Engineering Ethic

Use the engineering ethics matrix to examine potential ethics violations for an engineering employer to exclude and ultimately discharge an employee based on sex, age, or marital status.

From: Exploring Engineering (Fifth Edition) , 2021

Introduction: Engineering Ethics from a Global Perspective

Heinz C. Luegenbiehl , Rockwell F. Clancy , in Global Engineering Ethics, 2017

1.4 A Global Perspective

Given the role of engineers and engineering in the contemporary world, here a global approach to engineering ethics is taken. While this might make sense to students growing up now, it is, in fact, a departure from the tradition.

Engineering ethics is an area of study that originated in the United States. Because the US model of engineering ethics was first, it has become somewhat of a global standard. 9 The problem is that this model carries within it some uniquely US or Western features, such as an emphasis on ethical theory and the ideal of professions. Some of these features are neither readily nor appropriately adaptable to other parts of the world. 10

It is thus necessary to rethink engineering ethics from the ground up, which is the approach taken here. One could, of course, begin with a cultural perspective other than that of the United States, but that would raise the same issues of being too focused on one cultural perspective at the expense of others. 11 Consequently, the approach here consists in beginning to study engineering ethics without any cultural presuppositions, bringing in questions of culture later. This is the meaning of a "global perspective" on engineering ethics.

As will become clear in the remainder of the text, a number of important consequences follow from the adoption of a global approach. In the first place, no current perspective on engineering ethics is privileged simply because of its origin. Rather, of importance is that discussions follow from the assumptions laid out. Further, there will be a lack of emphasis on traditional Western ethical theories, since these are not shared in common on a global basis. In thinking about engineering ethics independently of a particular society, it might instead be helpful to think about engineers themselves as a community with a shared set of values. A bond is created among engineers based on these values, just as there typically exists a set of common core values in other societies. These values provide for an element of trust and legitimate defense against forces that would undermine the appropriate application of technology. A major task here will be to enunciate the values suitable for global engineers.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128112182000011

The Prime Responsibility of Safety

Heinz C. Luegenbiehl , Rockwell F. Clancy , in Global Engineering Ethics, 2017

5.1 Safety: A Special Concern for Engineers—Engineering as "Social Experimentation"

As the case of Hurricane Katrina shows, modern technology has the incredible power to affect human lives. What might, at times, seem like minor design decisions can bring harms or benefits to millions or even billions of people. Even the powers of contemporary dictators are small compared with the powers of engineers. These powers carry with them a great deal of responsibility. However, this often goes unrecognized, even by the holders of the powers themselves. While the powers of engineers can bring great benefits to the public, they can also bring great harms.

Neglecting appropriate safety considerations in the design of a nuclear reactor, for example, could destroy lives and make areas of land uninhabitable for decades. An emphasis on safety highlights the centrality of ethics in engineering. It means engineers are responsible for not only the technical adequacy of their activities but also the consequences that result from the intended and unintended—but foreseeable—effects of these activities, insofar as they have the potential to harm the public.

To discuss duties of safety engineers have to the public, Mike Martin and Roland Schinzinger introduce and develop—what has come to be—a well-known analogy between engineers and social experimenters. The authors frame engineering as a kind of social experimentation, showing that specific responsibilities follow for engineers, as they do for scientists performing experiments on human subjects. As with scientific experiments on human subjects, the activities of engineers are carried out—at least in part—in ignorance, where the outcomes of experiments are uncertain: the introduction of new technologies into society can have unknown consequences. Unlike with scientific experiments, however, as experiments, engineering activities lack controls that would act as protections—that is, no control group is established or alternative reality developed—and are carried out on much larger scales. The responsibilities of engineers would, therefore, be even greater than those of scientific experimenters.

In Introduction to Engineering Ethics , Martin and Schinzinger define these responsibilities as follows: "(1) A primary obligation to protect the safety of human subjects and respect their right of consent. (2) A constant awareness of the experimental nature of any project, imaginative forecasting of its possible side effects, and a reasonable effort to monitor them. (3) Autonomous, personal involvement in all steps of a project. (4) Accepting accountability for the results of a project" (Martin & Schinzinger, 2010, p. 86). Thus, according to Martin and Schinzinger, the responsibilities of engineers for safety cover the full range of engineering activities. Additionally, they believe these are responsibilities applicable to each individual engineer involved in processes of engineering activities:

●

How can the Hurricane Katrina disaster be conceived as a social experiment in relation to engineering, and why is this example particularly important in considering future safety measures?

