Dombrowski Ethics 5 p 152 - 233

Dombrowski – Ethics 5, p 152-233

Ch 6: Tobacco and Death- When Is a Cause Not a Cause?

Over 60 million people have died from smoking – tobacco industry has failed to acknowledge its ethical responsibilities

“sophistic” here is contrived contention where none is warranted, denying obvious realities and making the worse case seem better just to win an argument

The effects of smoking deaths are much harder to visualize and less likely to outrage people than the blatantly obvious Challenger disaster because they are slow, lonely, and not as widely publicized

Self-serving posturings were disguised as technical facts, knowledge was represented as “beliefs” in order to deliberately mislead the public

CAUSE

People tend to think only about themselves, not in terms of “populations” which is what is affected by smoking

Statistical causation is a probability of what will happen within a population, not to one individual

Sometimes it can take a long time to notice or confirm a cause-effect relationship

The tobacco industry has engaged in misinformation and denial, called the link of smoking to death a “controversy” when it is really a fact, no debate necessary

Concomitant variation- proposed by John Stuart Mill- an increase in independent variable causes an increase in a dependent variable, decrease makes decrease, even if mechanism is unknown

Tobacco-death correlation similar to restraint devices in cars and decrease in accident deaths

Even though we don’t know how smoking causes cancer, we know it does

Dr. John Snow, 1854 in London- realized cholera might be spread through water, shut down a water pump and cholera outbreak subsided- without knowing exactly what was causing the cholera

The question of what ‘cause’ means reflects the values of the communicators and is similar to the arguments of the sophists

Sophists were seen as charlatans, like used-car salesmen, used power of language to alter beliefs and persuade

Some newer thinking explains that the sophists were cast in a negative light simply because they “lost” against their critics, ‘to the victor goes the spoils’

Plato and Aristotle thought that rhetoric should be based on ethics, what is good and right, ethics comes before winning and rhetoric

Eristics- arguing for the sake of beating an opponent (rather than for the good of society)

Protagoras- there are two sides to every matter

Tobacco industry sought doctors and researchers who would oppose the smoking-death link as causal and distracted focus from cancer

In 1958, British American Tobacco company researchers realized that there is a link between smoking and lung cancer

Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC) was created to discredit reports of smoking causing cancer and perform “research” to disprove it

Almost all scientists believed the causal relationship, some were focused on self-interest

Tobacco industry knowingly and willfully brought disease and death to a number of their customers

DOCUMENTS

1997- 350 billion dollar settlement with tobacco companies, but this settlement might prevent future lawsuits so some are opposed to parts of it

Tobacco industry had lots of money to defend themselves, plaintiffs didn’t, state governments supported tobacco due to tax revenues, out of court settlements prevented a legal precedent being set with a case decided against the industry

Many documents that could be used against the industry are confusingly worded to prevent use as evidence

The tobacco industry destroyed their own documents that could be used against them in court

1950’s

Hill and Knowlton pr firm was hired to help tobacco industry campaign against reports linking smoking and cancer- they were to complicate the matter and divert attention from smoking as the cause of cancer

“A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” was released, claimed “cause” and “proof” can’t be used in the smoking debate, formation of the TIRC

The document uses misleading words (experiments, theory), casts doubt on reports, but is technically correct

It regards the tobacco industry as the ‘victim’ in a role reversal, similar to sophist arguments

1970- Helmut Wakeham, research director at Philip Morris, to company president- they TIRC (now CTR) is interested in disproving allegations, not finding the real truth

Tobacco industry tried to say:
1. there are many causes of lung cancer
2. there is no agreement among authorities
3. no proof cigarette smoking causes cancer
4. validity of the reports should be questioned

Tobacco industry released other ads thanking smokers for their support rather than supporting “medicine men”

1960’s

US Surgeon General appointed advisory committee to investigate the matter, many qualified voices overwhelmingly outweighed the few scientists still supporting the tobacco industry’s “not proven” claim

The industry acknowledged that nicotine is addictive even though the exact mechanism was unknown, yet refused to use this line of reasoning with smoking causing cancer

Industry admitted to itself that the TIRC couldn’t really conduct meaningful research

1970’s

Industry started making filtered cigarettes, not admitting they were necessary but only due to “public perception” that filters were needed and smoking was bad

They used euphemisms (biological activity for cancerous tumor), acknowledged a “controversy”

Potentially harmful research at the CTR was stopped or headed by lawyers so the company could claim ignorance of damaging data
1980’s

Reports on research were limited to “snippets” to control release of harmful information, info was misrepresented

Industry insiders told Frontline about the control of information within tobacco industry

1990’s

Many technical documents became publicly available, lawsuits began

A SINGLE WORD

Tobacco CEOs said under oath that they didn’t “believe” that nicotine was addictive, even though industry documents showed they knew it was, but people can’t be prosecuted for their ‘beliefs’

GRAPHICAL IMAGES

The exact meaning and intent of images is hard to pinpoint

Joe Camel was an image of coolness and happiness, distracting from the realities of cigarette smoking – the industry was sued with the claim that it was marketing to children

