De George's Argumentative Analysis

De George argues that the Ford engineers that were involved in the design of the Pinto had no moral obligation to blow the whistle. I will argue that his argument fails. I will begin by stating his argument. Then I will state some objections to his claims. I will then discuss objections that he might give and I will show why they fail.

De George argues that engineers have a moral obligation to blow the whistle only if: they have documented evidence that would convince a reasonable, impartial observer that the engineer’s view of the situation is correct and the policy of the company is wrong (cite), and they have strong evidence that making the situation public will in fact prevent the threatened serious harm (cite). De George claims that the

He might argue that people can be convinced to change their minds while documents cannot be changed as easily. This is why he might insist on engineers having documented evidence and not relying on oral testimony. My response to this is that documented evidence, especially one that is used in court proceedings, is subject to different forms of authentication. This could result in the documentary evidence being thrown out of court as De George mentioned concerning the evidence about the 1971 and 1972 Pinto models that was thrown out of the court (pg. 177, par 2).

De George also claims that there must be strong evidence that making the case public will prevent the threatened serious harm (cite). He says this so that the harm that the engineer might be exposed to will not be greater than the benefits of coming forward with the information. This is a consequentialist way to approach things because it focuses only on harm that can be prevented (mentioned in class). It overlooks the good that can be done for victims and their families by bringing the injustice to light. This could simply be getting justice for them or it could involve reversing the harm that was