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128112182000059

The Global Business Environment: What Engineers Should Know

Heinz C. Luegenbiehl , Rockwell F. Clancy , in Global Engineering Ethics, 2017

6.9 Potentials for Conflicting Duties: Points of Conflict Rather Than Convergence

Although overlap exists between business and engineering ethics, the potential for conflicting duties should also be recognized. Again, if this were not the case, then there would be little need to examine these two fields of ethics separately; lists of duties applicable to all employees could simply be applied to engineers, and analysis would be complete. In considering potential conflicts, the most important point to keep in mind is that the bases for making decisions in these two domains are different: decisions in business are based primarily on profits, whereas decisions in engineering are based primarily on the implementation of technologies. Based on this distinction, several sources of potential conflict can arise.

As technical experts confronted by a relatively ignorant public, engineers have a positive duty to protect people from physical harm. In business, the assumption is that people are capable of making their own decisions. Therefore, ethical obligations within business are limited to not creating harm. The stronger duty within engineering can, therefore, potentially conflict with the corporate duty of securing profits, since protecting the public generally requires financial resources. Confidentiality with regard to proprietary information is another area in which potential conflicts can arise.

As was discussed previously, on the one hand, corporations have legitimate interests in preserving information for their own uses, thereby increasing the potentials for profits. On the other hand, in introducing technology into the world—based on the analogy of social experimentation—engineers are committed to openness in obtaining informed consent from the public as far as is possible. A final example of potential differences in emphases between business and engineering ethics concerns the groups to whom ethical responsibilities should ultimately be directed.

On the stakeholders view, although corporations should take into account the interests of all affected parties in making decisions, the interests of all parties should not receive equal weight. On the one hand, from a corporate point of view, the satisfaction of investors and customers is primary. On the other hand, from an engineering point of view, the safety of the public as a whole is primary. In working for corporations, resolving the issue of which parties have priority can become a moral dilemma for engineers.

The purpose of this section is not to resolve potential conflicts. That requires more detailed analyses. The intention is merely to note that engineers should recognize the potential for such conflicts. In addition to direct conflicts, the ranges of duties between business and engineering ethics differ significantly, as does the process of establishing obligational hierarchies between the two.

Finally, although this section has discussed the potential for conflicts between principles from different branches of applied ethics, the potential for conflicts between principles from one domain of applied ethics—within engineering ethics alone, for instance—also exists. Resolving such conflicts cannot be decided in the abstract, based on a more general ethical principle, but should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Once again, this highlights the central importance of the case-study procedure to applied ethics in general, and the importance of students not only learning about but also practicing the application of the case-study procedure.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128112182000060

Professionalism and Ethics

Tarek Ahmed , D. Nathan Meehan , in Advanced Reservoir Management and Engineering (Second Edition), 2012

9.2 Ethics

In this section, we address engineering ethics while trying to focus on the specific items most critical for petroleum reservoir engineers. The Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) 1 is the largest professional organization that represents petroleum engineers including more reservoir engineers than any other organization. Engineering ethics deals with the standards of professional conduct for engineers with respect to the engineer's responsibility to the public, to his employer and clients, and to the profession of engineering. The SPE Guide for Professional Conduct summarizes these obligations.

9.2.1 Guide for Professional Conduct

Preamble..

Engineers recognize that the practice of engineering has a vital influence on the quality of life for all people. Engineers should exhibit high standards of competency, honesty, integrity, and impartiality; be fair and equitable; and accept a personal responsibility for adherence to applicable laws, the protection of the environment, and safeguarding the public welfare in their professional actions and behavior. These principles govern professional conduct in serving the interests of the public, clients, employers, colleagues, and the profession.

The Fundamental Principle..

The engineer as a professional is dedicated to improving competence, service, fairness, and the exercise of well-founded judgment in the ethical practice of engineering for all who use engineering services with fundamental concern for protecting the environment and safeguarding the health, safety, and well-being of the public in the pursuit of this practice.

Canons of Professional Conduct
•

Engineers offer services in the areas of their competence and experience, affording full disclosure of their qualifications.

•

Engineers consider the consequences of their work and societal issues pertinent to it and seek to extend public understanding of those relationships.

•

Engineers are honest, truthful, ethical, and fair in presenting information and in making public statements, which reflect on professional matters and their professional role.

•

Engineers engage in professional relationships without bias because of race, religion, gender, age, ethnic or national origin, attire, or disability.

•

Engineers act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees disclosing nothing of a proprietary or confidential nature concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer without the necessary consent.

•

Engineers disclose to affected parties any known or potential conflicts of interest or other circumstances, which might influence, or appear to influence, judgment or impair the fairness or quality of their performance.

•

Engineers are responsible for enhancing their professional competence throughout their careers and for encouraging similar actions by their colleagues.

