Ethics and the White Paper Project

Lpetrovi's picture

The reading for this week was very straightforward and contained most things I would consider to be common sense for most people in term of ethics. I think the Albert Einstein example of being torn between social ethics and his personal ethics is a dilemma that many of us has faced and had to deal with, often resulting in guilt or doubt.

Ethics does somewhat come into play in the current White Paper Project for this course. The idea of renewable and eco-friendly energy sources being more widely used is more than likely not considered unethical in general. However, when you look more closely at the subjects at hand, you can see that ethics are very important. I think that social and conservation ethics play the biggest role rather than personal ethics. For example, renewable energy is directly related to conservation ethics because these are the values required to protect the environment. Sure the electricity we are using now gives us the same quality of power that we see on our end in the home, but the pollutants that go into the atmosphere every time we turn a light on should weigh heavily on our conservational values.

Much of this has to do with money. Politicians and many others do not want to waste the money replacing the already functioning electricity grid. They are only seeing ethics in terms of the social values. They are not breaking any laws by keeping the energy sources we already have, but they are breaking conservational ethics.

Another, less noted aspect of the renewable energy sources has to do with nuclear power. There is a justified fear of nuclear power because of its danger to the population. However, if we trusted our government to enact and enforce the laws for companies to follow, we needn’t worry. People worry because often the company that wins the job to build the nuclear power plant was the lowest bidder and may try to take shortcuts and cut corners even though it is socially unethical. The actual company running the power plant might dispose of the waste improperly to save money, thus breaking a law.

All of these things will be noted in our research and discussed in the final white paper. We will identify which ethical category a certain dilemma falls into and discuss the decision that should be made. By dividing the situations into rights, justice, utilitarianism, or care, it will help us to decide which course of action should be taken.

Ethics vs. Electrical grid

Chris's picture

You mention how politicians don’t want to waste money replacing an already functioning electrical grid… I think that is about to change soon. There will be some changes in the way electricity is managed due to some people in other countries who have poor ethics and feel the need to hack into the system and mess with the electrical grid. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10216702-83.html We can thank those people for pointing out how the job wasn’t done right the first time and it will surely cost us more money than if it would have been secured right in the first place. I'm sure there are those with low ethical views who after reading this article are now trying to exploit this weakness. Hopefully better security isn't skimped or we could face attacks that would affect many.

-Chris

Contradiction

jrdavies's picture

When talking about the electricity grid, you said that there is a breakdown of conservation ethics, but that politicians aren't breaking any laws. Then you go on to say that nuclear power would be a safe energy source "if we trusted our government to enact and enforce the laws for companies to follow." Maybe I'm reading it out of context, but it seems like you're contradicting yourself. I think that the most ethical approach would be to present the most likely environmental impact associated with an alternative energy source, rather than speculate what the government is going to do. It's obvious that the government's enforcement of conservation policy isn't a reliable benchmark for comparison.

No idea..

Lpetrovi's picture

Yeah, you are reading out of context. And being slightly insulting. The audience for our white paper project IS the government in the form of federal lawmakers and the secretary of energy. In terms of the electricity grid, I was stating the views that many politicians take when people try to push the agenda of bringing it to more efficiency. On a completely separate note from that I was talking about nuclear power and the policies that must be in place to keep the population safe. I'm not sure really what you're talking about where it isn't a reliable benchmark or a contradiction.

My Point

jrdavies's picture

My point was that you're all for trusting the government with regulating nuclear power, yet they're already doing a lousy job when it comes to the electricity grid. However, I guess I was a little off base because one is an issue of safety and the other is an issue of efficiency.

In reading and writing about

JFlitt's picture

In reading and writing about this week’s topic I had taken a different standpoint than you have here. I took the standpoint of we must be careful to be ethical about what we put into our white papers in regards to the information being accurate. You discuss in your second paragraph how your actual topic may cause an ethical dilemma itself. Your description of the conversational ethics involved with your topic is exactly correct in my opinion. Another aspect you may consider is verifying that all of your information is acquired ethically and that it is all accurate.

Thanks

JFlitt