Wants
Essay Preview: Wants
Report this essay
The Offer
Peter Paulsons offer to provide the previous case documents to Steven Craig is professionally unethical but morally permissible. In addition, I believe that the offer was not theft but possession by entitlement and permission. His actions are a great example of how professional ethics and morals dont always align in the analysis of a case.
Part (1)
Peter Paulsons offer although helpful commits the Texas Board of Professional Engineers code. As an expert witness for a previous case against PPC, Peter Paulson was exposed to certain documents which would help with the current case against the same company. The code states in 137.63.c.4 that “The engineer shall not give, offer or promise to pay or deliver, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, favor, gratuity, benefit, or reward as an inducement to secure any specific engineering work or assignment.” In Peters case he was asked to “secure specific engineering work” for a fee. The practice of sharing the public documents is legal and professionally ethical but when a fee is procured for the transaction the act becomes unethical. The documents in both cases were public because they were documents of court which could be obtained by any lawyer. When Peter placed a fee on documents that were public his actions were in violation of the code and made his offer professionally unethical.
Part (II)
Table 1. Line drawling of “The Offer” showing non-theft (Peters perspective)
Feature
Theft
The Offer
Not Theft
Entitlement
Permission
Not Allowed
Allowed
(1) Peters possession of the documents was not theft based on his entitlement and permission to have them. Peter was entitled to have possession of the documents by the court due to his role in a previous case. He also had permission to use the documents from PPC because there was no confidentiality agreement signed. By omission the PPC company gave Peter permission to have the documents.
(2a) Peters offer is morally permissible due the self-defeating test. If the process of paying off people for documents was universally accepted, it would not affect the efficiency of Peters offer. In other words, if it became common practice to make offers like Peters, it would not be self defeating because he Steven and Peter would both still benefit. The reason why they both benefit is because the offer has no negative affect on any collateral group or person. Ultimately no one gets abused in the deal and so the transaction allows everyone to make the same possible deal without being self-defeating. Therefore Peter actions were validated by failing the self-defeating test and ultimately morally permissible.
(2b)An act utilitarian perspective of the offer shows that Peters fee was morally permissible. The greatest good of all the people involved in the lawsuit would be to pay Peters fee and expedite the process of getting money for the families. Accepting the offer creates the most happiness because: (1) from the perspective of Peter, he gains $25,000, (2) from the lawyers and families perspective the documents are received two weeks early, (3) the case ends earlier and the families receive their money faster, (4) the PPC company loses money from the settlement and potentially some employees. The most important feature of the offer is the chance for the families to end the case early. A quick settlement would end anxiety for the family and resolve financial issues. The fee would be a small price to pay compared to the waste of two weeks enduring the gruelingly slow pace of the court system. Although Peters offer is professionally unethical it does not mean that it is morally wrong. The utility that is created through accepting the offer and gaining the documents would compensate for the unprofessional exploit. Because act utilitarianism is focused on creating the greatest good for the majority then Peters actions are morally permissible.
Part (III)
Table 2. Line drawling of “The Offer” showing theft (Peters perspective)
Feature
Theft
The Offer
Not Theft
Possession vs. Ownership
Possess/ Not own
Not Possess/ own
Intention
Share
(1) Peters ownership of the documents was theft based on the features of possession vs. ownership and intention. Peter possessed the documents from the previous case yet did not own them. When property is possessed and not owned it constitutes theft. Peters intentions with the documents were to sell them to make money. His greedy actions show that documents were stolen and verify theft.
(2a) Peters offer can be shown to be morally impermissible by the rule utilitarian approach. Suppose that a rule was placed into effect that stated: expert witnesses