3) The Issues
As we saw in the last post, Emmett makes the difficult decision to approve the software, despite his knowledge of a critical bug. Let's explore what went wrong that put him in that decision, and what choices he had.
Let's start when BiffCo began bidding on the FAA contract. The company knowingly underbid the project because of fierce competition, which led to the shortage of manpower and deadline crunch that eventually caused Emmett's conundrum. Was it morally justified to underbid, and then understaff the contract? The employees were concerned about their job security, due to the company's uncertain future. Does that justify the behavior, even when you know it might cause future dilemmas and compromise safety?
Emmett later discovers the bug that could lead to a devastating crash. He brings it up to his boss, Martin, only to be told that they cannot possibly miss the deadline, or it would mean disaster for the entire aerospace division of BiffCo. Thousands of people would lose their jobs, many of whom Emmett knew personally and was quite fond. How can one reconcile the private struggles of a company, or an individual, with the imperative to protect public safety? What tradeoffs are morally allowable? When does deferring public safety become immoral?
Part of Martin's justification for why it's fine to submit the software with the bug is that the FAA will conduct their own testing before using the software, and will not rely on it working properly until the testing is finished. Is it moral for Martin (and Emmett) to rely on others to prevent a catastrophe they have predicted? If multiple parties use this same rationale and the catastrophe manifests itself, who is responsible for the failure?
In the case that there is a catastrophe, Emmet (due to his leaving the company for reasons of moral objection) does not receive any of the substantial punishment levied against the company. On the one hand, he voiced his concerns to his boss and was (somewhat) overruled. On the other hand, he did agree to the plan that was eventually followed. Should he claim some of the responsibility for the failure? Does the answer change if he left the company for practical, rather than moral, reasons?
Finally, we discuss two specific possible outcomes of Emmett's decision. In one case, the bug causes no damage and everything works out for everyone. In the other case, the bug coalesces with other failures to lead to a devastating plane crash and several deaths. Many people would evaluate these two situations separately, and come to separate conclusions. But does the outcome affect the morality? Why? If outcome affects morality, how can one ever evaluate the morality of their present actions?
Let's start when BiffCo began bidding on the FAA contract. The company knowingly underbid the project because of fierce competition, which led to the shortage of manpower and deadline crunch that eventually caused Emmett's conundrum. Was it morally justified to underbid, and then understaff the contract? The employees were concerned about their job security, due to the company's uncertain future. Does that justify the behavior, even when you know it might cause future dilemmas and compromise safety?
Emmett later discovers the bug that could lead to a devastating crash. He brings it up to his boss, Martin, only to be told that they cannot possibly miss the deadline, or it would mean disaster for the entire aerospace division of BiffCo. Thousands of people would lose their jobs, many of whom Emmett knew personally and was quite fond. How can one reconcile the private struggles of a company, or an individual, with the imperative to protect public safety? What tradeoffs are morally allowable? When does deferring public safety become immoral?
Part of Martin's justification for why it's fine to submit the software with the bug is that the FAA will conduct their own testing before using the software, and will not rely on it working properly until the testing is finished. Is it moral for Martin (and Emmett) to rely on others to prevent a catastrophe they have predicted? If multiple parties use this same rationale and the catastrophe manifests itself, who is responsible for the failure?
In the case that there is a catastrophe, Emmet (due to his leaving the company for reasons of moral objection) does not receive any of the substantial punishment levied against the company. On the one hand, he voiced his concerns to his boss and was (somewhat) overruled. On the other hand, he did agree to the plan that was eventually followed. Should he claim some of the responsibility for the failure? Does the answer change if he left the company for practical, rather than moral, reasons?
Finally, we discuss two specific possible outcomes of Emmett's decision. In one case, the bug causes no damage and everything works out for everyone. In the other case, the bug coalesces with other failures to lead to a devastating plane crash and several deaths. Many people would evaluate these two situations separately, and come to separate conclusions. But does the outcome affect the morality? Why? If outcome affects morality, how can one ever evaluate the morality of their present actions?
Comments
Post a Comment