•

Engineers accept responsibility for their actions; seek and acknowledge criticism of their work; offer honest and constructive criticism of the work of others; properly credit the contributions of others; and do not accept credit for work not their own.

•

Engineers, perceiving a consequence of their professional duties to adversely affect the present or future public health and safety, shall formally advise their employers or clients, and, if warranted, consider further disclosure.

•

Engineers seek to adopt technical and economical measures to minimize environmental impact.

•

Engineers participate with other professionals in multidiscipline teams to create synergy and to add value to their work product.

•

Engineers act in accordance with all applicable laws and the canons of ethics as applicable to the practice of engineering as stated in the laws and regulations governing the practice of engineering in their country, territory, or state, and lend support to others who strive to do likewise.

—Approved by the Board of Directors, September 26, 2004

The SPEE has also published 2 an extensive documentation on Ethics including a discussion of special issues for expert witnesses. State licensing boards often provide both guidelines and training in practical ethics applications.

Common concerns for engineers in ethics issues in the practice of engineering or in expert witness situations are all addressed in the SPE Canons and the SPEE Principles. The engineer never tries to practice outside his areas of expertise when offering services "to the public" or to clients. Full and accurate disclosure of qualifications and experience are essential. The engineer's résumé should be kept up to date, not for the purpose of seeking employment elsewhere, but to accurately summarize his experience and capabilities. An engineer working for a large oil company may well be asked to work outside his areas of expertise and certainly may do so as long as his employer knows that he is learning as he goes and he should not be in responsible charge of such projects until he has gained greater experience. The consulting engineer must not offer engineering services except when he is fully qualified to do so.

The engineer must be fastidious in avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such conflicts can arise subtly and things that may appear not to be a conflict to the engineer may appear so to his client. It is important to address any potential conflict as early as possible. Are you involved in making a decision on a vendor but have a relative or close friend as an employee of that vendor? Do you own any shares (usually outside of a mutual fund) in any company that you have the potential to do business with? Have you been the beneficiary of any significant entertainment or other thing of value from someone your company may do business with? In one case, an oil company employee (A) was recommended for a significant SPE award by another oil company engineer (B) who subsequently was involved in negotiations with (A). If you were A's supervisor, would you want to know that it was B who recommended A?

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123855480000099

Cross-Cultural Issues: Their Importance to Global Engineering Ethics

Heinz C. Luegenbiehl , Rockwell F. Clancy , in Global Engineering Ethics, 2017

Exercise One—Bid Rigging in Japan (Part One)

With regard to bid rigging in Japan, complete the case-study procedure on bid rigging in Japan, using the principles of global engineering, organizations, and employees.

7.1 The Importance of Cultural Values Within Engineering

In taking a global approach to engineering ethics, using any one cultural perspective has been avoided. However, a difference exists between establishing a theoretical framework for engineering ethics and the real-life practice of engineering. With regard to the latter, it is important to recognize that local cultures can have significant impacts on engineering practices—especially in the context of business—and engineers should respect local customs and traditions. Therefore, this chapter investigates in greater depth the relation between engineering ethical principles and cross-cultural values.

7.2 Normative Ethical Relativism: It's All the Same

Normative ethical relativism is a significant tradition within ethical theory. This position begins with the factual thesis that different individuals and groups subscribe to different ethical positions—a relatively uncontroversial claim—but makes the further assertion that individuals and groups are justified in subscribing to the beliefs they do. This normative dimension of ethical relativism has elicited a variety of objections, which will not be discussed here. 90 The approach to engineering ethics advocated here does not fall under the category of normative ethical relativism.

The reason for this is as follows: within this tradition, the only justification needed for adopting a particular ethical position is the fact that individuals or groups adopt it. Individuals or groups might adopt particular ethical positions for good, bad, or no reasons at all. In developing a global approach to engineering ethics, the justifications for the ethical positions adopted here are based on the nature of engineering and use of reason. The process of deriving engineering ethical principles is, thus, nonarbitrary.

Issues related to cultural values are important to consider since, in the 21st century, there are areas in which cultural differences play major roles, and these should be recognized and accepted by engineers. In encountering cultural traditions at variance with their own, engineers should be prepared to decide the circumstances in which to respect these, and the circumstances in which to either refuse to go along with—or actively resist—prevailing cultural trends. To establish a framework for making decisions such as these, it is necessary to examine the nature of values.

7.3 The Nature of Values and Cross-Cultural Contexts

"Values" can be understood as referring to deeply held, enduring, and important beliefs that tend to guide the actions of individuals and groups. Given their deeply ingrained nature, people tend to overlook the central role that values play in decision-making processes. People tend to believe that others share these views, and—in many cases—that values are "natural" or innate. 91

A distinction can be made between individual and social values. Since every person is, to some extent, different, every person has his or her own set of beliefs. However, insofar as groups of individuals share common backgrounds, it is possible to make broad generalizations. These generalized, action-guiding beliefs are called "social values."

