‘Example of line drawing showing the placement of the negative and positive paradigms.
Let’s illustrate this technique using a hypothetical situation. Our company would like to dispose of a slightly toxic waste by dumping it into a local lake from which a nearby town gets its drinking water. How can we determine if this practice is accept- able? Let’s start by defi ning the problem and the positive and negative paradigms.
Problem: It is proposed that our company dispose of a slightly hazardous waste by dumping it into a lake. A nearby town takes its drinking water supply from this lake. Our research shows that with the amount of waste we plan to put into the lake, the average concentration of the waste in the lake will be 5 parts per million (ppm). The EPA limit for this material has been set at 10 ppm. At the 5-ppm level, we expect no health problems, and consumers would not be able to detect the compound in their drinking water.
Positive paradigm: The water supply for the town should be clean and safe.
Negative paradigm: Toxic levels of waste are put into the lake.
Let’s start by drawing a line and placing the positive and negative paradigms on it:
Negative paradigm (NP) Positive paradigm (PP)
Dump toxic levels of waste in lake
Water should be clean and safe
Figure 4.1 Example of line drawing showing the placement of the negative and positive paradigms.
Now let’s establish some other hypothetical examples for consideration:
1. The company dumps the chemical into the lake. At 5 ppm, the chemical will be harmless, but the town’s water will have an unusual taste.
2. The chemical can be effectively removed by the town’s existing water-treatment system.
60 4.3 Line Drawing
PPPN
6 5 4 1 7 2,3
Figure 4.2 Same as Figure 4.1 , with the addition of the examples to the line.
3. The chemical can be removed by the town with new equipment that will be purchased by the company.
4. The chemical can be removed by the town with new equipment for which the taxpayer will pay.
5. Occasionally, exposure to the chemical can make people feel ill, but this only lasts for an hour and is rare.
6. At 5 ppm, some people can get fairly sick, but the sickness only lasts a week, and there is no long-term harm.
7. Equipment can be installed at the plant to further reduce the waste level to 1 ppm.
Obviously, we could go on for a long time creating more and more test exam- ples. Generally, where your problem fi ts along the line is obvious with only a few examples, but the exercise should be continued with more examples until it is clear what the proper resolution is. Now let’s redraw our line with the examples inserted appropriately:
PPPN
6 5 4 1 7P 2,3
Figure 4.3 Final version of the line-drawing example, with the problem under consideration added.
After setting up the examples, it may be clear that there is a gap in the knowl- edge. For example, in our case, we might need more information on seasonal vari- ations in waste concentration and water usage of the town. We also could use information on potential interactions of the chemical with other pollutants, such as the runoff of pesticides from local farms. Note that there is some subjectivity in determining exactly where along the line each of the examples fi ts.
Now let’s complete the exercise by denoting our problem by a “P” and inserting it at the appropriate place along the line. As with the previous examples, placement of the problem along the line is somewhat subjective.
As drawn here, it is clear that dumping the toxic waste is probably a morally acceptable choice, since no humans will be harmed and the waste levels will be well below those that could cause any harm. However, since it is somewhat far from the positive paradigm, there are probably better choices that can be made, and the company should investigate these alternatives.
It should be noted that although this action seems ethically acceptable, there are many other considerations that might be factored into the fi nal decision. For example, there are political aspects that should also be considered. Many people in the community are likely to regard the dumping of a toxin at any level as unaccep- table. Good community relations might dictate that another solution should be pursued instead. The company also might want to avoid the lengthy amount of time required to obtain a permit for the dumping and the oversight by various govern- ment agencies. This example illustrates that line drawing can help solve the ethical aspects of a problem, but a choice that appears morally acceptable still might not be
Chapter 4 Ethical Problem-Solving Techniques 61
the best choice when politics and community relations are considered as well. Of course, the immoral choice is never the correct choice.
Although this problem-solving method seems to help with problem analysis and can lead to solutions, there are many pitfalls in its use. If not used properly, line drawing can lead to incorrect results. For example, line drawing can easily be used to prove that something is right when it is actually wrong. Line drawing is only effec- tive if it is used objectively and honestly. The choice of where to put the examples and how to defi ne the paradigms is up to you. You can reach false conclusions by using incorrect paradigms, by dishonest placement of the examples along the line, and by dishonest placement of the problem within the examples. In our example, we might have decided that the problem is somewhat like example 2 and thus placed our problem closer to the positive paradigm, making this solution seem more acceptable. Line drawing can be a very powerful analytic tool in ethical prob- lems, but only if used conscientiously.