Someone who knows everything about a problem at hand, acts voluntarily, and yet does wrong is judged incompetent. what the person knew or believed, or should and could have known or believed, about the issue a at hand.Įach of these queries raises often subtle conceptual issues, the concepts involved being anything but clear, and even if we had conceptual clarity, each requires the gathering of evidence that is difficult to obtain and a parsing of it that can readily go wrong through our own biases or misconceptions.īut whatever the difficulties each presents, the set forms a triad for determining fault.whether the person acted voluntarily and if not, what precluded or diminished the capacity to act voluntarily and.whether the person was competent and if so, if it is relevant, to what degree.
So, in judging ethically a person's particular past act or omission, this condition requires knowing: It is prima facie unethical to hold people morally responsible for what they did not do or could not reasonably be expected to prevent. A Brief Background Tufte's Representation Tufte's Take on the Engineers' Reasoning What the Engineers were Trying to Prove The Engineers' Test Database The Engineers' Field Database The Engineers' Epistemic Position The Engineers' Reasoning Tufte's Misrepresentation Moral Responsibility References This lecture discusses and evaluates the charge made by Edward Tufte, in his major work on visual representations, Visual Explanations, that Morton-Thiokol engineers were at fault for not using more convincing graphical representations of the risk in arguing against the launch of the ill-fated Challenger Space Shuttle.
0 kommentar(er)