Values do not exist on their own or in the abstract. Rather, they exist in relation to other values and actions as parts of wholes. These wholes are called "value systems." Within values systems, individual values are prioritized. Over time, this prioritization can change, reflecting processes of change within individuals and societies. In radical situations, values might be added to or eliminated from value systems but, more typically, values become emphasized and deemphasized over time. Understanding the value systems of particular cultures is important, since values have "normative" dimensions—those regarding judgments.

Values establish expectations regarding behaviors, which are reflected in the traditions, customs, and manners of cultures, in turn establishing parameters of appropriate behaviors. Common social values create unity within populations. A method of differentiating cultures is on the basis of their respective value systems. Although making generalizations about cultures can result in negative effects associated with stereotyping and prejudice, it is important to recognize that, in general, cultures have individuating characteristics. Most cultures share many values, but individual values are integrated hierarchically, such that the importance placed on particular values distinguishes one value system from another. Two different value systems might both include "order" and "freedom," for example, but freedom would usually be given preference over order in one of them, while the opposite might be the case in the other. The complex and hierarchical nature of value systems can give rise to problems.

At times, it can be difficult to determine the value framework underlying the words and actions of individuals from different cultures. However, in these situations, understanding this framework is important. As one's own cultural values are deeply ingrained, one can fail to recognize their roles in decision-making processes. Erroneously, people tend to believe everyone shares their values and uses the same value system, or should do so. Consequently, when individuals from different cultures arrive at different decisions, they tend to believe the other has made a mistake or—in a stronger sense—done something unethical. A more likely explanation, however, is that the two individuals are employing different value systems to guide their decisions and actions.

Insofar as the value systems of some societies are closely aligned, situations of cultural misunderstandings are infrequent, although perhaps more problematic, since they are unexpected. People from the Midwest United States might be surprised to discover, for example, that those from the Northeast are more direct or forthright in their assessments of others. In other cases, however, a large gap exists between value systems. Many have claimed this is the case with "Western" and "Asian" societies, which tend to emphasize different values: in general, Western societies emphasize values associated with furthering the rights of individuals, while Asian societies emphasize values associated with furthering the interests of groups. This difference affects the entire range of values within a system. For example, loyalty to an extended family member or employer would be manifested differently in these two types of societies. 92

When encountering individuals from different value systems, one's first reaction might be to reject his or her value system as it conflicts with one's own deeply held beliefs. One might judge the values of others—reflected in their actions—as wrong and seek to correct their seeming ignorance. However, such an approach not only reflects "imperialist" assumptions regarding relations between societies—assuming one's own society and its associated values are fundamentally superior to others—but also undermines the possibility of positively interacting with people from different cultures. Societies should be free to develop their own cultural norms, and it is important for outsiders to learn to respect the values of a culture. However, at least some basis for questioning the values of others exists:

●

Why do you think people commonly judge and/or reject values systems different from their own? Explain an instance in which you have been inclined to do so.

7.4 Values and Ethics: Moral and Nonmoral Values

The connection between values and ethics is an intimate one. Values tend to guide actions, and ethics helps to evaluate actions, although only certain types of actions. In a significant sense, ethics is a subdiscipline of "value theory": values are typically divided into moral and nonmoral ones, where ethics is concerned with the former. Both are concerned with making judgments, although judgments based on nonmoral values are not generally considered either right or wrong. In moral judgments, by contrast, claims are made regarding the rightness and wrongness of decisions and actions.

For example, although two people might like and dislike the same painting, respectively—in other words, they have different "tastes" in art—neither is in a position to question the other's right to like the painting, since preferences in art are based on particular sets of nonmoral aesthetic values. Preferences regarding art and music vary not only from culture to culture but also from individual to individual. By contrast, if the person who likes the painting decides to take it without permission, then that would be theft, and the other would be in position to judge his or her actions as morally wrong. In a sense then, ethics limits justification of the exercise of nonmoral value preferences. 93

Explicitly recognizing this distinction between moral and nonmoral values is important since, within a given cultural tradition, there might be little or no awareness of it. If this is the case, then all value judgments—both moral and nonmoral—are understood as having equal claims on the individual. All value judgments would be justified on the same basis, as following from the cultural traditions of a given society. Little or no distinction is made between actions that have ethical and nonethical import—in other words, a distinction between actions that have the potential to seriously affect the lives of others and actions that express mere cultural preferences. Since the authority of ethical directives is great, by associating cultural preferences with ethics, nonmoral cultural preferences can take on greater normative force within certain social contexts and are sometimes punished as severely.

