 MAX
Toyota Acceleration Problem
PG&E Explosion
Hydraulic Fracturing Cases
Sriracha factory
TSA Body Scanner
VW Emissions Case
You will examine a single case (a specific instance, not a general issue) from the perspective of a decision-making person or entity (e.g., an engineer or company). In doing so, you should do your best to neutrally focus on the information available to the decision maker and avoid drawing premature conclusions about what is right or wrong—conclusions should be based on the application of moral theory.
As we learn moral theories, we will work towards developing decision procedures so that they may be more easily applied to cases. It is these decision procedures which will help us determine the morally permissible or morally correct course of action. Sometimes multiple moral theories may yield the same results; other times, they will diverge and force us to develop a reasoned consensus within a group.
Once you have determined the appropriate course of action, based on moral theories (i.e., the looking forward as the decision-maker), you will then step back and revisit the entire history of the case. Failure is often what allows engineers to become more innovative. So, as you look back [with hindsight], you might see if there is anything engineers should learn from the case. Were there any impediments to responsible action? It is also worthwhile to ask how well your moral decision making went. Would it have resulted in what would historically seem a mistake? If so, how do you account for that? (Mistake in application of moral theory, bad moral theory, or just unhappy consequences)
Finally, each group must select a different case. These cases with then be presented in Prof. Yazdy’s or Prof. Rodriguez’s module.
A discussion forum will be set up to allow you to see what others are doing and announce the case you’ve chosen.
REQUIREMENTS:
Papers must be typed and double-spaced, using standard fonts and margins (e.g., 1-inch margins, Arial 12) and should be roughly 16-25 pages in length for groups of 4 (roughly 4-5 pages per person). Be sure to cite your sources, whether using direct quotes or paraphrase. You should also include page numbers as part of your in-text citation (regardless of the citation style used).
Students should identify their contributions to the paper. Please create a table of contents and clearly label and detail who wrote/contributed to what section. In addition, use headings and subheadings throughout the paper which clearly indicate authorship.
ONE team member should be designated to submit the assignment via Canvas/Turnitin. That person and only that person should submit your work.
This paper is intended to be completed in stages, where earlier stages MUST be complete so the next stage may be undertaken. So, any student who fails to complete his or her contribution within the group’s deadline may be subject to penalty, including a failing assignment grade (and therefore failing course grade). NOTE: In order to effectively write a paper in stages, each stage must be complete when it’s submitted. This means that you may not go back to an earlier stage and make changes, as this would undermine your analysis. Any student who fails to complete his or her contribution by the course deadline will receive a FAILING course grade.
In addition to writing and submitting each stage of the case analysis, the group should review the similarity report and remove any plagiarized material. The previously designated team member will be responsible for resubmitting the corrected version of each stage of the paper.
Group review of each stage of the paper is NOT OPTIONAL. It will help ensure that you have properly cited your sources and give you a final opportunity to remove plagiarized material. So, submitting your paper without this review isn’t only imprudent, it’s a kind of academic fraud.
Remember, failing to cite sources is plagiarism. This and *any* kind of cheating is grounds for failing the course. This means that ALL members of the group will fail the course if a paper is submitted with plagiarized content. NO EXCEPTIONS.
As noted in the syllabus, failure to complete this culminating course project will result in a failing course grade.
NO late papers will be accepted.
CASE ANALYSIS – Section Breakdown
I. Introduction: Provide overview of case, state the moral tests that will be used to determine the morally appropriate action, and what that action is. [Hint: write this last]
II. Provide relevant details of case: Identify the person or entity who is the decision-maker; what obligations does this person or entity have? Explain.
Identify factual, conceptual, application, and moral issues. Select the central moral issue, which will then be the focus of the rest of the paper.
Identify and discuss any impediments to morally responsible actions AND blind spots. Remember, you’re still looking forward, so look for anything that would constitute an impediment to morally responsible judgment making. (If you prefer, you can instead include this section near the end of the paper. Your task, in that case, would be to use hindsight to determine if some impediment or blind spots led to poor decisions.)
