Joseph Ellin's Commentary: Teaching Engineering Ethics-Exceeding Pollution Limits
Author(s):
Joseph Ellin
I
This case involves a violation of environmental regulations
which may be more 'technical' than real. Wolfog Co is faced
with $200,000 unnecessary expenses to prevent small excess
omissions which are not believed to be harmful to anyone but a
few fish. The obvious course here is for Wolfog to apply to the
DNR for a variance. Their lawyers can try to convince the DNR
that the slight excess poses little danger. If they don't get
the variance, they'll have to conform, or go to court; though
all this will probably cost Wolfog more than the cost of
compliance.
However there's nothing to be done on an individual basis.
Manager Edgar Owens should not expect engineer marvin to
'adjust' the data and Marvin shouldn't do it. Edgar's reasoning
is self-serving:if he's worried about image and tourism he
should comply with the regulations. It may well be true that if
Wolfog has to spend the $200,000 which they can't afford,
they're in trouble, but the answer, if there is an answer, is
not to fake data.
II
This might be one of those cases in which most people are
better off if the law is violated rather than obeyed. Such
situations are probably more common than realized. It's not the
discharge itself which does any harm, but the fact that it's
not in conformity to the regulations, since this creates the
image problem and scares away the tourists. This obviously
makes an excellent case for loosening the regulations:
regulations should not be more onerous than necessary to
achieve their purpose. The more people who have a stake in
economic development, the more likely is this case to be heard
by the authorities.
III
Whether Deborah, the DNR water quality official, would agree
that the violation is a 'mere technicality,' depends on
Deborah. We don't know enough about her; if she's a radical
environmentalist, she thinks zero dead fish is the only
tolerable condition, and no cost is too great to achieve it.
She also may think there is no such thing as a technical
violation: a violation is a violation,may be her enforcement
motto. One might take the view that if she thinks this, she
shouldn't be in her position, but perhaps her boss thinks so
too. Perhaps this is the motto of the entire DNR, which if it
is shows something about the irrationality we've gotten
ourselves into.
IV
Would the parents agree that the violation is merely
technical? Probably not; the local parents have been whipped up
by the environmentalists and the media to think that any drop
of anything is dangerous. They want jobs, economic progress,
low taxes, low prices, and a pristine environment as well, (who
doesn't?) and they are not wiling or able to understand the
issues involved. And they vote.
V
So given this hypothetical gloomy situation, is the over-all
best solution that Marvin should just fake the data? One might
make such an argument from a narrow act utilitarian point of
view, but for all sorts of reasons including long-range utility
it isn't right for anyone to submit a fake report, so the
question whether everyone might do so is purely hypothetical.
Another question would be, if it's right to grant a variance to
Wolfog, is it right to grant a variance to every plant? And the
answer would be yes, which is not an argument not to grant the
variance to Wolfog, unless there is a comparable compelling
reason at the other industries (for example, it might not cost
everybody $200,000 to clean up). If there is, then the DNR is
within its rights in denying the variance. If all the factories
together produce a total discharge that is dangerous, the
situation changes by that fact. But if there are no other
plants in Wolfog's situation, then the so-called principle of
universalizability should not be used as an excuse to impose
hardships on one firm without any compensating gain for anyone
except the few fish.
VI
Marvin shouldn't fake the data. The rest is up to the people
at Wolfog.