9/5 Meeting Recap

The group met up yesterday to discuss the final presentation and report.

The presentation is going to be a slideshow edited on google docs. The presentation is going to have a summary of the scenarios followed by the choices available to the main character as well as the pros and cons of each choice.


- Mingchen

Whistleblowing

I found the Eric's lecture on whistle-blowing incredibly relevant to our group scenario. Whistle-blowing is basically the disclosure of misconduct an employee or member of an organization.

The common etiquette for whistle-blowing is as follows
1. try to keep within the system
2. express objections
3. be tactful
4. keep supervisors informed (unless the supervisors are part of the issue)
5. be accurate

during the lecture we learned that whistle-blowing is appropriate for a person when great risk is involved and when the organization or immediate superiors have already been informed of that persons objections.

We also learned about supererogatory obligations, where whistle-blowing becomes beyond the call of duty, and is not required morally. In such situations usually the personal cost is too great for an employee to disclose information.

This relates directly to our Scenario A topic in which John Connor has information which he can disclose to Cyberdyne, but could lose a promotion or even be fired for his troubles. On the contrary, the only thing John gains by telling Cyberdyne is a better friendship/relationship with his old coworkers. In our situation I believe that John's path to whistle-blow is a supererogatory obligation, where the risks greatly outweigh the benefits.


- Mingchen

8/25 Meeting Recap

Me, Jin, Zach and Angel met after class on Monday and our discussion topic was evaluating the outcome of Scenario B, in which John Connor goes ahead with the company wide implementation of his software system.

Angel brought up a good dilemma that at what point does software become Cyberdyne's property and not John's? John was the original developer of the software system that Cyberdyne uses and he had no contract binding his work to the company.

John Connor's actions were not the wrong legally, rather, this case is a matter of virtue/honor based ethics. In the meeting we all agreed that John should have either asked for permission, or given Cyberdyne notice of the Weyland-Yutani's use of the software system.

However, after giving it some more thought, I also have to include that John's obligations at this point only seem to have significance based on the good-will of the relationship he has with his former employer. A "friends help friends" type of deal. In the previous paragraph I am assuming that John and Cyberdyne have a good relationship and that his employment ended on good terms. If John's relationship with Cyberdyne is sour/negative, I see no reason as to why he is obligated to ask permission from them.


Also, I had a hard time discerning between Scenario A and B, it doesn't seem like there is any difference, it actually seems like Scenario B is just a continuation of Scenario A.

- Mingchen

Summary of Scenario A and B, Discussion Questions

Summary of Scenario A

John Connor created a software system for a small computer firm that did not ask him to sign a contract claiming their ownership of his software. He then transferred to a larger computer firm where he realizes that his old software, with a few modifications, could be used to simplify many tasks at his new company. He decided to alter the code he wrote for the smaller computer firm and the company was very pleased with his changes and decided to take his code as their own without allowing him to contact the smaller firm that much of the same code would be used under their ownership.

Summary of Scenario B

A friend of John Connor, Kyle Reese, has connections with the employees of Cyberdyne, including the president Miles Bennett Dyson. He also knows what John has done, and knows that Miles might not be happy with the code usage.

Discussion Questions

What  is  the  nature  of  the  ethical  dilemma(s)  brought  up  these  scenarios?

What responsibilities (ethical, legal, etc.)  & various courses of action do John and Kyle have?

What resources might John & Kyle have to help them address their problems?

What  ethical  frameworks  or  variations  on  ethical  frameworks  might  be  employed  to  meet  these problems?

What  are  the  likely  outcomes  of  each  scenario  and  was  is  your  group’s  recommended  course  of action?


Group: What is your opinion on the discussion questions? Feel free to discuss and share your thoughts in the comments section!

Group 3 Intro Post: Team Ham Biscuit

A. The roles we have decided for each member are:

Zack Carlson as project leader
Eddie Franco as presentation leader
Angel Ortega as secretary
James Thompson and Jin Wu as researchers
Nina Kaufman as report assembler
Mingchen Shen as blogger

B. Ham Biscuit will be our team name. The name popped into my head, there is no sensible explanation for it other than that I was maybe hungry at the time. The other members of the group seem okay with it as well.

C. Our ethical discussions for this project will be based on a scenario where an employee, John, uses software he developed for a previous firm, Cyberdyne, to improve efficiency at his new firm, Weyland-Yutani.

There are a few of key points to note for this scenario:
1. The software is a major part of Cyberdyne
2. There was no contract that the software John developed would be property of Cyberdyne
3. John's superiors at Weyland-Yutani want to adapt the software on a larger scale without getting permission from Cyberdyne.


- Mingchen