F-2: Mine Safety

Statement of the Case: 

Engineer A, the Chief Engineer for a long-established mine, engaged

Geoscientist B to study the mine operations and to devise more efficient methods for extracting

ore from the old mine. During a site inspection, the geoscientist travelled down the shaft into the

drifts (tunnels) which led to the ore face. During this detailed tour of the mine, Geoscientist B

observed many infractions of safety provisions: methane detectors were missing from the deepest

parts of the mine; ventilation was poor in many areas of the mine; shoring was old and appeared

to be deteriorating; thick dust covered equipment and could have been a source of dangerous

dust explosions. Although Geoscientist B had not been hired to examine mine safety, the

geoscientist nevertheless mentioned these concerns to Engineer A, who agreed that safety was a

major worry. Engineer A explained that several proposals for safety improvements had been

made over the years, but the senior mine management had rejected them, citing the marginal

profitability of the mine and the fact that costly changes could cause the mine to close.

Question: If you were Engineer A or Geoscientist B, what would you do at this point?

Outcome: Geoscientist B stated that a professional should not condone such unsafe practices by

ignoring them and suggested that a combined, direct warning to the mine management might be

more convincing than the engineer’s previous safety proposals. Engineer A agreed, and they

made up a list of the most essential safety measures. The warning on mine safety was prepared as

a chapter in the geoscientist’s report on ore extraction. Engineer A and Geoscientist B cited the

Westray mine disaster, which killed 26 miners, and they quoted sections from the Westray

inquiry, showing similarities with the Westray practices. They also explained that the possibility

of injury or death because of the dangerous mine conditions was a far more serious financial risk

than the potential of mine closure.

Geoscientist B presented the report to senior management, and Engineer A supported the safety

warning and emphasized that safety measures need to be taken whether the mine’s productivity

justified them or not. After a brief discussion of the report, the senior management agreed to all

of the proposed safety measures, saying that they simply had been unaware of the seriousness of

the situation.

Authors’ Comments: This example is typical of many cases where the initiative of Professional
Engineers and Professional Geoscientists, and their commitment to the public welfare, as stated
in the Code of Ethics, has resulted in safer and more productive workplaces.

[Infraction- a violation or infringement of a law or agreement.

Ore - a natural aggregation of one or more minerals that can be mined, processed, and sold at a profit.]

__________________________________________________

F2: Mine Safety 

Engineer A, the Chief Engineer for a long-established mine, engaged Geoscientist B to study the mine operations and to devise more efficient methods for extracting ore from the old mine. During a site inspection, the geoscientist travelled down the shaft into the drifts (tunnels) which led to the ore face. During this detailed tour of the mine, Geoscientist B observed many infractions of safety provisions: methane detectors were missing from the deepest parts of the mine; ventilation was poor in many areas of the mine; shoring was old and appeared to be deteriorating; thick dust covered equipment and could have been a source of dangerous dust explosions. Although Geoscientist B had not been hired to examine mine safety, the geoscientist nevertheless mentioned these concerns to Engineer A, who agreed that safety was a major worry. Engineer A explained that several proposals for safety improvements had been made over the years, but the senior mine management had rejected them, citing the marginal profitability of the mine and the fact that costly changes could cause the mine to close.

Make an NPPE QUESTION based on 

1. Mill’s Utilitarianism.

2. Locke’s Rights Ethics.

3. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics.

4. Kant’s formalism

After discussing the unsafe conditions with Engineer A, Geoscientist B considers what should be done. B recognizes that requiring extensive safety improvements could make the marginally profitable mine financially unviable, potentially resulting in its closure and the loss of many jobs. However, B believes that workers have a fundamental right to personal safety and life, and that these rights should not be sacrificed merely because protecting them would impose significant financial costs on the mine owner.

Geoscientist B therefore recommends that the identified hazards be corrected before workers continue to be exposed to them.

Which ethical theory most closely reflects Geoscientist B's reasoning?

1. Mill’s Utilitarianism
2. Locke’s Rights Ethics
3. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics
4. Kant’s Formalism

Correct answer: 2. Locke’s Rights Ethics ✅

The critical clue is:

Workers have a fundamental right to personal safety and life.

Locke's Rights Ethics focuses on protecting fundamental individual rights. The fact that correcting the hazards might cost money, reduce profitability, or even contribute to closure does not by itself justify disregarding workers' fundamental rights.

Why the others are wrong

1. Mill’s Utilitarianism ❌
This would require weighing the overall consequences: worker safety, number of jobs potentially lost, economic effects, mine profitability, effects on the community, etc., and selecting the action producing the greatest overall good.

3. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics ❌
This would emphasize the character of the professional—such as courage, prudence, integrity, and what a virtuous professional would do.

4. Kant’s Formalism ❌
This would emphasize duty: B should take the ethically proper action because it is the professional's moral duty, regardless of whether the consequences are financially beneficial or popular.

NPPE recognition trick

When the question explicitly emphasizes:

“greatest good / overall consequences” → MILL

“individual's fundamental rights” → LOCKE ✅

“virtue / character / appropriate mean” → ARISTOTLE

“duty / do what is right regardless of consequences” → KANT

So in F2, if the reasoning is framed around the miners' right to life and personal safety, the answer is 2. Locke’s Rights Ethics.