Eduardo Barrera

PHIL. 2393
Dr. Jaworski
7/4/14
The Correct Course of Action
Engineering is one of the worlds most involved professions; just like doctors have to
make decisions that may affect the health of people, by improving it or worsening it, engineers
also have to make decisions that will not only affect the design or project but also the people that
will use it. Taking that into account certainly adds a degree of difficulty for any project, no
matter how small it is. Generally projects are designed to improve the quality of life of the
public, however there may be negative side effects or unforeseen effects on the environment.
Considering all these aspects, I would argue that the best, or at least the most appropriate, theory
to pursue in this profession would be utilitarianism.
The utilitarian theory, in my opinion, definitely fits the ideal of the engineering
profession. As an engineer, and also as a human being, one should only look to work and design
projects that only improve the life of the general population. What I would like to convey is that
this pursuit is not just a professional one, but a natural one. The utilitarian theory states that we
must maximize the happiness for the most number of people. Not just a good number, but the
most people that would end up being affected in some way by a project. By maximizing
happiness we are looking to get the most positive values even after subtracting any negatives that
there may be. I believe utilitarianism is not only a good theory in the profession but also applies
to everyday life. Utilitarianism is very similar to democracy, which is the current preferred
system of government in the world, if we could imagine that votes in decisions are positive or
negative values and how they influence decisions. In a democracy, people vote for and against to
elect for offices and laws, which is not so different from assigning positive and negative values
to possible outcomes and making decisions from that. It could also be argued that leaders, such
as politicians (presidents, mayors, etc.) make use of the theory for their decisions, as they have to
take decisions based on the greater good.
The case 26, Peter Palchinsky: The ghost of the executed engineer, deals with the story of
a Russian engineer and how he deals with the oppression of the government. To fully understand
the case, Palchinskys background is worth a review. After graduating in 1901 from St.
Petersburg School of mines, Palchinsky had the opportunity to pay close attention to the living
conditions of workers. He was assigned by the tsarist government to an investigative team
studying methods of increasing coal production, where he found underpaid workers suffering
from poor health and low morale in broken housing and fell victim to gruesome winter. When he
reported this, he was sentenced to 8yrs of house arrest in Irlustsk, Siberia, charged with working
with anarchists to overthrow the tsarist government. Even though he was imprisoned, Palchinsky
continued as a consultant; Palchinsky had value to the govt. as his instructions usually increased
productivity. At one point he escaped to Europe, and was widely recognized as one of the
leading engineers at the time. He did come back, yet following the Bolshevik revolution, he and
several engineers were imprisoned and many were executed. This began a decade of
consultation, forced by Lenin's hand, and then Stalin. Peter continued to speak out against
massive projects that Stalin had planned. Stalin had several big projects that were grandiose in
scale and scope, however many were poorly designed and carried out. Once Palchinsky had a
chance to review some of them, he found nothing new. They were the same inhuman conditions
for the workers and the just as bad planning for the projects. Palchinsky did what any
professional engineer and human being would, he spoke out against the projects Stalin had.
Stalin, did not take the criticism as constructive, and decided Palchinsky was no longer worth his
keep; Palchinsky was excecutioned, but not before implementing some of his regulations and
design/logistics improvements to some projects.
In this case, the utilitarian theory is the best approach in trying to decide on a course of
action. Palchinsky does take the course of action that agrees with the Utilitarian theory, therefore
I would like to expand on why he acted as such. Palchinsky had seen firsthand the many poor
conditions workers had to endure to build the projects. Since his professional development, he
had seen the horrors of how the workers lived and worked in just to bring ill designed projects to
life; that is certainly a perspective to take into account. Once he did became an engineer and was
tasked with some of the governments projects, he could make certain changes he knew would
improve conditions not only for the workers and engineers, but also for the people that would
ultimately use them. This is how utilitarianism comes into play, Palchinsky had to consider the
greater good. The engineers, workers, and public that would be affected by the projects far
outnumbered in value whatever else that goes against it. The points against in the utilitarian
theory, would be Stalins wishes and what punishment Palchinsky might face. Although the
Stalins anger and further punishment/death for Palchinsky may have a higher negative value, the
sheer number of people who it would affect positively would definitely overcome those points,
and make the decision obvious. Its a matter of putting values on outcomes and deciding what
which one would benefit the most number of people without causing so much pain or negatives.



Above is the table where we broke down the utilitarian point of view regarding our case. We
decided on a full negative 10 for Peter, as there really is a no win situation he is. If he keeps fighting for
the people, he risks further punishment and even death. Even if he wasnt killed, Stalins government
would not let him keep speaking out against them, and would find an unpleasant way to keep him quiet.
For Stalin, we had decided on a negative 4, because it really does not affect him much aside from losing
a valuable consultant, which he could possibly replace. The Russian population, the people who would
end up using the actual projects, would be affected if they did use the projects, which would be of a
considerably higher quality than the original plans. I would like to point out that this is one of the main
responses we had from our feedback, that our multiplier must be higher. Our reasoning behind it, and
mine too, is that we could not possibly take into account the actual number of people who would use
the projects; I will concede though, that it should be a bit higher. The last subject on our table were the
Original Utilitarianism Contemplation Table
workers and engineers that were the first to work on the projects. We decided on a positive number
here, because any reforms and regulations would only improve their conditions. The multiplier for
workers we decided on a 500, which is obviously not the correct number, but what we were trying to do
here is not provide an exact number but more or less a scale of things.
The table reinforces my belief that the utilitarian theory is the best for this case. After all
negatives are subtracted from the positives, we still end up with a positive number, in this case 1486.
Yes the number should be bigger, but we do have the expected result, which is that this is the right
choice as we are maximizing the happiness for the most number of people. The total number of
engineers, workers, and people that will be affected are numbered in the thousands; it raises the
question of whether the happiness of one is worth more than the happiness of thousands. That would
be the only argument against utilitarianism. How much is the self worth? Is it less than others or a
thousand others? It is something that we explored during the group presentation, when we had the
perspective of ethical egoism. For the theory of ethical egoism, the primary purpose is to maximize
happiness for ones self, the complete opposite of utilitarianism. I suppose this is up to an individual and
how much they value themselves and others. As a decent and moral human being, not just a
professional, people should look out for the greater good. Its the ideal of a hero, if people were given a
choice to save themselves or save thousands, it would be rare for people to choose themselves over
thousands. In the case, Palchinsky is not guaranteed to actually help those thousands that might even be
near those projects, but up to the time of his death, he was able to make small tweaks to those projects
he could, potentially saving a few people. In fact since he was imprisoned, his only contributions were
the ones before his imprisonment, and the very few that he could manage to contribute during his
consultation. However to Palchinsky, those small improvements he was able to help with, were worth
his continued imprisonement and ultimately his death.
Palchinsky was indeed a martyr, as he did follow the utilitarian theory. His choice was a noble
one, as he put first the needs of others before his. He definitely maximized the happiness of the most
number of people he could, instead of his own. In my opinion he made the right choice, not only as a
professional engineer but as a human being. Utilitarianism is the best theory to pursue in life, as we
should always look to maximize the happiness for the most possible number of people.