Finding a creative middle ground is an essential strategy for issue resolution. It is sometimes feasible to identify a plan of action that satisfies both sides by using creative thinking but possibly not in the way that was initially intended (McGinn, 2018). However, there are situations when there is simply no creative middle ground or it is not always ethically suitable (McGinn, 2018). Nonetheless, finding a creative middle ground to a complicated, practical moral challenge is frequently a good answer.
The conflict of interest in the given case revolves around the cost of the project. On the one side stands the issue of lowering the cost and ignoring the full implementation of the safety regulations. The other point of view elaborates on the costs to the maximum with the sole goal to reach complete protection for disabled people. Considering the code of ethics for engineering (National Society of Professional Engineers, for instance), states that the safety and health of the public must be maintained (National Society of Professional Engineers, 2021). It points out that all conflicts of interest should be settled for public benefit (National Society of Professional Engineers, 2021). The same conduct is promoted by state laws, which rely on the same ethical codes (if applicable within the country of the case). Within these settings, the courses of action for the engineer are either to stick to the cost-savings procedure or to maximize costs. However, compromise as part of the middle-ground solution is also an available option.
The middle ground solution can lie in the 50/50 balance between the costs and safety system for disabled people. This solution is a recommendation for the engineer due to the balance between safety and costs. The similarity in the approach of both sides revolves around the successful implementation of the project. The differences in the approach to this implementation lay within the cost amount. Therefore, a consensus can be reached within these settings. While it is irresponsible to maximize costs for the sole focus on one social class, thus ignoring the public benefit of others, keeping the price at its lowest, therefore not considering disabled people’s safety at all, is unacceptable.
References
McGinn, R. (2018). The Ethical engineer: Contemporary concepts and cases. Princeton University Press.
National Society of Professional Engineers. (2021). NSPE Ethics Reference Guide. NSPE Publishing. Web.