**Each person must contribute research to this section, using a different source. No more than one person may cite Wikipedia. This is to make sure you’re in agreement as to the basic facts of the case. As a group, you should then integrate your research together, creating one cohesive, non-repetitive section.**
III. Test by Moral Theories: Select moral theories to be used. [Note: If a moral theory has multiple tests, you are expected to apply all tests associated with that theory.]
Remember, your goal is to put yourself in the place of the decision-maker and then use the moral theories (from the decision making procedures handout) to make a decision. In other words, the decision should be made without the benefit of hindsight.
Explain the moral theory being applied in your OWN words (e.g., what is utilitarianism and what tests may be derived from the theory). Your goal is to show that you understand the material. Then, explain the application of the theory and results.
ALL group members must apply a different moral theory from the list below, beginning with theories i, ii, and iii. All groups should apply theories i-iii, regardless of group size. Additional members should look to iv-vi for their theories to apply. Remember, your group members should not apply the same theories.
Available Moral Theories
Consequentialism: Utilitarianism
Deontology: Kantian Ethics (or Respect for Persons)
Virtue Ethics
Professional Codes of Ethics
Existentialist Ethics
Creative Middle Ways
**When explaining moral theories (i-iii), you must make reference to our text, A Concise Introduction to Ethics or The Fundamentals of Ethics, by the same author. You’ll need to use other sources to explain the other theories.**
IV. Interpretation of Results: Now that three or more tests have been applied, what may be decided? Do all the theories point to the same solution? If they differ, the group must decide how to handle the conflicting results. Doing so requires a reasoned argument which shows why it is reasonable, preferable, etc., to act as you decided. To do this, please note:
A. Each person in the group should provide a reasoned analysis of the results and draw a conclusion (i.e., based on what everyone has said, what should be done & why).
B. Then, as a group, you must review the individual analyses/interpretations and come to some agreement as to what ought to be done. All should contribute to interpreting the results of the analysis as well as the final editing and smoothing out of the entire paper. The paper should read seamlessly and not appear choppy (with the exception of the individual analyses).
V. Hindsight/Conclusion: You should not only recap the results of your analysis… you should also now use your understanding of the history of the case (what the decision-maker decided and what happened after the decision was made) to explain what you have learned and what other engineers should learn from the case. Was there a difference between the “want” and “should” self in this case? Would application of moral theory have averted the incident or avoided the problem? If not, any thoughts on how we need to modify our decision-making so as to avoid problems like this in the future.
Tasks to Complete Case Analysis
Stage One: DUE November 5
Group Selection/Assignment
Selection of Moral Theories each group member will apply
Case Analysis Topic Selection
Case Analysis Research
Moral Issue Selection
Complete Case Analysis Sections I-III
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE
Stage Two: DUE November 19
Addition of Individual Analyses / Group Interpretation
Formulate Conclusion
Reflections: Hindsight
Complete Case Analysis Sections IV-V
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE[supanova_question]
IME 4020 Case Analysis (Group Paper): Looking Forward, Looking Back This semester,
Writing Assignment Help IME 4020 Case Analysis (Group Paper): Looking Forward, Looking Back
This semester, we have been studying the ethical decision-making process, which will culminate in the examination of a case study. Your group should begin by searching through the literature for a case in technology or engineering. It should involve a clear moral issue and have taken place within the past ten years (as far back as 2011). If the issue is too easily resolved, chances are it’s not really much of an issue. (For example, do we really need to do any analysis to determine whether or not we should exercise caution when dealing with nuclear energy?) My hope is that you will take this as an opportunity to explore a case of interest and see how moral theories may be applied. Some previously submitted paper topics include the following:
BP Oil Spill
BP Refinery Explosion
Columbia Space Shuttle
Crane Collapse Cases (New York)
Exide Technology (Toxic Battery Disposal)
Flint Michigan (Contaminated Water)
GM Ignition
I-35 Bridge Collapse
Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
New Orleans Levee System (Katrina)
Apple/Foxconn Work Conditions
Boeing 737 MAX
Toyota Acceleration Problem
PG&E Explosion
Hydraulic Fracturing Cases
Sriracha factory
TSA Body Scanner
VW Emissions Case
You will examine a single case (a specific instance, not a general issue) from the perspective of a decision-making person or entity (e.g., an engineer or company). In doing so, you should do your best to neutrally focus on the information available to the decision maker and avoid drawing premature conclusions about what is right or wrong—conclusions should be based on the application of moral theory.
