In the Tragedy of Commons (TOC), students or individuals are expected to act independently and rationally. In most incidences they end up acting to satisfy their personal interest despite their knowledge that they may affect the long-term interest of the society. Actually, the participants in the pieces game have a tendency to deplete the common resource from the pool of resources. The paper will provide insight to the morals, ethical expectations, fairness, engineering canons and sustainability, and advice the future players of the Pisces game.
I think that the problem of open access resources ensures that there is a tragedy of commons because each user acquires direct benefit of using the resources. For instance, the open access ranch illustrates the exploitation of resources when people are allowed to graze in the field. Every rancher takes advantage of the ranch and brings more cattle to feed. Even though this leads to overgrazing and overexploitation of the resources, ranchers assume that if they avoid taking cattle on the open access, some other people will do so (Spierre et.al 2012). The incentive to bring more cattle to graze in the field is motivated by a selfish interest in the population. The participants ignore their moral obligations of controlling the number of cattle to graze on the ranch because it’s a public utility. People will let their animals graze for more time and are not concerned with the implications of overgrazing. If the field was a private utility, I have a feeling that people would have taken the incentive to control the activities that take place on the ranch. The group of people would communicate with each and ensure that the value of the field is not affected. People will avoid introducing more animals in the field, and they will take an incentive of preserving the resources and grazing in an orderly manner.
The roles of expectations and communications in the pieces game revealed ethical decision making among participants. I felt that inherent in the game design are events that expect participants to make ethical decisions that affect their counterparts. I faced difficult moral decisions when I thought about my moral obligations towards others. I realized that outside the classroom, I always considered my obligations towards others, but the situation was different in the pieces game. When playing the game, I cared less about my feelings of obligation towards my fellow students. The decisions that I made were solely centered on the outcome of the game. I faced difficulties in making right decisions if I could not accomplish my interests. I discovered that making good moral decisions requires an individual to perform the right thing but not the right decision even if individual interest emerges on the way.
In my opinion, the actions in the pieces game did not consider promoting a fair outcome from unfair circumstances. I think that the actions taken by participants were influenced by their selfish interests. In the game, I aimed at getting the larger share of the available resources without being concerned about other participants. The problem of the allocation of resources, to me, meant that I was to get radical and get my animals on the pasture. I did not achieve my intended goals because of the competition of resources. The allocation per person reduced as more the participants in the game increased and more animals were brought to the public pasture (Spierre et.al 2012). At first, I introduced more animals in the pasture but realized that every student also had similar goals to mine. I would change the way I played the game if the commons were shared equally among the herders. This would create fairness although more sticky issues regarding fairness would emerge.
In my opinion, the lessons from the pieces game did not match the expectations for engineers. Outside the classroom, engineers believed in fundamental principles and canons. For example, they found themselves considering safety, health, and the welfare of the public by upholding the principles of sustainable development when performing their duties (Manion, 2002). In the pieces game, the exposure made most of the engineers greedy and insincere because they only though about the outcome of the game instead of environmental sustainability of their actions. My actions differed with the expectation provided in the canons of engineering ethics. I felt into the trap of the game and made unethical decisions forgetting about the code of ethics in the engineering profession. In the real sense, the conflict of interest interfered with my ability to enhance the integrity, honor, and dignity.
The Code of Ethics for Engineers had been put in place to guide professionals in upholding ethical decision in different circumstances. I discovered that it was challenging to apply these canons in sustainability issues. A pool of resources is faced with numerous hurdles, and this conflicts concerning what is rational for the participant, and what is rational to the society as an entity. I considered getting out the best out of the situation with maximum profits during the pieces game. Together with other participants, we ignored that the incentive to consume more will damage the environment shortly because resources will be exploited. The canons of engineering failed to address that sustainability in a common pool of resources could be controlled through curtailing the consumption of resources at high levels.
My advice to future players for the Pisces game is to recognize that game-theoretic problems obscure the moral obligations. The students might always consider that the outcomes of the game are determined by the interaction between players. As a result, it is always advisable to take a moral culpability of the actions taken. To some extent, this will ensure the application of ethical principles to the game. The learner must be focused on his/her actions without letting selfish interests interfere with the decisions during the game. A non-cooperative game is very difficult to understand because at some point, doing the wrong thing might encourage other participants in the game to do the right thing. If I had considered sustainability as a critical ethical principle, my reasoning would have changed, and my intentions would have been to ensure sustainability.
Success is very important in the game. I would advise future players to fight the urge to satisfy their selfish interests in the game. It is advisable to consider sustainability, and this can only be achieved by respecting ethical decisions and moral obligations. As a result, the teaching of sustainability ethics will be effective as the outcomes of the game will serve as a testimony. The concrete experience garnered from the experiment will benefit participants who will reflect on their observations in the game.
References
Manion, M. (2002). Ethics, engineering, and sustainable development. Technology and Society Magazine, IEEE, 21(3), 39-48.
Spierre, S., Sadowski, J., Berardy, A., McClintock, S., Augustin, S. A., Hohman, N., & Banna, J. (2012). An Instructor’s Guide to Teaching the Pisces Game for Sustainability Ethics.
