Microsoft Word - 7445-18831-1-ED_Marone-Peppoloni.doc ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/AG-7445 1 Ethical Dilemmas in Geosciences. We Can Ask, but, Can We Answer? EDUARDO MARONE CEM/UFPR, IOI-TC-LAC, Brazil IAPG – International Association for Promoting Geoethics edmarone@gmail.com SILVIA PEPPOLONI Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia IAPG – International Association for Promoting Geoethics silvia.peppoloni@ingv.it Abstract The choices of a geoscientist while carrying out his/her activity are always accompanied by ethical implications, because they can have a strong impact on the population, the natural environment, the economy, the landscape and the cultural resources of the affected area. It is not uncommon for a geoscientist to be faced with ethical dilemmas that are problems with a difficult solution, since options to solve such dilemmas will have negative consequences. How does one make a choice in these circumstances? What is the ethical duty of geoscientists and what has to be their professional attitude? In which cases do they have the duty to take action or the duty to not act (duty of omission)? A brief review of the concepts formulated by philosophers in reference to ethics can serve to provide some answers to the above questions and to under- stand how geoscientists can best serve society. “Among men there are but few who behave accord- ing to principles - which is extremely good, as it can so easily happen that one errs in these principles, and then the resulting disadvantage extends all the further, the more universal the principle and the more resolute the person who has set it before him- self.” (Immanuel Kant, 1764) 1. INTRODUCTION thics is a branch of philosophy (moral philosophy) having as many definitions as there are philosophers. One might consider it as the main philosophical “tool” to identify right and wrong conduct (Fieser, 2017) and to define which are our ethical duties and obligations, once we have established a shared set of reference values. One of the critical situations we face, as hu- mans in general and as geoscientists in particu- lar, occurs when we are exposed to an ethical dilemma. An ethical dilemma is a problem of difficult solution, which offers an alternative between two or more options, none of which is fully acceptable in practice or both with nega- tive consequences. Dilemmas arise because of conflicts between right or wrong for the actions/means and the bad or good of the consequences/ends. They involve a conflict between ethical duties, in which to follow one would result in violating another. Moral Philosophy tries to provide rules and principles enabling us trying to solve ethical dilemmas. Among the many, one of the best known ethical guides is the “Golden Rule”, or law of reciprocity, a principle suggesting treat- E ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/AG-7445 2 ing the others as one would wish to be treated (Flew, 1979). One alleged goal of ethics would be to help us in determining how to solve ethical dilemmas. Firstly, we should question: • Is it possible to solve such dilemmas? • What must we do if we cannot? It is not always easy or possible to apply the Golden Rule or other ethical laws to solve a given dilemma. In geosciences, when faced with a (geo)ethical dilemma, geoscientists have to initially answer some questions: • Can we solve any of the dilemmas that ap- pear in the practice of our profession? • Always? • In some cases? • Not at all? • What if we cannot? • Must we? In the following, we try to analyse if it is possi- ble to answer the above questions and, if not, what should be the ethical duty of a geoscien- tist when facing an apparently unsolvable di- lemma. 2. PROBLEMS, QUESTIONS AND GEOETHICAL DILEMMAS Ethical behaviour is primarily about making correct choices. Thus, we have to keep in mind that, when confronting professional dilemmas, we have to deal with ethical consequences of our work (Bobrowsky et al., 2017). Ethics is in- timately tied to critical thinking, pushing us to use our best “shelter” of logical/scientific tools/methods to solve problems that have eth- ical implications. But that is not enough. In fact, dilemmas are particular problems that create situations that could put us on difficult grounds, forcing us to decide based on what we think the ethically correct course of action would be. Ethical dilemmas, however, need decisions using critical thinking, on what would be a logical/rational way of action. Nonetheless, there are no truly ‘right’ solution to such dilemmas, as they often ask us to com- pare two different ethical or logical imperatives and choose which one we feel is the most im- portant (Wall, 2003). Dilemmas arise when we do not have a solu- tion satisfying both ethical and logical