As we learn moral theories, we will work towards developing decision procedures so that they may be more easily applied to cases. It is these decision procedures which will help us determine the morally permissible or morally correct course of action. Sometimes multiple moral theories may yield the same results; other times, they will diverge and force us to develop a reasoned consensus within a group.
Once you have determined the appropriate course of action, based on moral theories (i.e., the looking forward as the decision-maker), you will then step back and revisit the entire history of the case. Failure is often what allows engineers to become more innovative. So, as you look back [with hindsight], you might see if there is anything engineers should learn from the case. Were there any impediments to responsible action? It is also worthwhile to ask how well your moral decision making went. Would it have resulted in what would historically seem a mistake? If so, how do you account for that? (Mistake in application of moral theory, bad moral theory, or just unhappy consequences)
Finally, each group must select a different case. These cases with then be presented in Prof. Yazdy’s or Prof. Rodriguez’s module.
A discussion forum will be set up to allow you to see what others are doing and announce the case you’ve chosen.
REQUIREMENTS:
Papers must be typed and double-spaced, using standard fonts and margins (e.g., 1-inch margins, Arial 12) and should be roughly 16-25 pages in length for groups of 4 (roughly 4-5 pages per person). Be sure to cite your sources, whether using direct quotes or paraphrase. You should also include page numbers as part of your in-text citation (regardless of the citation style used).
Students should identify their contributions to the paper. Please create a table of contents and clearly label and detail who wrote/contributed to what section. In addition, use headings and subheadings throughout the paper which clearly indicate authorship.
ONE team member should be designated to submit the assignment via Canvas/Turnitin. That person and only that person should submit your work.
This paper is intended to be completed in stages, where earlier stages MUST be complete so the next stage may be undertaken. So, any student who fails to complete his or her contribution within the group’s deadline may be subject to penalty, including a failing assignment grade (and therefore failing course grade). NOTE: In order to effectively write a paper in stages, each stage must be complete when it’s submitted. This means that you may not go back to an earlier stage and make changes, as this would undermine your analysis. Any student who fails to complete his or her contribution by the course deadline will receive a FAILING course grade.
In addition to writing and submitting each stage of the case analysis, the group should review the similarity report and remove any plagiarized material. The previously designated team member will be responsible for resubmitting the corrected version of each stage of the paper.
Group review of each stage of the paper is NOT OPTIONAL. It will help ensure that you have properly cited your sources and give you a final opportunity to remove plagiarized material. So, submitting your paper without this review isn’t only imprudent, it’s a kind of academic fraud.
Remember, failing to cite sources is plagiarism. This and *any* kind of cheating is grounds for failing the course. This means that ALL members of the group will fail the course if a paper is submitted with plagiarized content. NO EXCEPTIONS.
As noted in the syllabus, failure to complete this culminating course project will result in a failing course grade.
NO late papers will be accepted.
CASE ANALYSIS – Section Breakdown
I. Introduction: Provide overview of case, state the moral tests that will be used to determine the morally appropriate action, and what that action is. [Hint: write this last]
II. Provide relevant details of case: Identify the person or entity who is the decision-maker; what obligations does this person or entity have? Explain.