Removing one's shoes indoors might be a cultural practice. Failure to remove one's shoes would indicate a failure to understand or respect the values of that society, perhaps cleanliness. However, this failure should not be considered an immoral action, although it might be in the context of that society, due to the amalgamation of moral and nonmoral values. Conversely, at times actions with ethical import are justified merely on the basis of reflecting cultural practices and, for this reason, some would claim, excluded from the sphere of judgment by those from outside the given culture. This is, of course, the position of normative ethical relativism, judged to be an inadequate approach to engineering ethics on a global basis.

In short, it is necessary to distinguish between nonmoral and moral cultural values. The first concerns cultural preferences, and it is important to try to understand these when interacting with people from cultures other than one's own. The second concerns questions of right and wrong—with universal characteristics—and are not simply matters of preference. For example, on the one hand, stealing is generally considered wrong in all cultures, since it leads to a breakdown in social structures. However, the specific nature of stealing—what one considers stealing—might vary from society to society, based on differing cultural interpretations. On the other hand, the extent to which characteristics such as generosity or frugality are valued might vary significantly from culture to culture. The nature of this distinction can be further clarified by comparing two value systems, those of Japan and the United States.

To begin, it is important to remember that values occur in systems, and the places of individual values within hierarchies determine their roles in cultures: as most societies share many values, the emphasis given to particular values distinguishes one culture from another. In general, Japanese society tends to emphasize group-oriented values, while US society tends to emphasize individual-oriented values. Thus, Japanese culture emphasizes values such as harmony, loyalty, hierarchy, consensus, duty, and conformity, while US culture emphasizes values such as rights, freedom, equality, independence, and choice. Both cultures emphasize values such as education, material well-being, and pragmatism. Additionally, both cultures emphasize other values perhaps not directly related to the distinction between the group and individual, for example, ritualism and sincerity in Japan, and religiosity and merit in the United States. 94

Understanding the value structures of different cultures and their differences from one's own requires detailed acquaintance. Gaining this acquaintance is vital to not only interpreting adequately and accurately the actions of others but also distinguishing between the ethical and nonethical dimensions of actions:

●

Explain an incident of which you are aware where an engineering or technology firm failed to take into account moral or nonmoral cultural considerations. What were the consequences?

7.5 Values and Engineering Ethics: Two Points to Keep in Mind

The following two points have been established, which are important for engineers to keep in mind:

First, the contexts in which engineering occurs matter, since cultural contexts can legitimately be said to influence engineering decisions. Engineers need to be aware of relevant cultural norms—in relation to both people in and from other societies—and the consequences of the processes and products of engineering activities. Society makes legitimate demands on how engineers carry out their functions. Conceiving these functions in terms of a single social context vastly oversimplifies matters, since most engineering processes and products exist over more than one society, and each society could have different cultural values. In practice, engineers might thus be required to consider the differential impacts of their actions, which will be further discussed in subsequent chapters.

Second, engineers should carefully distinguish between the moral and nonmoral demands made on them in particular social contexts, since they might easily be misled into believing potentially unethical actions are simply matters of cultural practice. Engineers should be aware that simply because individuals do commonly engage in certain actions does mean that they should engage in these actions. 95 Additionally, simply because actions are generally accepted does not mean that these actions are right. Engineers should consider their actions from the perspective of principles of ethical global engineering, not only in terms of cultural practices. For example, simply because environmental destruction commonly occurs in a given society—and is widely accepted—does not mean engineers are ethically justified in carrying out or participating in projects in that society:

●

If two engineers work exclusively in one country—and all the products for which they are responsible are sold only in this country—would a more cross-culturally inclined engineer have an advantage over another less cross-culturally inclined engineer? Why or why not?

7.6 Basic Ethical Principles for Global Engineering: Related to Cross-Cultural Values

Based on the above discussion, two more principles should be added to the list of basic ethical principles for global engineering. With slight modifications, these can also serve as principles of ethics for organizations. Although both principles are implied in the list of basic principles, explicitly highlighting them as additional responsibilities for engineers is helpful, since the approach taken here deals with international and cross-cultural contexts specifically.

7.6.1 Nonmoral Cultural Values: Engineers Should Endeavor to Understand and Respect the Nonmoral Cultural Values of Those They Encounter in Fulfilling Their Engineering Duties

If engineers fail to develop adequate understandings of practices belonging to cultures other than their own—and they are obliged to communicate with engineers from or the public of these societies, then they will be unable to practice engineering in a competent manner. Engineers cannot simply assume that the practices they have learned—based on a particular set of social values—will also always be effective in societies based on different value systems:

●

Give an example of how respecting a culture's nonmoral values could benefit an engineer and/or the company for which he or she works.

