Erin McConville ’21: Multidisciplinary Learning Competency

Civil engineers are held to a strict code of ethics, since decisions made by civil engineers can have enormous impacts on public health and safety. After taking an ethics class at the University of Portland, I evaluated the decisions that resulted in the Flint Water Crisis.

Events in Flint, Michigan have elevated the topic of clean water across the nation. Many people would agree that citizens deserve the right to clean water; however, government officials in Flint didn’t promote policies that reflect this view.  This paper proposes alternative actions that the government could have taken, as well as their evaluations using the ethical theories of utilitarianism, pluralism, and virtue ethics.

In 2014, the city of Flint, Michigan started to use water from the Flint River because it was cheaper to use instead of water from the City of Detroit. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality signed off on this change, stating that the Flint River water was safe for drinking. Residents noticed this change was accompanied by strange tasting and smelling water. Concerned, the EPA and Virginia Tech students tested the water and found that it had high levels of E. coli. To kill the E. coli, more chlorine was added to the water. This solution solved the E. coli problem, but the water was so corrosive that lead from the city’s pipelines leached into the water.

Concerned that the high levels of chlorine would ruin its machinery and products, General Motors (GM), whose plant is located in Flint, Michigan, stopped using the city’s water and instead received water from the city of Detroit. Meanwhile, multiple residents, using the city’s water, had come forward with health issues, including diarrhea, dehydration, kidney failure, and rashes. As more tests where done, the EPA and Virginia Tech found extremely hazardous levels of lead in the water and issued recommendations for the city to improve its infrastructure and for residents to stop drinking the Flint River water.

Initially, the city did very little for residents, as they did not want to pay millions of dollars to replace water pipes. Eventually, the city leaders decided to distribute water filters and water bottles and connected their water source to that of the city of Detroit. Despite this temporary solution, the damage to the pipe still left lead in the water and the damage city leaders caused to its residents and their health is irreversible. Exposure to byproducts of elevated levels of chlorine and lead can lead to fatal damage to kidneys and the nervous system, cancer, and developmental issues in young children.

In this example, the ethical issue is that city officials knew that their water was unsafe for drinking but did not want to spend the money required to make the water safe for residents. Additionally, the city officials prioritized the GM plant by spending city resources to divert their water before diverting residents’ water. The main stakeholders in this conflict were residents and city leaders in Flint, and GM. The residents of Flint wanted safe drinking water in their homes and schools; the city of Flint wanted to spend as little money as possible, except when it came to GM’s water supply; and GM wanted non-chlorinated water. In this situation, the city of Flint could have taken the advice of the EPA and Virginia Tech more seriously when they first started testing the water.

If city officials had initially listened to these groups, they could have prevented their residents from such lengthy exposures to toxins. If they had responded to the problem more quickly, they would not have received as much attention and backlash as they actually did. In the end, they did connect back into the city of Detroit’s water because there was no way they could make the Flint River water safe to drink. Unfortunately, because the city’s pipes were corroded, the city’s water continues to be a health risk to citizens, even with a safer water source. In terms of avoiding the problem, the Department of Environmental Quality could have given an honest evaluation of the Flint River’s water, stating that it was unsuitable for drinking, and prevented Flint from switching water sources in the first place.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory that focuses on the result of an action, specifically the result that produces the most happiness or pleasure (Mill 11.) Mill makes this conclusion through his Greatest Happiness Principle: all people pursue happiness; happiness is the only end that people pursue; all other things are a means to gaining happiness; and all people’s happiness should be weighed the same (Mill 32.) There are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism evaluates actions on a case-by-case basis; rule utilitarianism, on the other hand, evaluates the action and its consequences universally (Mill 15.) It does so by thinking about the action and its consequences if everyone acted similarly in similar situations.

By evaluating this situation using both act and rule utilitarianism, it is clear to see that the leaders of the city of Flint, Michigan acted unethically. Instead of prioritizing the residents, which would have created the most happiness, the city prioritized GM and the city’s budget. By recognizing that the Flint water was unsafe and residents’ health was more important than the cheaper cost of Detroit’s water or by quickly reverting back to the Detroit water, the city would have avoided most of the unhappiness of the residents that it produced. There may have been some unhappiness involved with the budget, but overall, people would have been much happier and healthier. In some cases, it is preferable to stick to a budget; however, this case proves that this is not true when the health of thousands of people is at risk.  Additionally, the initial budget analysis was flawed in that it did not incorporate all true economic costs of the project, tangible and intangible.   