Identify factual, conceptual, application, and moral issues. Select the central moral issue, which will then be the focus of the rest of the paper.
Identify and discuss any impediments to morally responsible actions AND blind spots. Remember, you’re still looking forward, so look for anything that would constitute an impediment to morally responsible judgment making. (If you prefer, you can instead include this section near the end of the paper. Your task, in that case, would be to use hindsight to determine if some impediment or blind spots led to poor decisions.)
**Each person must contribute research to this section, using a different source. No more than one person may cite Wikipedia. This is to make sure you’re in agreement as to the basic facts of the case. As a group, you should then integrate your research together, creating one cohesive, non-repetitive section.**
III. Test by Moral Theories: Select moral theories to be used. [Note: If a moral theory has multiple tests, you are expected to apply all tests associated with that theory.]
Remember, your goal is to put yourself in the place of the decision-maker and then use the moral theories (from the decision making procedures handout) to make a decision. In other words, the decision should be made without the benefit of hindsight.
Explain the moral theory being applied in your OWN words (e.g., what is utilitarianism and what tests may be derived from the theory). Your goal is to show that you understand the material. Then, explain the application of the theory and results.
ALL group members must apply a different moral theory from the list below, beginning with theories i, ii, and iii. All groups should apply theories i-iii, regardless of group size. Additional members should look to iv-vi for their theories to apply. Remember, your group members should not apply the same theories.
Available Moral Theories
Consequentialism: Utilitarianism
Deontology: Kantian Ethics (or Respect for Persons)
Virtue Ethics
Professional Codes of Ethics
Existentialist Ethics
Creative Middle Ways
**When explaining moral theories (i-iii), you must make reference to our text, A Concise Introduction to Ethics or The Fundamentals of Ethics, by the same author. You’ll need to use other sources to explain the other theories.**
IV. Interpretation of Results: Now that three or more tests have been applied, what may be decided? Do all the theories point to the same solution? If they differ, the group must decide how to handle the conflicting results. Doing so requires a reasoned argument which shows why it is reasonable, preferable, etc., to act as you decided. To do this, please note:
A. Each person in the group should provide a reasoned analysis of the results and draw a conclusion (i.e., based on what everyone has said, what should be done & why).
B. Then, as a group, you must review the individual analyses/interpretations and come to some agreement as to what ought to be done. All should contribute to interpreting the results of the analysis as well as the final editing and smoothing out of the entire paper. The paper should read seamlessly and not appear choppy (with the exception of the individual analyses).
V. Hindsight/Conclusion: You should not only recap the results of your analysis… you should also now use your understanding of the history of the case (what the decision-maker decided and what happened after the decision was made) to explain what you have learned and what other engineers should learn from the case. Was there a difference between the “want” and “should” self in this case? Would application of moral theory have averted the incident or avoided the problem? If not, any thoughts on how we need to modify our decision-making so as to avoid problems like this in the future.
