Joseph Ellin's Commentary on "Disposing of Toxic Waste"
L. Bryan Springer is ordered to dump a drum of coolant in a
way that seems to him to be both illegal and harmful to the
environment. He 'ponders his options.' What are they? He has at
least ten. He could comply and (1) keep quiet. He could comply,
but report Max's illegal orders, either (2) within or (3)
outside of the company. Or, (4) he could refuse, quit, and keep
quiet; or refuse, quit, and report Max either (5) within or (6)
outside of the company. Or, he could refuse and wait and see if
Max fires him. If Max does, L. Bryan could (7) leave the
company quietly and get another job; or (8) threaten Max with
reporting him in the hope that Max will not fire him after all;
or, report Max after being fired, again either (9/10) within or
outside of the company.
Should L. Bryan identify and analyze these options and try
to figure out which is the best? One might wonder whether
Bryan's position justifies his making a moral and intellectual
crisis of this incident. One view would be that morality is
'situation independent'-- that every illegality or immorality
must be confronted, no matter who you are or what your relation
is to the wrongdoer. On this view, all that triggers the moral
necessity to act is, knowledge of the wrongful act. Given that
you are required to do something, it follows that you ought to
carefully consider your options and try to determine which is
the morally best. On the other hand, perhaps it is relevant
that L. Bryan holds merely a summer job as a forklift operator,
presumably low-level, though well-paid, unskilled labor. He has
no personal, professional or financial connection to the
company, which to him is merely a meal-ticket back to college.
Is it his responsibility to see that this company's wrongful
actions be corrected? In personal relations, there is a
principle of minding one's own business: sometimes it is best
to overlook what people do, even things you find distasteful or
even shocking, just because it is not up to you to interfere.
Might not such a principle apply to certain employees? On this
view, more than knowledge of the wrong is necessary to justify
some reaction to that wrong. It is hard to say exactly what
that 'more' might be, but following the analogy of personal
relations, perhaps one ought to have a sufficiently strong or
close connection with the wrongdoer.
One reason for the 'mind your own business' principle is
that one thing leads to another. If you do interfere in
something you find unpalatable, you may find yourself drawn
more deeply into a situation than you anticipated or are
prepared to handle. Therefore unless you're already involved
through your relationship with the parties, you should stay
out. In this case, refusing Max's order might not only get L.
Bryan fired, but would put him in the position of having a
second and a third decision to make--whether to fight to retain
the job, and whether to report Max within the company or to an
enforcement agency. Refusing to dump the coolant and then just
walking away from the bad situation (knowing that Max will just
hire someone else who's probably going to be more compliant)
might not seem like an ideal, or even an acceptable, solution.
L. Bryan is not an engineer, not even a graduate student, but
only a college student who has (presumably) neither the
knowledge nor other resources necessary to make a long-term
fight out of this violation. So perhaps L. Bryan might be
forgiven if he were to take Max's advice and do what he's
told.
Yet in the present case, L. Bryan does not merely find out
about the illegal dumping; he is being ordered to perform it
himself. This makes it more difficult--but not out of the
question--to claim that it is not any of his business. L. Bryan
evidently does not share Max's cynicism about environmental
regulations, and his words to Max seem to indicate that he has
strong convictions against violating the regulations and
possibly harming the environment. So he must examine his
conscience and see how strong these feelings really are. If
they are as strong as his words seem to indicate, then it is
clear that he has little choice but to refuse Max's order and
see what Max does about it. He can hardly justify the claim
that he's only following orders and that it isn't important
enough to worry about, when on his own principles dumping
toxins is important enough to worry about.
So L. Bryan has a lot to think about. Before he refuses
Max's order, he might consider some of his options, for
example, whether, should Max fire him, he wants to fight to
keep the job, perhaps by threatening Max to report him to
somebody, if he is willing and able to do that. But if he
chooses to take this route, he has to be sure he's going to
follow up. Of course he also has to consider what he'll do if
Max backs off. Should he report Max's practice anyway? Suppose
Max tells L. Bryan he doesn't have to dump the coolant and then
assigns him to some other job. Should L. Bryan assume that the
illegal dumping is going on as before (they've been doing it
for years after all, long before L. Bryan came around); and if
so, then what does he do? He might feel obliged to snoop around
and find out, with a view to reporting Max anyway. After all,
if he stops at simply getting himself out from under the order
to do the dumping himself, all the while suspecting that the
illegal practice is continuing, he might be guilty of 'clean
hands'--i.e., the position that it's okay if dirty things go on
as long as I don't have to do them. So the situation is more
complicated than college-student L. Bryan is likely to imagine
at first blush, when in the rush of indignation he challenges
Max by contradicting his claim that "nothing's happened" so
far.
Considering the open-ended commitment L. Bryan might find
himself taking on if he decides to make an issue of this
incident, I think there is room for the conclusion that given
his limited relationship to the company, he might honorably
decide that there is no real reason to get involved with this
problem. The whole thing can be regarded as a marvelous
learning opportunity.
Cite this page:
"Joseph Ellin's Commentary on "Disposing of Toxic Waste""
Online Ethics Center for Engineering
8/17/2006
National Academy of Engineering
Accessed: Tuesday, May 22, 2012
<www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/Toxic/ToxicEllin.aspx>