Introduction
Upholding ethical principles is essential to the maintenance of peace in any community. Precisely, the nature of people’s conduct in any organization is essential to the success of the institution. As such, people can determine how ethical or unethical we are by assessing our behaviours. According to Guerrette, Ethics is the philosophical study of the principles that govern the conduct of people in society [1]. Our actions can, therefore, be said to be ethical if they are praiseworthy and unethical if they are blameable. Ethics, therefore, tries to make a distinction between what is right and wrong. This report utilizes an ethical perspective in presenting a rationale about the occurrence of the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster. It discusses the ethical setbacks associated with that event such as neglecting duty, and not having the best interest of the public and employees. The paper will also outline how the involvement of ethical principles would have averted the occurrence of this problem. The unethical practices of the management and the engineering team led to the loss of lives of innocent individuals. For a fact, the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster would not have occurred if proper ethical principles were in operation within the organization.
Executive Summary
This report covers some ethical theories and principles which include: Deontology, teleological and virtue theories. It analyses the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster by applying the essential principles learned from these the ethical theories. Additionally, the report also discusses how the management would have averted the occurrence of this event through the utilization of proper ethical measures. Concerning the virtue theory, the experts should have advised the crew correctly hence allowing them to decide whether or not they would still board the space shuttle. This would at least prevented their fatal death. On the other hand, according to the deontology theory, the engineers would have taken their duty seriously and strive to find a way to correct the damage on the thermal protection system. Based on the utilitarian perspective the engineers should have taken the initiative that benefits many individuals in this case get their job done at the same time ensure the safety of the crew.
Ethical theories and principles
Teleological theory
This theory tries to answer the question about right and wrong by focusing on whether an individual’s conduct will produce a desirable consequence. In effect, the consequences of an individual's actions determine the goodness or badness of a particular behaviour. In assessing these consequences, there are three different approaches to making decisions regarding moral conduct. One is ethical egoism, which states that an individual should act so as to create the greatest good for him or herself. The second teleological approach is utilitarianism, which states that we should behave so as to create the greatest good for the greatest number. From this viewpoint, the morally correct action is the action that maximizes social benefits while minimizing social costs [3]. The third teleological approach is altruism, an approach that suggests that actions are moral if their primary purpose is to show concern for the best interest of others, even when it runs contrary one’s interests [2].The strongest examples of altruist ethics can be found in the work of Mother Teresa, who gave her entire life to helping poor people.
Deontology theory
This theory is attributed to a German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). He was against the idea that one’s consequences determine the morality of an action. For Kant, the only acceptable motive for moral action was a sense of duty. Telling the truth, keeping promises, being fair, and respecting others are all examples of actions that are inherently good, independent of the consequences. For instance, if acting from his or her sense of duty, a police officer attempts to save a carjacked person and in trying to save him/her they accidentally shoot him; his/her action can still be considered morally right since their motive was right. The consequences of their action though tragic would be irrelevant to the moral worth of what they did.
Virtue theory
This theory approaches ethics from the viewpoint of their character. In this perspective, virtues are rooted in the heart of the individual and his or her disposition [1]. As such, people are expected to take virtuous actions that can be ethically justified. It is believed that virtues and moral abilities are not innate but can be acquired and learned through practice. People can be taught by their families and communities to be morally upright human beings. This theory can be traced back in the Western tradition to the Greek period and the works of Plato and Aristotle. Consistent with Aristotle, current advocates of virtue-based theories stress that more attention should be given to the development and training of moral values [1]. For Aristotle, virtues allowed individuals to live well in communities.
Following the Columbia space shuttle disaster, it is clear that some of the actions that most of the actions NASA initiated were unethical. For starters, the piece of foam insulation had previously broken off multiple times and no action was taken to correct the problem. Because the lack of appropriate initiatives could compromise people’s lives, this approach was unethical. Additionally, it was the engineers’ duty to ensure that the welfare of the crew members was secure. However, they failed in achieving their responsibilities. Basing this action on the deontology theory, the mentioned parties neglected their duty. They didn’t see it as a problem or anticipate the nature of its impact later. The deontological perspective focuses on the actions of a person and his or her moral obligations and responsibilities to do the right thing. A person's actions are moral if the person has a moral right to do them if the actions do not infringe on others' rights, and if the actions further the moral rights of others. In this case, the engineers’ response to the situation was unethical, and it fostered the occurrence of this disaster.