Tasks to Complete Case Analysis
Stage One: DUE November 5
Group Selection/Assignment
Selection of Moral Theories each group member will apply
Case Analysis Topic Selection
Case Analysis Research
Moral Issue Selection
Complete Case Analysis Sections I-III
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE
Stage Two: DUE November 19
Addition of Individual Analyses / Group Interpretation
Formulate Conclusion
Reflections: Hindsight
Complete Case Analysis Sections IV-V
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE [supanova_question]
IME 4020 Case Analysis (Group Paper): Looking Forward, Looking Back This semester,
IME 4020 Case Analysis (Group Paper): Looking Forward, Looking Back
This semester, we have been studying the ethical decision-making process, which will culminate in the examination of a case study. Your group should begin by searching through the literature for a case in technology or engineering. It should involve a clear moral issue and have taken place within the past ten years (as far back as 2011). If the issue is too easily resolved, chances are it’s not really much of an issue. (For example, do we really need to do any analysis to determine whether or not we should exercise caution when dealing with nuclear energy?) My hope is that you will take this as an opportunity to explore a case of interest and see how moral theories may be applied. Some previously submitted paper topics include the following:
BP Oil Spill
BP Refinery Explosion
Columbia Space Shuttle
Crane Collapse Cases (New York)
Exide Technology (Toxic Battery Disposal)
Flint Michigan (Contaminated Water)
GM Ignition
I-35 Bridge Collapse
Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
New Orleans Levee System (Katrina)
Apple/Foxconn Work Conditions
Boeing 737 MAX
Toyota Acceleration Problem
PG&E Explosion
Hydraulic Fracturing Cases
Sriracha factory
TSA Body Scanner
VW Emissions Case
You will examine a single case (a specific instance, not a general issue) from the perspective of a decision-making person or entity (e.g., an engineer or company). In doing so, you should do your best to neutrally focus on the information available to the decision maker and avoid drawing premature conclusions about what is right or wrong—conclusions should be based on the application of moral theory.
As we learn moral theories, we will work towards developing decision procedures so that they may be more easily applied to cases. It is these decision procedures which will help us determine the morally permissible or morally correct course of action. Sometimes multiple moral theories may yield the same results; other times, they will diverge and force us to develop a reasoned consensus within a group.
Once you have determined the appropriate course of action, based on moral theories (i.e., the looking forward as the decision-maker), you will then step back and revisit the entire history of the case. Failure is often what allows engineers to become more innovative. So, as you look back [with hindsight], you might see if there is anything engineers should learn from the case. Were there any impediments to responsible action? It is also worthwhile to ask how well your moral decision making went. Would it have resulted in what would historically seem a mistake? If so, how do you account for that? (Mistake in application of moral theory, bad moral theory, or just unhappy consequences)
Finally, each group must select a different case. These cases with then be presented in Prof. Yazdy’s or Prof. Rodriguez’s module.
A discussion forum will be set up to allow you to see what others are doing and announce the case you’ve chosen.
REQUIREMENTS:
Papers must be typed and double-spaced, using standard fonts and margins (e.g., 1-inch margins, Arial 12) and should be roughly 16-25 pages in length for groups of 4 (roughly 4-5 pages per person). Be sure to cite your sources, whether using direct quotes or paraphrase. You should also include page numbers as part of your in-text citation (regardless of the citation style used).
Students should identify their contributions to the paper. Please create a table of contents and clearly label and detail who wrote/contributed to what section. In addition, use headings and subheadings throughout the paper which clearly indicate authorship.
ONE team member should be designated to submit the assignment via Canvas/Turnitin. That person and only that person should submit your work.
This paper is intended to be completed in stages, where earlier stages MUST be complete so the next stage may be undertaken. So, any student who fails to complete his or her contribution within the group’s deadline may be subject to penalty, including a failing assignment grade (and therefore failing course grade). NOTE: In order to effectively write a paper in stages, each stage must be complete when it’s submitted. This means that you may not go back to an earlier stage and make changes, as this would undermine your analysis. Any student who fails to complete his or her contribution by the course deadline will receive a FAILING course grade.
In addition to writing and submitting each stage of the case analysis, the group should review the similarity report and remove any plagiarized material. The previously designated team member will be responsible for resubmitting the corrected version of each stage of the paper.
Group review of each stage of the paper is NOT OPTIONAL. It will help ensure that you have properly cited your sources and give you a final opportunity to remove plagiarized material. So, submitting your paper without this review isn’t only imprudent, it’s a kind of academic fraud.
Remember, failing to cite sources is plagiarism. This and *any* kind of cheating is grounds for failing the course. This means that ALL members of the group will fail the course if a paper is submitted with plagiarized content. NO EXCEPTIONS.
As noted in the syllabus, failure to complete this culminating course project will result in a failing course grade.
NO late papers will be accepted.
