retain these guidelines for future reference
Impact Statement Guidelines

• Overall: consider it as an essay
• weighing the moral pros and cons seperately under five main ethical aspects
• covering all aspects
• for all parties involved or affected
• coming to a definite what-to-do conclusion
• bringing together all aspects
• saying, consequently, what should be (or have been) done under the circumstances
• Specific aspects (consult Velasquez chapt.2 for further clarification)
1. Utility: discuss broader social (and other, e.g., environmental) cost-benefits.
1. do: mention costs and benefits to parties less immediately affected in addition to costs and benefits to those immediately involved
2. do: consider nonmonetary costs & benefits -- intrinsic bads and goods
3. don't: talk about who's responsble (or not) or what they intended -- utilitarianism concerns what works, outcomes, not who's to blame.
2. Fairness: discuss relevant considerations under one or more of the following headings (here is where issues of responsibility & intent come in)
1. Distributive Justice: equities & inequities of distribution of social benefits and burdens
2. Compensatory Justice: repayment warranted for damages or wrongs knowingly or carelessly inflicted
3. Retributive Justice: criminal or other punishments that may or not be warranted.
3. Rights: name names of rights of various parties involved or affected
1. do: appeal to commonly recognized general rights -- of property, liberty, informed consent, due process, etc. -- explaining how these apply to the particulars of the case.
2. don't: appeal to highly specific rights tailor-made to fit the particular circumstances.  Take the Napster case, for example
• not so good: cash-strapped college students have a right to swap MP3 copies from CDs they purchased.
• better: you buy it you own it: "fair use" rights legally don't but morally should include rights to copy and exchange copyrighted materials, except for profit.
4. Care: consider "special duties" (as characterized in chapt.2) arising from personal, professional, or contractual connections
1. do: discuss whether the parties were true to their specific commitments as parents, teachers, doctors, citizens, corporate officers, government officials, etc.
2. don't: discuss whether various parties were cold-blooded or warm-hearted -- whether they "care" in this sense goes more to character.
5. Character: name names of virtues and vices exhibited by various (corporate or individual) parties involved
1. do: appeal to general commonly recognized virtues (e.g., love, loyalty, courage, generosity, gratitude) and vices (e.g., spite, disloyalty, cowardice, selfishness, ingratitude)
2. don't: appeal to highly specific virtues and vices tailor-made to fit the particular case.  Take the Enron case, for example
• not so good: issuing misleading annual statements shows bad character
• better: misleading others is dishonest and deceitful, and doing it to take their money is fraud, it's theft.