RJR realized they were losing customers, needed to replace them, marketed to teens with Joe Camel- just because it was self-preservation doesn’t make it ethical

Concern for technical excellence can dominate other values

Images of the Marlboro Man were also misleading, he actually died from lung cancer and his widow sued the tobacco industry

ETHICAL APPRAISAL

Aristotle- industry’s deliberate avoidance and suppression of knowledge shows they don’t wish to find the truth. They aren’t honest, avoid making tough decisions, and sacrifice millions of lives for personal gain

Kant- the tobacco industry opposed those who were working for the public good, did not treat the public as it would like to be treated

Utilitarian- tobacco industry tries to show benefits of jobs for tobacco workers and tax revenues, but these don’t outweigh the cost of millions of lives

Feminist and Ethics of Care- impersonal treatment of others by industry is bad, deliberate rejection of responsibility for the care of their customers is bad

CH 7: STAR WARS: HOPE VS. REALITY

The SDI program was unfounded on realistic technical possibilities, future hopes were confused with actual realities

Claims were exaggerated, misrepresented about what the program could really accomplish

CONTEXT

There are no real means for accomplishing the goals of the program, so money was wasted and program was terminated – technical communication that led to this was exaggerated, misleading

OVERVIEW OF SDI

Plan was enacted by President Reagan in 1983, based on “technological optimism”- that any problem could be solved by technology with enough time and money thrown at it

Scope of program was gradually reduced until it was only protecting a few cities from a few missiles- you have to make sure your goals are technically feasible

This example is not really unethical, just shows the powerful influence of values in shaping public discourse

A Complex System

The system is very complex and required a software system to integrate all the parts of the system, meaning very much was demanded of it

SDI was for intercepting and eliminating incoming ICBMs

Due to short time frame, the whole response would have to be computer automated

Enemies could use tactics that confuse the SDI system

Existing systems that aren’t nearly as complicated don’t work very well, computers wouldn’t do well in space

CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

The government knew of complications from the beginning

Four “misapprehensions” regarding the president’s plan:
1) individual, separate devices like lasers are not the same as the whole system they would be used in, which is really complex
2) SDI is unlike any prior program
3) hopes for entirely new technologies are not realistic
4) the system can’t be tested, it’s like nothing ever before

There is no guarantee that the system wouldn’t fail when actually needed

CONGRESSIONAL HEARING

Congress concerned with possible unethical misrepresentation of technical feasibility

Lt. Gen. Abrahamson was director of SDI, his testimony made hopes seem feasible

Sen. John Glenn’s response basically said he didn’t think any of the technology has actually been invented yet, and it hadn’t

The numbers used, such as 5 layers and 85% effectiveness were basically made up and based on wished-for technologies that do not exist

SDI DOCUMENTS, PRO AND CON

Pro

Proponents of the system used arguments of values and how terrible nuclear war would be, didn’t really discuss how technically feasible it actually was

Keyworth, science advisor to the president, wrote articles defending the program with moral issues again, not technicalities

Defensive Technologies Study group, headed by NASA’s Fletcher, gave an optimistic view of it but only states that after a lot more research we could determine whether SDI is feasible

Parnas, a software engineer, resigned from the panel

Con

The hardware hasn’t been completely invented, the software is seemingly impossible to create, there are so many variables it isn’t realistic

MIT computer scientist Herbert Lin described the “unknown unknowns” and compared SDI to much less complicated software systems that didn’t work right

Union of Concerned Scientists wrote a book outlining how SDI software is impossible

Parnas

Parnas wrote a statement on SDI very clearly and ethically outlining his views on why SDI software is impossible

Parnas’ ethos is apparent, he had 20 years experience in software design and military experience, he had nothing to gain and lots to lose in resigning from the panel

He showed that the other members of the panel had almost no experience and much to gain from the panel, while he had all the experience and resigned

In utilitarianism, personal good will often differ from public good- it is often criticized as least “ethical” mode of thinking

Many of Parnas’ peers wished he wouldn’t have been so critical so that their funding wouldn’t dry up, but he didn’t want the government wasting taxpayers’ money

STAR WARS BOYCOTT PLEDGE

Many scientists signed a Star Wars boycott pledge, agreeing that it was technically infeasible and they wouldn’t support it

Patriot: Small-Scale SDI

Patriot system used to shoot down Iraqi SCUD missiles; the military touted it as highly successful, but later investigations showed it failed most of the time

Technical Claims about Air Operations

Claims that infrared systems could work in conditions of poor visibility, yet not including clouds and weather – the main source of poor visibility

ETHICAL APPRAISAL

Aristotle – SDI support unclear, ethical in preventing violence but unethical in masking the lack of technical feasibility

Kant – not sure, same as above- could be conditions we don’t know about that made them make these choices also

Utilitarianism – if the statements were really just to get funding, they’re unethical

Feminist Perspective and Ethic of Care – could be ethical in avoiding violence, could be unethical in seeming authoritarian and wasting so much money that could be spent on the poor, healthcare, etc.

CONCLUSION

Concern for basic security can cloud judgment, the program had good goals but it was unrealistic