Case Analysis
1. What are the facts in the case?
John is the chief seismologist at one of the leading research facilities in North America who holds a P.H.D from one of the most prestigious university in the country.
John has developed a method for predicting earthquake with 80% accuracy rate.
From his investigation, he discovered that there is a 80% chance that an earthquake will occur with a magnitude of 7.3 in one of the four fault lines in southern california within two days. While three of the four faults are less populated, the fourth one is San Andreas. It is populated city and an earthquake there could be catastrophic.
2. What is the issue/dilemma?
The issue is how John should proceed with reporting his finding. At a first glance, one can conclude that it …show more content…
Evaluate the potential action alternatives and identify the ethical decision-making approaches that correspond with each action alternative:
Utilitarianism:
Alternative E
One of the main goal of of Utilitarianism is to maximize the overall good for the greatest number of people. In this “Alternative E,” he is calculating the cost of releasing the information to the public versus withholding the information. He is willing to share this vital information if only it has a higher expected value than remaining silent. This is a perfect example of Utilitarianism where he is seeking the greatest good for the greatest number.
Self-interest:
Alternative D
Self-Interest is when one acts in one 's own interest and believe it is the highest form of morality. In this Alternative D, it is apparent that John is hesitant to share this critical piece of information in fear of losing his own credibility to others. He understands that there is still a 20% probability that an earthquake will not occur and he does not want to be wrong. Therefore, he justifies his action by convincing himself that sharing this information will be harmful because it will cause chaos and panic among the public.
Categorical
1. What are the facts in the case?
John is the chief seismologist at one of the leading research facilities in North America who holds a P.H.D from one of the most prestigious university in the country.
John has developed a method for predicting earthquake with 80% accuracy rate.
From his investigation, he discovered that there is a 80% chance that an earthquake will occur with a magnitude of 7.3 in one of the four fault lines in southern california within two days. While three of the four faults are less populated, the fourth one is San Andreas. It is populated city and an earthquake there could be catastrophic.
2. What is the issue/dilemma?
The issue is how John should proceed with reporting his finding. At a first glance, one can conclude that it …show more content…
Evaluate the potential action alternatives and identify the ethical decision-making approaches that correspond with each action alternative:
Utilitarianism:
Alternative E
One of the main goal of of Utilitarianism is to maximize the overall good for the greatest number of people. In this “Alternative E,” he is calculating the cost of releasing the information to the public versus withholding the information. He is willing to share this vital information if only it has a higher expected value than remaining silent. This is a perfect example of Utilitarianism where he is seeking the greatest good for the greatest number.
Self-interest:
Alternative D
Self-Interest is when one acts in one 's own interest and believe it is the highest form of morality. In this Alternative D, it is apparent that John is hesitant to share this critical piece of information in fear of losing his own credibility to others. He understands that there is still a 20% probability that an earthquake will not occur and he does not want to be wrong. Therefore, he justifies his action by convincing himself that sharing this information will be harmful because it will cause chaos and panic among the public.
Categorical