This week’s readings addressed the topic of ethics, and how ethical considerations are made in the professional and organizational environments. Technical Communications Today defines ethics as system of moral, social, or cultural values that govern the conduct of an individual or community. Plainly stated, being ethical means doing the right thing at the right time. This is easier said than done, especially in the context of the workplace. It is not always clear how to behave ethically, especially when faced with making a critical decision that may lead to non-ideal outcomes. The text gave the example of deciding to develop the nuclear bomb, if not only for the fact that the enemy could possibly develop it first.
In this class, I believe the topic of ethics weighs in most heavily for the white paper project. The white paper is designed to be a framework for decision-making. It is supposed to be an unbiased, non-subjective outline of the possible solutions to a given problem. This definition of a white paper caused some concern for me over the past couple weeks. I had a hard time thinking of a real-world situation where a white paper will be drawn up for purely informative purposes. The white papers I have looked over in preparation for this project seem to have some element of persuasion in them. Whether intentional or not, none of the white papers I read came off as entirely unbiased. For example, the white paper about open source software hardly addressed the drawbacks of open source. Rather, the paper served to glorify the use of open source, and only profiled 2 companies who support the use of open source. The other side of the argument is not brought up, and the framework for a decision-maker is only half built.
To create a white paper (as this class defines it) ethically, is to remove all bias and subjectivity, all while presenting benefits and drawbacks of your solutions completely. For this project, this hasn’t been very difficult thus far. These white papers aren’t for use in the real world, and none of us are representing organizations that have specific interests. Our project deals with oil-dependence, and sustainable energy solutions. The conservational ethics in this topic are abundant. The presentation of our research in the white paper must include all possible drawbacks and environmental concerns, as it would be unethical to promote a “sustainable” solution that could possibly endanger the ecosystem. Our solution to this has been to research our topics completely, and present the facts “as-is”.
White Paper Ethics
There are a few things you cover in this week’s response that I could not agree with more. First off, you state early on that “It is not always clear how to behave ethically, especially when faced with making a critical decision that may lead to non-ideal outcomes.” This seems inherently true, but to me, the emphasis is “leading to non-ideal outcomes.” It is hard enough to understand what ethical behavior is and what it is not, even before accounting for the potentially unfortunate outcome. Still, this is what makes ethics so valuable. Furthermore, you state that “I had a hard time thinking of a real-world situation where a white paper will be drawn up for purely informative purposes.” This is something not only I battled with, but my group as well. I think it is mostly because we are still learning what we are in school for and likely are not fully knowledgeable yet, or enough so to produce a white paper with as much value as those from our readings. However, as a team, it is a bit less difficult to pick a topic that we can tackle together, filling in the gaps where others may be unclear.
Ethical Dilemmas
I think you brought up a good ethical dilemma in your paper. You have to make sure your group stays objective. For many people if they were presenting this to a company I believe it would be tempting for people to gloss over the drawbacks on the "sustainable solutions" and highlight the environmental impact that burning fossil fuels has on the ecosystem. However this would be very unethical thing to do and its good that your group plans on keeping the paper objective and giving the pros and cons of each without leaning toward one or the other of the solutions.
Patrick Griffin
pgriffin@purdue.edu