Ethics Assignment

Topic “We had to cook up a load of bull, I’ll tell you. And white lies at this point are entirely moral. You don’t want to spread terror in the community to people who don’t need to be terrorized. We were terrorized, no question about that.” ? ( William LeMessurier cited in Kremer, E, (2002) (Re)Examining the Citicorp case: Ethical Paragon or Chimera Were those responsible for the Citicorp building correct to withhold from the public the full extent of the structural deficiencies of the building? Why or why not? References JOE MORGENSTERN (1995) THE FIFTY-NINE-STORY CRISIS, THE NEW YORKER, MAY 29, 1995, pp 45-53 What's an engineer's worst nightmare? To realize that the supports he designed for a skyscraper like Citicorp Center are flawed---and hurricane season is approaching. (full text available at https://people.duke.edu/~hpgavin/cee421/citicorp1.htm Kremer, E, (2002) (Re)Examining the Citicorp case: Ethical Paragon or Chimera full text at https://www.crosscurrents.org/kremer2002.htm Ethics journal assignment submission details Topic “We had to cook up a load of bull, I’ll tell you. And white lies at this point are entirely moral. You don’t want to spread terror in the community to people who don’t need to be terrorized. We were terrorized, no question about that.” ? ( William LeMessurier cited in Kremer, E, (2002) (Re)Examining the Citicorp case: Ethical Paragon or Chimera Were those responsible for the Citicorp building correct to withhold from the public the full extent of the structural deficiencies of the building? Why or why not? Submission details You must complete the Week 7 workshop activity before completing this assignment. Your submission will be in two parts (submitted as one file). Part A (3 marks) Up to 300 words. A summary of both the postive arguments (that Le Messurier et al. actions were reasonable); and negative arguments (that Le Messurier et al. should have fully informed the public of the full extent of the structural problems). Order the arguments on both sides from the strongest to the weakest. The summary would be best presented as a table. You should determine the list from your own reading and from the discussions during the workshop activity. Part B (7 marks). Up to 700 words. Your answer to the topic question (above). You should address the arguments from both sides to arrive at you final postion. Your argument should be your original work based on the lecture and workshop activities and on your own reading. Marking criteria Criterion Weighting Lists the main arguments for both positive and negative answers to the topic. 3 marks. up to 300 words A clear, well-reasoned and structured argument answering the topic question. 7 marks up to 700 words