Philosophy
The actions of Virginia Edgerton are permissible and obligatory. As a senior information scientist who was assigned to the project for New York City’s Criminal Justice Coordinating Council since 1977 and who had 13 years of data processing experience, she is already considered as an expert in her field. Hence, she raised a legitimate issue when she judged that adding in to the new system will cause the overloading of the current system that will cause a delay in the response time for dispatching emergency vehicles. Based on her knowledge and experience, the action to be taken can risk lives to conduct the further testing of the system in operation. The recommendation she provided to her immediate supervisor was rejected so she had no other recourse but to seek the opinion of another expert in the person of the manager of systems programming at Columbia University’s computer center who affirmed her findings. The act of Ms. Edgerton in writing a formal memo to her immediate supervisor, to reconsider the study is one of the fundamental canons under the NPSE Code of Ethics for Engineers. One of the professional duties of Ms. Edgerton is to hold the paramount safety, health and welfare of the public (NSPE.org.)
Thus, when her judgment was overruled under the circumstances that can endanger life or property, she has the duty to notify their employer, client or any authority that may be deemed appropriate (NSPE.org). The act of Ms. Edgerton in sending the revised version of the memo to New York’s Criminal Justice Steering Committee where she was a part of the organization she was working for was justified because lives and property are at risk. The act of the project director in terminating Ms. Edgerton was uncalled for because she had justifiable reasons to expose the overloading of the current system which may cause a delay in the response time for dispatching emergency vehicles. Hence, as an engineer, she is duty-bound to observe one of the fundamental canons under the NPSE Code of Ethics for Engineers which is to hold the paramount safety, health and welfare of the public (NSPE.org.). The welfare of the people shall be the primary consideration of engineers despite threats of insubordination for violating company policies when she bypassed the orders of the project director and failed to get his approval before sending the revised memorandum to New York’s Criminal Justice Steering Committee.
Under the principle of utilitarianism, the worth of a desired action shall be decided by the resulting outcome, despite the debate on the considerations that are to be taken based on the actual, intended and foreseen consequences (Mill 4). In this given scenario, Ms. Edgerton raised a legitimate issue when she judged that adding in to the new system will cause the overloading of the current system that may cause a delay in the response time for dispatching emergency vehicles. The resulting outcome was based on foreseen consequences through her years of knowledge and experience and such action when taken can risk lives and property if further testing of the system in operation will be pursued. Disregarding the orders of her superior was justified under the principle of Utilitarianism because. In this given scenario, Ms. Edgerton decided to fight for what she believed will be for the best interest of the public and protection of property. Therefore, she considered the resulting outcome despite the fact that she may face termination by violating company policies for insubordination.
Works Cited:
Cross, Frank B. and Miller, Roger Leroy. The Legal Environment of Business. California:
Cengage, 2011. Print.
Hosmer, LaRue Tone. The Ethics of Management, 6th Edition. USA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Publishing, 2010. Print.
National Society of Professional Engineers. NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers. 2013.
Web. November 20, 2013.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Canada: Broadview Press, 2011. Print.