premis- es, although many modern philosophers pro- pose theories to resolve such situations. In fact, if a dilemma has a solution that does not vio- late logical thinking nor ethical principles, it is not a real dilemma. However, we should con- sider also that dilemmas are solvable using sci- entific means but may violate ethical princi- ples. For example, the opening of a mine in an economically depressed area could have indis- putable benefits for the local population, as this activity would provide new jobs, improve the facilities and infrastructure of the territory, in- crease community services and foster local mi- croeconomics. Nevertheless, at the same time, the mine may have a strong impact on the nat- ural environment, disrupt ecosystems, lead to landscape deterioration, become a source of groundwater pollution, or trigger new hazards in the area. Therefore, there are positive and negative as- pects to be considered, according to different perspectives: in the short and long term, at both small and large scales. In the short term, the mine can represent a great economic benefit for the local population but, in the long term, it may impoverish the ar- ea and its inhabitants from an environmental and aesthetic point of view, by overturning the initial positive effects. Considering the local scale, the mine may have negative repercussions on the quality of the environment, whereas in a large-scale perspec- tive it can have positive effects on the country's GDP. How long (in terms of time and space) will those effects (positive and negative) persist? Hence, a specific situation, not necessarily a di- lemma as in the short term, could become a di- lemma in the long term. Although we all want dilemmas solved, such a perception however, may be hopeless if it turns out that the nature of dilemmas is to remain dilemmas (Grassian, 1992). This does not mean we cannot find an acceptable solution from a scientific/technical point of view. ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/AG-7445 3 If we focus on geoethical dilemmas, taking into account the challenging question of the philos- opher Immanuel Kant (formulated in 1764): • Is it rational for me to will that my choice become a universal law of nature? As geoscientists, we hold the knowledge (our scientific information, data and methods), which is not perfect, thus fallible, and always subject to possible changes and improvements by definition, as in any “truthful” science (Popper, 1959). If we have to do what is right, based on our scientific knowledge and a critical thinking, despite potentially bad consequences, then we have to be sure that our knowledge is advanced and scientifically updated, to be con- sidered as true (that is, it possesses truly the qualities attributed to it). • However, is our scientific knowledge such a universal truth? If our knowledge is neither perfect nor abso- lute, nor a universal truth (and we know that): • Can we answer in one or other direction to geoethical dilemmas (in good faith)? If a geoscientist usually makes choices trying to look at the best consequences (or at least not the worst), sometimes bad consequences must be carefully evaluated and even accepted. Nev- ertheless: • Who has to decide whether to accept bad consequences? It is not always the duty of a geoscientist to take a decision among those options that ap- pear in a given geoethical dilemma. For exam- ple, the final decision on the feasibility and im- plementation of an engineering geology inter- vention can depend not only on scientific and/or technological considerations, but also on political matters. However, geoscientists must not replace politicians, but “provide all the concrete and exhaustive elements to take a decision as sustainable as possible for that social and envi- ronmental system” (Peppoloni and Di Capua, 2017a). So, a geoscientist is ethically forced to properly inform, with no bias, those who are really in charge of the decision-making process. When the geoscientist also holds the decision- making duty, she/he has to look beyond geo- sciences and consider other reference systems (social, cultural, economic, etc.) in taking the decision 3. THE NO ANSWER OPTION Modern philosophy has shown multiple ideas and reasoning about how to face ethical di- lemmas. However, in the path to achieve a high ethical standard, it has been proposed that all individuals have to construct his/her own set of ethical values, targeting the highest level in the Kohlberg’s stages of moral development (Kohlberg, 1982; Kohlberg et al., 1983). These stages (Table 1) are planes of moral adequacy conceived to explain the development of ethical reasoning. Kohlberg's stages of moral devel- opment constitute an adaptation of a psycho- logical theory originally conceived by Jean Pia- get (1896-1980) (Piaget, 