7.6.2 Cultural Values and Ethics: Engineers Should Endeavor to Refuse to Participate in Engineering Activities That are Claimed to Reflect Cultural Practices But That Violate Basic Ethical Principles for Global Engineering

Engineers have a duty to follow basic ethical principles for global engineering. Nonmoral values do not override ethical requirements, since ethical requirements are based on an interdiction against seriously harming others. In other words, the avoidance of harm takes precedence over cultural traditions.

Although the priority of moral claims should be unproblematic, it could be argued that engineers have a much stronger obligation than stated above, namely, to actively oppose the violation of ethical principles. When dealing with cultures other than their own, however, this demand on engineers seems unrealistic: in circumstances such as these, generally engineers will not have sufficient understanding and power to ensure that others adhere to ethical requirements. This is thus an example of the more general approach to engineering ethics taken here, that engineering ethics should be realistic in nature:

●

How could engineers "refuse to participate" in immoral projects? What types of systems could be developed to ensure engineers do not involve themselves in projects that could negatively impact the public?

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128112182000072

The Interaction of Ethics and Technology in Historical Perspective

Carl Mitcham , Adam Briggle , in Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, 2009

4.1 Professional ethics shaping technology: biomedicine

As has previously been indicated, biomedical ethics and engineering ethics are two of the more prominent versions of applied ethics; in both fields, as well, ethical reflection has strongly engaged with the morality of professional life so as to influence technological practice. Indeed, so prominent is this with regard to biomedicine — which is not always fully recognized as a kind of technology — that biomedical ethics (also called bioethics) is the most intensively developed form of the applied ethics with the most technological influence. Yet precisely because the extensive literature on biomedical ethics does not always intersect with discourse on the ethics of technology and the engineering sciences, it deserves highlighting here.

As Edmund Pellegrino [1993] has observed, a historico-cultural metamorphosis of medical ethics into bio- and biomedical ethics took place during the 1970s. Until this period, professional medical ethics remained within a 2500-year old Hippo-cratic tradition, more or less independent of professional philosophy. On the basis of an oath to help the sick without causing harm, not to cause abortions, to lead a pure life, not to perform surgery or have sexual relations with patients, and to preserve patient confidences, medical morality strongly informed a relatively autonomous community of technical practice. This premodern shaping of the physician-patient relationship also evidenced a stance of humility before nature that endorsed pursuit of a human-nature harmony.

For Hippocrates, the aim of medicine was "preserving nature, not altering it" (Hippocrates, "Precepts," 19), and the physician had an obligation to "refuse to treat those overwhelmed by disease, since in such cases medicine is powerless" (Hippocrates, "On techne," 3). This ideal of working with nature found further expression in Aristotle's distinction between cultivation and construction: that is, between the technai of agriculture, education, and medicine, which assist nature in the realization of qualities that would appear to some degree independently of human action, versus such technai as carpentry, which introduces into nature forms that would not appear without human intervention (see, e.g., Physics II, 1, 193a12-17; Politics VII, 17, 1337a2; and Oeconomica I, 1, 1342a26-1343b2). The notion of the physician as one who cultivated health with quite limited technical means was allied as well to a paternalistic not to say authoritarian model of a profession that limited patient autonomy.

During the mid-twentieth century, the Hippocratic tradition was challenged by basic changes in society and in medical science and technology. World War II, for instance, produced not only the atomic bomb and a resultant need to develop ethical policies for its design and delimited use (e.g., fail safe triggers and deterrence theory) but also a dawning realization that expanding medical power (this was the first war in history where more soldiers died from combat than from infection and disease) might well call for new forms of moral guidance. As if to reinforce the point, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals (1945-1949) disclosed the failure of the Hippocratic tradition in that some members of the medical profession in Germany abused their authority by conducting radically immoral human experimentations — a discovery that led to formulation of the Nuremberg Code to protect human subjects. In succeeding decades, advances in medical science (altered by alliances with psychology, molecular biology, and other life sciences) and in medical technology (e.g., the engineered invention of new means of birth control and abortion as well as heart-lung, dialysis, and other life-extending machines) transformed medicine into biomedicine and overwhelmed the ideal of cultivation in favor of systematic construction and control.

