Bhopal Disaster Management Gas Tragedy

Question 1 (P10.1.a)
Facts:
An engineer notified his firm that for a relatively minor cost, a flashlight could be made to last several years longer by using a more reliable bulb. The firm decides that it would be in its interests not to use the new bulb, both to keep costs lower and to have the added advantage of “built-in obsolescence” so that consumers would need to purchase new flashlights more often.
Question:
Identify the moral values, issues, and dilemmas, if any, involved in the following cases, and explain why you consider them moral values and dilemmas.
References:
Code of Ethics Fundamental Canons – “Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public, act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees and avoid deceptive act.”
Section 1 (a)-“If engineers’ judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.”
Section 4 (a)-“Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.” Discussion:
Section 1(a) of the code is clear in providing that the engineer “shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate if engineers’ judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property.” In this case, the engineer did try to protect the welfare of the public, but when his judgment was overruled by the firm, he did not do what he should do.
Section 4(b) of the code is clear in providing that the engineer “shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.” In this case, the engineer did not disclose, he did not advise the clients when he believed that the flashlight would not be successful.
In our

References: Code of Ethics Fundamental Canons – “Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public, act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees and avoid deceptive act.” Section 1 (a)-“If engineers’ judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.” Section 4 (a)-“Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.”   Discussion: Section 1(a) of the code is clear in providing that the engineer “shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate if engineers’ judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property.” In this case, the engineer did try to protect the welfare of the public, but when his judgment was overruled by the firm, he did not do what he should do. Section 4(b) of the code is clear in providing that the engineer “shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.” In this case, the engineer did not disclose, he did not advise the clients when he believed that the flashlight would not be successful. In our view, what the firm has done is a kind of cheating. Under the same consumption condition, customers could not get what they deserve to get. An engineer is responsible for doing what promotes the success of his company, but he also has responsibilities to the local community that no customers should be cheated. Conclusion: The firm has moral values and the engineer is in the dilemmas in this case.