1932). Table 1: Kohlberg’s planes of moral adequacy (adapted from Kohlberg, 1982) Level Stage Social driver Pre-Conventional (the morality of ac- tions is judged by its direct consequenc- es) 1 Obedience and Punishment (blind egoism) 2 Self-interest ori- entation (instru- mental egoism) Conventional (the morality of ac- tions is judged by comparing them to society's views and expectations) 3 Interpersonal accord and con- formity (social relation- ships) 4 Law and order morality (social systems) Post-Conventional (individual’s moral- ity may take prece- dence over society’s morality: principles include basic hu- man rights as life, liberty, and justice) 5 Social Contract orientation 6 Universal Ethi- cal Principles (Principled Conscience: mutual respect) Kohlberg's theory holds that moral reasoning, the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable de- ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/AG-7445 4 velopmental stages, each of them more adequate to respond to ethical dilemmas than the preced- ing stage. At stage 6, action is never a means to a goal, but it is an aim in itself; the individual acts because it is right and not for avoiding punish- ment, or for complying with social laws; he/she acts in the right way because this is mainly in his/her own interest. Although it is not easy to find individuals always acting accordingly with the highest ethical stage, which could be consid- ered somehow utopian, we can consider this highest stage as a spur to push ourselves on that direction. Ideally, any individual must climb stages to the top, or at least try to climb, to elevate the ethical quality of his/her behavior. Most peo- ple rely on stage 5, assuming that following a giv- en Social Contract (for example a deontological professional code of ethics/conduct) would be enough; others remain at stage 4, following rules because they are in force, not due to deep convic- tion. The ultimate stage (stage 6) provides indi- viduals with an impeccable ethical conduct, be- cause of their deep conviction and consciousness that their ethical values are the right ones, even if they know those values cannot be considered universal laws. Deontological theories may deny that conse- quences are of any concern, provided the inten- tion was good. However, not all geoscientists will feel comfortable if their actions, although ap- proved by deontological codes and in spite of their good intentions, result in harm to other people (society) or the environment. Thus, geo- scientists cannot think that deontological codes are the last step for an ethical assurance where they can find all the necessary ways to face ethical dilemmas, whatever the consequences (Peppolo- ni and Di Capua, 2017b write about the ‘… ten- dency to confuse “the ethics of responsibility” with “the ethics embodied by the tool” …’). They have to aspire to respond to ethical dilemmas starting from strong values and be conscious of the limits of their knowledge. 4. CONCLUSION: THE DILEMMA OF DILEMMAS The main question we have to consider and an- swer is: • Have ethical dilemmas a “right” solution? According to present knowledge, they do not. As we have shown, a real ethical dilemma is a problem with no perfect solution in absolute terms. We can find only acceptable solutions concerning each specific context. Thus, if real ethical dilemmas with a conflict between means and aims cannot simply be solved by a geoscientist: • Where is his/her duty? If there is no perfect solution to geoethical di- lemmas, because the possibility of a conflict be- tween what would be right and what is ac- ceptable and wise to be done, and considering that in most cases a solution is expected from geoscientists: • What has to be their professional attitude? If we are facing a geoethical real dilemma, our first professional attitude must be accepting we cannot offer a unique right solution, but op- tions and potential outcomes/scenarios. Our duty is to explain the choices and the conse- quences of each choice. We cannot fall on the mistake of considering our geoscience knowledge as a universal law, thinking we might solve any geoethical dilemma based on it and only it. But, we can suggest geoethical de- cisions by justifying them adequately from a scientific and technical point of view, and by clearly indicating pros and cons of the choice we are proposing, including a cost/benefit analysis also in societal and environmental terms, and including in our scientific analysis both probabilities and uncertainties. This ap- proach is expected to lead to that point of equi- librium among positive and negative conse- quences (Peppoloni and Di Capua, 2017b). However, geoscientists cannot be always able to propose solutions to real geoethical dilem- mas. But, in this case: • What are their professional