Another ethical theory that can be used to evaluate this argument is non-absolutist ethical pluralism. This theory is different from the utilitarian theory in that it does not focus on the consequences of the actions being carried out. Instead, it focuses on “self-evident prima facie duties,” and how the doer of the action is keeping to his or her duties (Ross, 313.) The duties that Ross names include: justice, gratitude, fidelity, non-maleficence, beneficence, reparation, and self-improvement (Ross, 314.) There is no fixed order of importance of these duties, but in certain situations, some duties may outweigh others (Ross, 315.)

Because of this definition, there is no clear answer to whether an action is ethically right or wrong; it is subjective, up to the evaluator to decide which duties (if any) outweigh other duties. Additionally, like act utilitarianism, evaluating whether or not an act is morally right is done on a case-by-case basis; there is no general rule that can be universally applied, since there is no set order of duties, and in most cases, like this one, every option violates at least one duty.

Evaluating this situation using pluralism also shows that the leaders of the city of Flint, Michigan were immoral. In this example, the duties of justice, fidelity, non-maleficence, beneficence, and reparation were not carried out. The main reason government exists is to provide for the safety and wellbeing of its citizens, which Flint failed to do. In some cases, it may be permissible to break duties for the sake of another duty or duties. However, none of the other duties were carried out in this situation, so breaking them was unethical.

Testing the Flint River water and truthfully acknowledging its hazards would have upheld the duties of non-maleficence, beneficence, justice, and fidelity. Switching water sources immediately after listening to recommendations from Virginia Tech and the EPA would have upheld duties of justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, and reparation. Spending extra money may have broken the duty of fidelity to the budget, but that is the cost of keeping all of the other duties.

A third theory to evaluate this situation is virtue ethics. Virtue ethics emphasizes the moral character behind making a decision, not the outcome of the decision or certain obligations or duties involved with a decision (Hursthouse, et all.) It takes ideas of rules and consequences into account, but is primarily focused on virtues and vices as the basis of this theory (Hursthouse, et. all.) Virtues and vices make up a person’s moral character, which then provides the foundation to making ethical decisions. This theory focuses heavily on the decision maker and his or her values instead of an action or consequence.

In this situation, it is clear that the officials in Flint, Michigan lacked certain virtues that would have pushed them towards a different decision. Namely, they lacked compassion, fairness, integrity, and honesty. Instead, many of these officials were dishonest, untrustworthy, careless, and unjust. They did not care that they were putting their citizens in harm’s way and they lied to cover up what they were doing. They also edited water quality reports so that it seemed like the water was safe, but these actions only proved to residents that they could not trust those in their local government and within the EPA.

Using the two ethical theories of utilitarianism and pluralism, the decisions of the leaders in the city of Flint, Michigan made during their water crisis were immoral and harmed the residents of the city in a way that cannot be reversed or corrected. By using the same theories as guidelines, there were multiple alternative ways the city could have handled the situation.

Because civil engineers make critical decisions involving the public’s safety, civil engineers are held to a Code of Ethics set by the American Society of Civil Engineers. This code ensures that their work holds the public’s wellbeing paramount. This Code of Ethics creates a set of duties for civil engineers that is similar to the duties of pluralism. In this case, there were several engineers who were not upholding the Code of Ethics, and therefore, should lose their Professional Engineering license.

Works Cited:

Aristotle (2014). Nicomachean ethics. (Reeves, Trans.). Hackett Publishing.

Campbell, Carla, et al. “A Case Study of Environmental Injustice: The Failure in Flint.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 27 Sept. 2016, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5086690/.

Hursthouse, Rosalind, and Glen Pettigrove. “Virtue Ethics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 8 Dec. 2016, plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/.

Kant, Immanuel (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 3rd edition (Ellington, trans.) Hackett Publishing.

Mill, J. S. (2017). Utilitarianism: With Related Remarks from Mill's Other Writings. (Eggleston,ed.). Hackett Publishing.