New moral or professional ethical guidelines for the treatment of human subjects were initially imposed on biomedicine from without. But the biomedical community quickly made them its own, and between the 1960s and 1980s increasingly collaborated with applied ethicists to further re-envision technomedical practice. Physician Henry Beecher, for instance, in the Belmont Report, documented how medical researchers in the United States — in multiple less flagrant but nonetheless serious cases — pursued technoscientific knowledge via human subjects experimentation deeply deficient in respect for human dignity [Beecher, 1966]. In response, the biomedical profession itself, admittedly against some internal resistance, undertook to develop stronger protocols and to strengthen institutional mechanisms for their enforcement. In multiple instances expanding awareness of real practices prompted critical thinking and the ethical reshaping of technical practice.

This ethical shaping of the technology of medicine took place in a series of overlapping stages. The first, during the 1960s and 1970s, featured broad philosophical reflections similar to those found in the historico-critical approach. For instance, Reiser [1978] examined how since the nineteenth century medical diagnosis technologies — from the thermometer and stethoscope through x-ray machines to electromagnetic resonance tomography — had increasingly diminished direct physician-patient contact and thus dehumanized medical practice. Involvement by theologians and various Christian religious traditions was another distinctive feature of this early period.

In a second stage, during the 1980s and 1990s, the ethical shaping of biomedicine became both institutionalized and increasingly analytic. The so-called Georgetown University school of bioethics, for instance, developed a series of principles — non-malfeasance, beneficence, respect for autonomy, and justice (see [Beauchamp and Childress, 1979]) — that were taught in large numbers of continuing education workshops for physicians. The second period also witnessed stimulation by case studies and, perhaps as a result, concentration on specific issues such as the redefinition of death (in the presence of heart-lung machines that could substitute indefinitely for a patient's own failed organs) and guidelines for the proper practice of human cloning (after the 1997 announcement of the cloned sheep Dolly).

The early 2000s witnessed emergence of a third stage, in reaction against the alleged narrowness of the second. Led by such scholars as Leon Kass there was an effort once again to enlarge bioethics to take on the big questions of human meaning and the good life in ways that echoed socio-critical concerns. As chair of the President's Council on Bioethics in the first term of President George W. Bush, Kass [2003] questioned biotechnological aspirations to biomedically engineer better children, enhanced performance, ageless bodies, and happy souls. In addition, in the name of defending human dignity, he helped formulate restrictions on the federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. Indeed, in one quite remarkable instance of the ethical shaping of biomedical research technology, this limitation promoted development of stem cell technologies employing non-embryonic tissue. In opposition, transhumanists such as computer engineer and inventor Raymond Kurzweil [2005] enthusiastically endorsed the use of biomedical technologies for a wide array of enhancements, provided the initiative came from a bottom-up consumer base rather than top-down governmental decision. Biomedical change thus stimulated and was itself stimulated by ethical arguments between competing concepts and guiding principles.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444516671500458

Working With Cases: The Importance of Concrete Learning

Heinz C. Luegenbiehl , Rockwell F. Clancy , in Global Engineering Ethics, 2017

Abstract

This chapter further explains the role of case-study analysis within global engineering ethics. It begins by discussing the importance of studying cases in terms of active learning; the subject matter of engineering ethics; building an experience base; analyzing and problem solving; connecting the technical and ethical dimensions of engineering; and forming a personal ethical perspective. The chapter goes on to explain the steps of the case-study procedure used here, which include identifying ethical issues, narrowing the focus, determining relevant facts, making reasonable assumptions, undertaking definitional clarification, conducting ethical analysis, reviewing the process, resolving the issue, identifying practical constraints, and avoiding ethical problems. Exercises follow the discussions of each step, where readers are invited to reflect on their own experience and directed to the Überlingen case to practice analysis. The chapter ends with a hypothetical case about a heating unit defect.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128112182000023

What Engineers Do

Philip Kosky , ... George Wise , in Exploring Engineering (Third Edition), 2013

1.10 Engineering Ethics Decision Matrix

To avoid creating an unintentional contrast between ethics and engineering, you will be asked to focus on a particular tool: the engineering ethics decision matrix. This tool presents a simple way of applying the canons of engineering ethics and further to see the spectrum of responses that might apply in a given situation. In particular, it should give you pause not to accept the first simple do/do not response that comes to you.

In Table 1.2, the rows of the matrix are the canons of engineering ethics (here, the NSPE set) and the columns are possible ways to resolve the problem. (You should add additional ones as they occur to you.) Each box of the matrix must be filled with a very brief answer to the question "Does this one particular solution meet this particular canon?" Like other engineering tools, the ethical decision matrix is a way to divide-and-conquer a problem, rather than trying to address all its dimensions simultaneously.