duties? In which way can geoscientists best serve society? Facing real geoethical dilemmas is mostly linked to our duties of omission (not proposing a given unique solution) than to select one be- cause we really think, even in good faith, it is ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/AG-7445 5 the lesser of two evils (the principle that when faced with selecting from two unethi- cal/immoral options, the one which is least un- ethical/immoral should be chosen). We have to present, exclusively, technical-scientific data without influencing the choice of decision- makers. It is not our duty, as geoscientists, to select among evils. We have to refrain from taking sides in such cases. In any case, our duty of informing remains, which means to clearly explain, to all the players, which are the evils and what consequences have to be expected whatever the decision taken would be. Critical situations push us to offer solutions to geoethical dilemmas under great pressures and tight deadlines. This is the golden moment of our professional behaviour, when the highest ethical standards are requested and in which we must refrain from offering a scientific solu- tion to the unsolvable. For example, during an intense seismic swarm in a high-risk area, prone to strong earthquakes, we could be asked to give our advice to evacuate or not a village for the possibility of a mainshock; this is a decision to be taken by decision-makers and not by geoscientists, since earthquakes are not currently predictable with any acceptable accu- racy. When we are confronted with a geoethi- cal dilemma, it could be good to think accord- ing to the Gödel theorem (Smith, 2007): the no- tion of truth in a system is not definable inside the same system. In the case of geosciences, this means that we have to accept the limitation of geosciences (our system) in offering true solu- tions to real geoethical dilemmas based solely on geoscientific knowledge. We have to let de- cision-makers take the final decision, based on principles other than geoscientific ones (from other systems). Our obligation, however, is to be clear on all the potential (geo)consequences for different options/scenarios, no more, no less. It is time to better examine and rethink the challenge on how to approach geoethical di- lemmas, creating consciousness about the val- ues that should guide our professional duties, which do not finish because any deontological code says so. Moreover, geoscientists do not have only duties of informing, but in some cas- es also to refrain from taking a decision. We must not answer what cannot be answered. REFERENCES Bobrowsky P., Cronin V.S., Di Capua G., Kief- fer S.W., Peppoloni S. (2017). The Emerging Field of Geoethics. In: Scientific Integrity and Ethics with Applications to the Geosci- ences, edited by L.C. Gundersen. Special Publication American Geophysical Union, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Fieser J. (2017). “Ethics”, The Internet Encyclo- pedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/, accessed 18 October 2017. Flew A. (1979). A Dictionary of Philosophy. Lon- don: Pan Books in association with The Mac- Millan Press. p. 134. ISBN 0-330-48730-2. Grassian V. (1992). Moral Reasoning, Prentice Hall. Kant I. (1764). Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime. Trans. John T. Goldthwait. University of California Press. Kohlberg L. (1982). Moral development. In: Broughton J.M. & Freeman-Moir D.J. (Eds.), The Cognitive Developmental Psychology of James Mark Baldwin: Current Theory and Research in Genetic Epistemology, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp. Kohlberg L., Levine C., Hewer A. (1983). Moral stages: a current formulation and a re- sponse to critics. Basel, NY: Karger. ISBN: 3805537166. Peppoloni S. and Di Capua G. (2017a). Ethics, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-12127-7_115-1. In: Bobrowsky P.T. and Marker B. (eds.), Encyclo- pedia of Engineering Geology, Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series, Springer International Publishing, ISBN: 978-3-319-12127-7. Peppoloni S. and Di Capua G. (2017b). Geoeth- ics: ethical, social and cultural implications in geosciences. Annals of Geophysics, 60, Fast Track 7, doi: 10.4401/ag-7473. Piaget J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trub- ner and Co., ISBN: 0029252407. Popper K.R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Dis- covery. 2002, Routledge, ISBN: 978-0-415- 27844-7. Smith P. (2007). An Introduction to Gödel’s Theorems. Cambridge University Press. ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, FAST TRACK 7, 2017; DOI: 10.4401/AG-7445 6 Wall T.F. (2003). Thinking Critically About Moral Problems by. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, ISBN: 9780534574239.