Steve Bissel wrote: 
> My
>problem, in this case, was whether or not to press the issue to a decision
>point knowing that if I did so the decision could have been worse than the
>status quo. In other words, if, by "doing the ethical thing" I made things
>worse, isn't that a problem? I should think all the consequentialist
>utilitarians on the list should have a thought or two on this.

Holding out  by asking may or may not be prudent. Prudence does not supply a
moral basis for holding out. Since as you say it may not be prudent to hold
out. And it is difficult to predict if one is worse off by *speaking the
truth to powerful policy makers.* Prudence is nothing but the application of
"best policy" but it is not a universal principle that brings happiness but
a counsel which is a definite principle. Speaking out here is subject to a
condition, that is, what is seen as prudent at the end of day when the
matter is closed. 

E. Kant stated that prudence does not supply an ethical basis for being
ethical at all. Prudence is, in the form of a statement such as "honesty is
the best policy",  is not really a moral maxim as such since a business can
have this policy but the policy may be conditional on staying in business,
or is generally conditional on the basis that the maxim is conditional.

"...the imperatives of prudence do not, strictly speaking, command at all,
that is, they cannot present actions objectively as practically necessary;
that they are rather to be regarded as counsels (consilia) than precepts
(praecepta) of reason."

Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, Trans. T.K. Abbott
(Longmans Green, London, 1927), paragraph one, page 18. 

The modern equivalent term ought as a categorical  imperative is the same as
"practically necessary" as may be seen, for instance, in  many definite
principles which are not effective at leading to happiness because they do
not have any universal sense to them as categorical imperatives. Kant
mentions frugality, reserve, etc., as definite principles that do not lead
directly to happiness because they are counsels which are conditional. 

One may say that in practice it has been necessary to speak out about the
truth; in general this is a universal principle, a categorical imperative
without which there can be no happiness. An ought in this case takes on the
nature of law or binding principle of conduct or duty. 

A moral principle for it to be universal must in general be a maxim such
that it is obeyed whether the consequences are immediately bad or good,
i.e., the consequence needs not to be the basis for considering if the
principle is a prudent one. One obeys because one has no choice in the
matter since the matter is an ultimate concern. There can be no element of
the conditional; moreover, one truly has no choice in the matter and as such
the issue moves one to action to defend the universal principle but the idea
that this is "best pollicy" or prudent fails to make one happy, but make
even make one unhappy thinking of consequences that violate the supreme
general principle. Of course one must also insure that one is doing
something on principle because of the good will that one has toward all life
- human and otherwise -it the most important reason for motivation to make
the truth be known. The good will is to motivate others to do good as well. 

One has a duty to speak that truth about the quality of water to those who
are policy makers or agencies where there is a clear policy for many
reasons. It is the form of a categorical imperative to speak out in order
for  the truth to be heard because it is based on unconditional love for the
universal in law as a matter of principle. One only needs to be motivated by
the ideal principle of a general law to have a will to do good, that is, to
speak the truth about water to the powerful.  

John 





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%