CASE ANALYSIS – Section Breakdown
I. Introduction: Provide overview of case, state the moral tests that will be used to determine the morally appropriate action, and what that action is. [Hint: write this last]
II. Provide relevant details of case: Identify the person or entity who is the decision-maker; what obligations does this person or entity have? Explain.
Identify factual, conceptual, application, and moral issues. Select the central moral issue, which will then be the focus of the rest of the paper.
Identify and discuss any impediments to morally responsible actions AND blind spots. Remember, you’re still looking forward, so look for anything that would constitute an impediment to morally responsible judgment making. (If you prefer, you can instead include this section near the end of the paper. Your task, in that case, would be to use hindsight to determine if some impediment or blind spots led to poor decisions.)
**Each person must contribute research to this section, using a different source. No more than one person may cite Wikipedia. This is to make sure you’re in agreement as to the basic facts of the case. As a group, you should then integrate your research together, creating one cohesive, non-repetitive section.**
III. Test by Moral Theories: Select moral theories to be used. [Note: If a moral theory has multiple tests, you are expected to apply all tests associated with that theory.]
Remember, your goal is to put yourself in the place of the decision-maker and then use the moral theories (from the decision making procedures handout) to make a decision. In other words, the decision should be made without the benefit of hindsight.
Explain the moral theory being applied in your OWN words (e.g., what is utilitarianism and what tests may be derived from the theory). Your goal is to show that you understand the material. Then, explain the application of the theory and results.
ALL group members must apply a different moral theory from the list below, beginning with theories i, ii, and iii. All groups should apply theories i-iii, regardless of group size. Additional members should look to iv-vi for their theories to apply. Remember, your group members should not apply the same theories.
Available Moral Theories
Consequentialism: Utilitarianism
Deontology: Kantian Ethics (or Respect for Persons)
Virtue Ethics
Professional Codes of Ethics
Existentialist Ethics
Creative Middle Ways
**When explaining moral theories (i-iii), you must make reference to our text, A Concise Introduction to Ethics or The Fundamentals of Ethics, by the same author. You’ll need to use other sources to explain the other theories.**
IV. Interpretation of Results: Now that three or more tests have been applied, what may be decided? Do all the theories point to the same solution? If they differ, the group must decide how to handle the conflicting results. Doing so requires a reasoned argument which shows why it is reasonable, preferable, etc., to act as you decided. To do this, please note:
A. Each person in the group should provide a reasoned analysis of the results and draw a conclusion (i.e., based on what everyone has said, what should be done & why).
B. Then, as a group, you must review the individual analyses/interpretations and come to some agreement as to what ought to be done. All should contribute to interpreting the results of the analysis as well as the final editing and smoothing out of the entire paper. The paper should read seamlessly and not appear choppy (with the exception of the individual analyses).
V. Hindsight/Conclusion: You should not only recap the results of your analysis… you should also now use your understanding of the history of the case (what the decision-maker decided and what happened after the decision was made) to explain what you have learned and what other engineers should learn from the case. Was there a difference between the “want” and “should” self in this case? Would application of moral theory have averted the incident or avoided the problem? If not, any thoughts on how we need to modify our decision-making so as to avoid problems like this in the future.
