This is an examination of an ethical case study. The facts are as follows. An Engineer has been hired to provide risk assessment for a residential development project in a coastal area with no building code. The Engineer determines that the project should be built on a high elevation, to prevent rising coastal waters from damaging the project in the future. The Company who hired the engineer refuses to agree with this assessment, because it will cost more. Relevant moral factors for this case, in order of importance, are conflicting responsibilities, differing ideals about the public welfare, and different goals for longevity of results.
From the two people asked about the issue, different responses were obtained. From the first one, it was suggested that the Engineer give their recommendation to the Company and just move on. The second response was that the Engineer should report the Company’s refusal to a higher authority, and then quit working with the Company. An alternative course of action to these options would be to reason with the company, try and make them see that this course is the best possible one, in terms of longevity, and ultimately cost-effectiveness. The website where this case study was found suggested that the Engineer attend public forums about the project, and further argue their case there. Based on these options, the best course of action is for the Engineer to reason with the Company about their refusal and explain the data thoroughly. If the Company still refuses, then the Engineer should report their findings to a higher authority. This choice of action gives a chance for the Company to see the Engineer’s ideals about longevity and public welfare, and change their own morals in favor. It also has a contingency plan in case the Company still refuses, so the Engineer can get their report on the official record in case something goes wrong or the project gets taken to court eventually.
If I were the Engineer in this scenario, I would do what I recommended above. Reasoning with the Company seems to be a good idea, and it’s possible they would change their opinion about it if I appealed to their money-centric views. They could market the project as a global climate change resistant complex and sell the properties for a lot more that way. If they still refused to build the project to a 100-year surge protected ideal, I would feel uneasy about reporting them but probably do it anyway; after all, I would feel terrible if people were hurt or had their homes destroyed by a rising tide that was preventable and I didn’t do everything in my power to stop it. My decision falls in line with what the case study ruled. However, its decisions were more logic-driven, like explaining the scientific evidence and reporting the refusal immediately to authorities. I agree with explaining the scientific evidence, but reporting the refusal right away might make the Company angry and even less likely to build the complex up to my codes, which wouldn’t help my case at all.