Sociology

Abstract
Ethics continues to be the major determinant of decisions made by authorities on different aspects. It is from ethics perceptive that actions derive moral justification. These actions are reflected by government policies or ordinary interactions. Actually, most problems globally are moral or ethical problems. There is a need to develop more contemporary theories in ethics so that amicable solutions can thrive in moments when there are disputes of a moral nature. Attempts at Hanford Site present moralists with the challenge to determine its validity as there are moral dilemmas in it. Principle of double-effect is one of the best measures to determine the moral status of an action and especially human actions. Here, it elaborates the situation at Hanford Site. Also a synthesis of anthropocentric views and ecocentric views will be considered.

Majority of people today are faced with great challenges in their pursuit for a just cause. Normally, the reception to such pursuance is always characterized by arbitrary infringements or obstacles. This happens when one partys interest are threatened by another partys interest.  In most cases, the inferior party suffers more at the expense of the superior party. This phenomenon becomes more complicated in ethical situations. The decision by Inez Austin to stand for her ethical conviction is laudable. Inez Austin vehemently refused to approve intended activities around Hanford Site. It was noted that there were waste radioactive products that emanated from the downgrading single-shell tank. The Tri-Party Agreement which brought together the Department of Energy (DOE), the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and the Washington State Department of Ecology aimed at projecting the single-shell tank at the Hanford Site to a double-shell tank regardless of the consequences.  Inez, cognizant of the severe consequences declined to approve the process. This move put her career at jeopardy, unwarranted job dismissal and psychological torture. However, moralists and environmental groups recommended her position. This report considers the scenario at Hanford Site and the position of Inez from an ethical stand point. Various theories in ethics such as principle of double effect, anthropocentrism and ecocentrism, and human acts will be considered.

The aim  Report Procedure
The preparation of this report makes an analysis of the case at Hanford Site from a moral standpoint. This report also seeks to establish whether the decision by the federal government and the Tri-Party Agreement would be worthwhile by considering the code of ethics of the Engineering process and other key aspects in Ethics at large.

The relevance of Hanford Site
The tanks contained ferrocyanide (Fecn) which was used in the 1950s and 1960s in getting rid of hazardous chemicals from the remains of the liquids. The U.S. Senate felt that ferrocyanide was potentially explosive and therefore needed to be desiccated through pumping. In this way, chances of explosion would be minimal hence reducing the danger of radioactive waste emissions into the environment. Initially, it served as an arm of Manhattan Project and supply of plutonium for nuclear weapons. Federal government operations took place there for over 40 years, until, 1989. It is the largest radioactive waste site in the United States. Pumping out of precarious waste from the liquid in the tanks was important to stabilize the tanks.

Effects of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation
Dissemination of nuclear products posed hazardous effects on environment and also the safety to carry out pumping activities in the tanks was questionable. Safety and legality of untrained workers permitted into restricted areas was also questionable.

Principle of Double-Effect
Actions have with them both good results and bad results. This is what makes any action morally acceptable or permissible. There are instances when an action is allowable in the ethical or moral point of view. It must be (i) the action is good in itself, (ii) the consequence of the action is not as a result of the bad intention or the malicious consequence should not be deliberately intended, (iii) the good as result of the malicious consequence is never desirable (Blackburn, 1996).

The above assertion describes the sources of morality in human acts and decisions in that they must be good in themselves the intention must be good and the circumstances must be favorable.

The objectives of the Tri-Party Agreement, from an ethical point of view, can be ethically or morally justified if it fulfils the specifications double-effect. As indicated above, the relevance of the Hanford Site spells out the aims and objectives of the process and the circumstance is in the picture. Pumping in itself is a technical activity and it has no intrinsic malice. The intention is to reduce chances of ferrocyanide from explosion. Emission of hazardous radioactive products in the ecosystem, again, is a good intention. The whole situation is stabilization of the tanks hence the circumstance. However, using it for the supply of nuclear weapons makes it morally uncalled for. Austins move and action is good, it seems. Her attempt to prevent possible dangers involving nuclear waste contamination is good. Declining to approve the plan on pumping radioactive waste from the degrading underground shell-tank is also good. Questioning the legitimacy and safety of the untrained workers is not only good but professional. From above, Austins intentions and course of action is in line with valid and sound morality andor ethics.

From an anthropocentric point of view, good acts are so only if they promote humanity. It is clear that Austin is concerned with the good or safety of the stakeholders and the environment around them. In the latter case, ecocentrism is evoked especially if environment implies nature per se. Again, ecocentricism supports respect of nature, for example plantations, water bodies, heavenly bodies et cetera as the determinants of morality. With this in mind, Austins and the Tri-Party Agreement can be evaluated in these two ethical viewpoints. It is clear that the interest of Hanford Reservation Process is aimed at conserving the environment and the citizens take a tertiary consideration. The whole idea of stabilizing the tanks is not people-oriented. While Austin is concerned with the welfare of the people and everything else she argues has people in the picture.

Conclusion
The above case is not easy to determine from a moral stand point. This is because morality is subject to pluralism or relativism. By this I mean, ethical issues are interpreted from different positions hence different believes as to what can be regarded moral or immoral. We can se that an anthropocentric mind will recommend Austin while an ecocentric mind will recommend the deliberations of the Tri-Party Agreement. In fact, there are other ethical standpoints like utilitarianism which sees morality on how much an event is beneficial to the agent. If the stabilization of the tanks is beneficial regardless of the moral implications then it is morally justified.

Loss of a career or a job like in the case of Austin is a heroic act. We need sages who can are ready to lose even life itself fro the sake of a just cause. This is one of the biggest virtues one can possess.  We know that virtue and morality go hand in hand. From this premise, we can regard Austin as virtuous hence her legacy is morally justified.