Tasks to Complete Case Analysis
Stage One: DUE November 5
Group Selection/Assignment
Selection of Moral Theories each group member will apply
Case Analysis Topic Selection
Case Analysis Research
Moral Issue Selection
Complete Case Analysis Sections I-III
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE
Stage Two: DUE November 19
Addition of Individual Analyses / Group Interpretation
Formulate Conclusion
Reflections: Hindsight
Complete Case Analysis Sections IV-V
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE[supanova_question]
IME 4020 Case Analysis (Group Paper): Looking Forward, Looking Back This semester,
IME 4020 Case Analysis (Group Paper): Looking Forward, Looking Back
This semester, we have been studying the ethical decision-making process, which will culminate in the examination of a case study. Your group should begin by searching through the literature for a case in technology or engineering. It should involve a clear moral issue and have taken place within the past ten years (as far back as 2011). If the issue is too easily resolved, chances are it’s not really much of an issue. (For example, do we really need to do any analysis to determine whether or not we should exercise caution when dealing with nuclear energy?) My hope is that you will take this as an opportunity to explore a case of interest and see how moral theories may be applied. Some previously submitted paper topics include the following:
BP Oil Spill
BP Refinery Explosion
Columbia Space Shuttle
Crane Collapse Cases (New York)
Exide Technology (Toxic Battery Disposal)
Flint Michigan (Contaminated Water)
GM Ignition
I-35 Bridge Collapse
Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
New Orleans Levee System (Katrina)
Apple/Foxconn Work Conditions
Boeing 737 MAX
Toyota Acceleration Problem
PG&E Explosion
Hydraulic Fracturing Cases
Sriracha factory
TSA Body Scanner
VW Emissions Case
You will examine a single case (a specific instance, not a general issue) from the perspective of a decision-making person or entity (e.g., an engineer or company). In doing so, you should do your best to neutrally focus on the information available to the decision maker and avoid drawing premature conclusions about what is right or wrong—conclusions should be based on the application of moral theory.
As we learn moral theories, we will work towards developing decision procedures so that they may be more easily applied to cases. It is these decision procedures which will help us determine the morally permissible or morally correct course of action. Sometimes multiple moral theories may yield the same results; other times, they will diverge and force us to develop a reasoned consensus within a group.
Once you have determined the appropriate course of action, based on moral theories (i.e., the looking forward as the decision-maker), you will then step back and revisit the entire history of the case. Failure is often what allows engineers to become more innovative. So, as you look back [with hindsight], you might see if there is anything engineers should learn from the case. Were there any impediments to responsible action? It is also worthwhile to ask how well your moral decision making went. Would it have resulted in what would historically seem a mistake? If so, how do you account for that? (Mistake in application of moral theory, bad moral theory, or just unhappy consequences)
Finally, each group must select a different case. These cases with then be presented in Prof. Yazdy’s or Prof. Rodriguez’s module.
A discussion forum will be set up to allow you to see what others are doing and announce the case you’ve chosen.
REQUIREMENTS:
Papers must be typed and double-spaced, using standard fonts and margins (e.g., 1-inch margins, Arial 12) and should be roughly 16-25 pages in length for groups of 4 (roughly 4-5 pages per person). Be sure to cite your sources, whether using direct quotes or paraphrase. You should also include page numbers as part of your in-text citation (regardless of the citation style used).
Students should identify their contributions to the paper. Please create a table of contents and clearly label and detail who wrote/contributed to what section. In addition, use headings and subheadings throughout the paper which clearly indicate authorship.
ONE team member should be designated to submit the assignment via Canvas/Turnitin. That person and only that person should submit your work.
This paper is intended to be completed in stages, where earlier stages MUST be complete so the next stage may be undertaken. So, any student who fails to complete his or her contribution within the group’s deadline may be subject to penalty, including a failing assignment grade (and therefore failing course grade). NOTE: In order to effectively write a paper in stages, each stage must be complete when it’s submitted. This means that you may not go back to an earlier stage and make changes, as this would undermine your analysis. Any student who fails to complete his or her contribution by the course deadline will receive a FAILING course grade.
In addition to writing and submitting each stage of the case analysis, the group should review the similarity report and remove any plagiarized material. The previously designated team member will be responsible for resubmitting the corrected version of each stage of the paper.
Group review of each stage of the paper is NOT OPTIONAL. It will help ensure that you have properly cited your sources and give you a final opportunity to remove plagiarized material. So, submitting your paper without this review isn’t only imprudent, it’s a kind of academic fraud.