Additionally, NASA’s initiative of not honouring the request made by the engineers to allow the department of defence image the shuttle in orbit to determine if there was any damage was unethical. NASA management even went ahead to intervene to stop the department of defence from intervening and assisting. Based on virtue theory, NASA ought to have engaged in moral actions to safeguard the welfare of the crew members. However, their actions were contrary to these provisions. It stopped the department of defence from assisting in imaging the space shuttle while in the outer space. This initiative was taken despite the fact that the images were not guaranteed to show the damage was never in order. As such, this action clearly shows they had no accountability for the welfare of the crew members. Aristotle explains that a moral person demonstrates the following virtues: courage, temperance, generosity, self-control, honesty, sociability, modesty, fairness, and justice [3]. In this case, the management and the engineers lacked these qualities as they were primarily concerned about the reputation of the organization. Consequently, their lack of ethical principles sparked the development of this disaster claiming the lives of many crew members.
The space shuttle had undergone thorough scrutiny to assess its safety for take-off. There were risk assessment meeting aimed at pointing out the flaws in the vessel architecture and the possible threats posed by its launch. In spite of the many problems reported to the management, the board verified the space shuttle safe for take-off. This action is undoubtedly unethical. John Harpold, the Director of Mission Operations, admitted that nothing could have been done concerning the damage on the TPS. He went ahead to admit that the crew was aware of the safety of the vessel before boarding it and they anticipated having a happy and successful flight. From this response, it is worth acknowledging the fact that he acted in the organization’s self-interests. This according to ethical egoism is acting selfishly because he knew the stakes that were there if the shuttle would have entered space and by saying, so he is excluding himself from the blame
The utilitarian argument requires that the engineers take the initiative that benefits many individuals. This perspective states that we should behave so as to create the greatest good for the greatest number. From this viewpoint, the morally acceptable action is the one that maximizes social benefits while minimizing social costs [1]. They should have terminated the launch to secure the welfare of the crew members and the organization. However, they implemented an initiative that would benefit them at the expense of other individuals. It would have been better if they had concentrated on finding a way to correct the damage to the Thermal Protection System which in this case would be greater good for the greater number. If the proper application of the utilitarian theory were done, the occurrence of this calamity would have been averted.
Additionally, the engineers should have taken some initiatives that would show their concern for the crew members’ welfare. Basing one’s argument on the altruism perspective, the engineers should have shown their concern for the best interest of the cabin crew and their families. However, they only cared about their reputation, which would have been augmented through a successful launch. This approach suggests that actions are moral if their primary purpose is to show concern for the best interest of others, even when it runs contrary one’s interests. They would have at least made attempts to fix the damage on the Thermal Protection System, which would have at least shown concern for the lives of the crew members knowing very well what would happen if the shuttle left for space.
Another unethical thing that experts did was to tell the crew that there was no concern for tile damage. They admitted to having seen this phenomenon on several other flights, and there was absolutely no concern for entry level. Based on virtue theory an ethical person must demonstrate honesty as a key value. In this case, the experts expressed corporate dishonesty by giving false information. What they ought to have done was to tell the crew the truth about what would have happened once they launched the shuttle for space. However, giving false assurance about the safety of the vessel was wrong, unprofessional and unethical.
Contrastingly, it is worth mentioning that the engineers acted ethically in some cases. For starters, they took it upon themselves to request for US Department of Defence imaging of the shuttle in orbit to determine if there was any damage. Even if this initiative did not prevent the occurrence of the disaster, their initiative was ethical. Based on altruism perspective, the engineers showed concern for the best interest of others even when it contrary to their own self-interest.
Conclusion
In conclusion, how people conduct themselves is essential to the development of the society. Specifically, the nature of one’s actions can influence an event constructively or negatively. Through the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster, one can determine that the unethical initiatives implemented by NASA’s management contributed to the development of the accident. Additionally, their lack of concern for the crew members led to detrimental losses to the families of the crew members. Consequently, it is essential to uphold virtuous principles for the betterment of the globe. Deontological principles should be used to govern one’s duty requirements and nurture the development of moral character. Through virtue ethics, an individual should appreciate the essence of engaging in morally acceptable actions. For a fact, the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster could have been prevented if ethical principles were upheld.
References
Guerrette, R.H., 2015. Ethical Theories and Moral Narratives in Art: A Gallery Tour Through the Corporate Moral Forest.
Khayatzadeh-Mahani, A., Fotaki, M. and Harvey, G., 2013. Ethical theories and values in priority setting: a case study of the Iranian health system.Public Health Ethics, 6(1), pp.60-72.
Schmitt, K., 2013. Meeting minimum ethical scrutiny: the climate change policy conversation.