Remember, failing to cite sources is plagiarism. This and *any* kind of cheating is grounds for failing the course. This means that ALL members of the group will fail the course if a paper is submitted with plagiarized content. NO EXCEPTIONS.
As noted in the syllabus, failure to complete this culminating course project will result in a failing course grade.
NO late papers will be accepted.
CASE ANALYSIS – Section Breakdown
I. Introduction: Provide overview of case, state the moral tests that will be used to determine the morally appropriate action, and what that action is. [Hint: write this last]
II. Provide relevant details of case: Identify the person or entity who is the decision-maker; what obligations does this person or entity have? Explain.
Identify factual, conceptual, application, and moral issues. Select the central moral issue, which will then be the focus of the rest of the paper.
Identify and discuss any impediments to morally responsible actions AND blind spots. Remember, you’re still looking forward, so look for anything that would constitute an impediment to morally responsible judgment making. (If you prefer, you can instead include this section near the end of the paper. Your task, in that case, would be to use hindsight to determine if some impediment or blind spots led to poor decisions.)
**Each person must contribute research to this section, using a different source. No more than one person may cite Wikipedia. This is to make sure you’re in agreement as to the basic facts of the case. As a group, you should then integrate your research together, creating one cohesive, non-repetitive section.**
III. Test by Moral Theories: Select moral theories to be used. [Note: If a moral theory has multiple tests, you are expected to apply all tests associated with that theory.]
Remember, your goal is to put yourself in the place of the decision-maker and then use the moral theories (from the decision making procedures handout) to make a decision. In other words, the decision should be made without the benefit of hindsight.
Explain the moral theory being applied in your OWN words (e.g., what is utilitarianism and what tests may be derived from the theory). Your goal is to show that you understand the material. Then, explain the application of the theory and results.
ALL group members must apply a different moral theory from the list below, beginning with theories i, ii, and iii. All groups should apply theories i-iii, regardless of group size. Additional members should look to iv-vi for their theories to apply. Remember, your group members should not apply the same theories.
Available Moral Theories
Consequentialism: Utilitarianism
Deontology: Kantian Ethics (or Respect for Persons)
Virtue Ethics
Professional Codes of Ethics
Existentialist Ethics
Creative Middle Ways
**When explaining moral theories (i-iii), you must make reference to our text, A Concise Introduction to Ethics or The Fundamentals of Ethics, by the same author. You’ll need to use other sources to explain the other theories.**
IV. Interpretation of Results: Now that three or more tests have been applied, what may be decided? Do all the theories point to the same solution? If they differ, the group must decide how to handle the conflicting results. Doing so requires a reasoned argument which shows why it is reasonable, preferable, etc., to act as you decided. To do this, please note:
A. Each person in the group should provide a reasoned analysis of the results and draw a conclusion (i.e., based on what everyone has said, what should be done & why).
B. Then, as a group, you must review the individual analyses/interpretations and come to some agreement as to what ought to be done. All should contribute to interpreting the results of the analysis as well as the final editing and smoothing out of the entire paper. The paper should read seamlessly and not appear choppy (with the exception of the individual analyses).
V. Hindsight/Conclusion: You should not only recap the results of your analysis… you should also now use your understanding of the history of the case (what the decision-maker decided and what happened after the decision was made) to explain what you have learned and what other engineers should learn from the case. Was there a difference between the “want” and “should” self in this case? Would application of moral theory have averted the incident or avoided the problem? If not, any thoughts on how we need to modify our decision-making so as to avoid problems like this in the future.
Tasks to Complete Case Analysis
Stage One: DUE November 5
Group Selection/Assignment
Selection of Moral Theories each group member will apply
Case Analysis Topic Selection
Case Analysis Research
Moral Issue Selection
Complete Case Analysis Sections I-III
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE
Stage Two: DUE November 19
Addition of Individual Analyses / Group Interpretation
Formulate Conclusion
Reflections: Hindsight
Complete Case Analysis Sections IV-V
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE[supanova_question]