Table 1.2. The Engineering Ethics Decision Matrix

Options →
NSPE Canons ↓		 Go along with the decision Appeal to higher management Quit your job Write your state representative Call a newspaper reporter
Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
Perform services only in the area of your competence
Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner
Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees
Avoid deceptive acts
Conduct yourself honorably

Example 1.4

You are a civil engineer on a team designing a bridge for a state government. Your team submits what you believe to be the best design by all criteria, at a cost that is within the limits originally set. However, some months later the state undergoes a budget crisis and cuts your funds. Your supervisor, also a qualified civil engineer, makes design changes to achieve cost reduction that he/she believes will not compromise the safety of the bridge. You are not so sure, though you cannot conclusively demonstrate a safety hazard. You request that a new safety analysis be done. Your supervisor denies your request on the grounds of time and limited budget. What do you do?

Solution

Table 1.3 shows a typical set of student responses. How would you fill out this table?

Table 1.3. Student Responses to the Ethical Scenario

Options →
Canons ↓		 Go along with the decision Appeal to higher management Quit your job Write your state representative Call a newspaper reporter
Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. No.
Total assent may put public at risk.		 Maybe.
Addresses risk, but boss may bury issue.		 No.
If you just quit, risks less likely to be addressed.		 Yes.
Potential risk
will be put before public.		 Yes.
Potential risk will be put before public.
Perform services only in the area of your competence Yes.
You are not a safety expert.		 Yes.
Though not a safety expert, you are competent to surface an issue.		 Maybe. No.
You are not an expert in government relations.		 No.
You are not an expert in press relations.
Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner No.
Silence may seem like untruthful assent.		 Maybe.
You are publicly silent, but have registered dissent.		 No.
Quitting to avoid the issue is being untruthful.		 Maybe.
Your personal involvement may hurt your objectivity.		 No.
The press is likely to sensationalize what is as yet only a potential issue.
Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees Yes.
As an agent, you are expected to follow orders.		 Yes.
As an agent, you are expected to alert management to potential problems.		 Maybe.
Quitting a job is not bad faith.		 No.
As an agent or trustee, you may not make internal matters public without higher approval.		 No.
As an agent or trustee, you may not make internal matters public without higher approval.
Avoid deceptive acts No.
Assenting to something you disagree with is deceptive.		 Yes.
You honestly reveal your disagreement.		 No.
Quitting to avoid responsibility is deceptive.		 Yes.
You honestly reveal your disagreement.		 Yes.
You honestly reveal your disagreement.
Conduct yourself honorably No.
Deceptive assent dishonors the profession.		 Yes.
Honorable dissent is in accord with obligations.		 Maybe. Yes.
Honorable dissent is in accord with obligations.		 Maybe.
Might be publicity seeking, not honorable dissent.
Totals Yes   =   2
No   =   4 Maybe   =   0		 Yes   =   4
No   =   0
Maybe   =   2		 Yes   =   0
No   =   3
Maybe   =   3		 Yes   =   3
No   =   2
Maybe   =   1		 Yes   =   2
No   =   3
Maybe   =   1

Notice the multidimensional character of these answers. Here's one way to make some sense of your answer. Total the yeses and the noes in each column (ignore "maybe"). By this criterion, you should appeal to higher management, which of course might still ignore you. But that is the first action you should consider even though your boss may strenuously disagree with you. You have a powerful ally in the engineering ethics decision matrix to persuade others to your point of view. Some engineering ethics decision matrices have just one overwhelming criterion that negates all other ethical responses on your part; if so, you must follow that path—but usually the engineering ethics decision matrix has multiple conflicting factors. All you should expect from the matrix is that it will stimulate most or all of the relevant terms you should consider and help you avoid immediately accepting the first thought that entered your head.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124158917000017

Risk and Safety in Technology

Sven Ove Hansson , in Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, 2009

1 Introduction

Risk is ubiquitous in technology, and safety has been a central concern of engineering as long as there have been engineers. In codes of engineering ethics, the engineer's responsibility for the safety of workers and the public is strongly emphasized.

This chapter begins with a section on the definition of key terms in technological risk and safety. After that follow two sections that describe the two major, complementary approaches to technological risk and safety: safety engineering (Section 3) and risk analysis (Section 4). The final Section 5 is devoted to ethical analysis of risk.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444516671500434

Basic Ethical Principles for Global Engineering

Heinz C. Luegenbiehl , Rockwell F. Clancy , in Global Engineering Ethics, 2017

Having read this chapter, completed the included exercises, and answered the associated questions, readers should be able to

●

give examples of why the need exists for broad but commonly agreed upon principles of global engineering ethics, with reference to the case of Ford and Firestone/Bridgestone;

●

explain problems associated with pregiven engineering ethics codes, how the approach here is different, and why/how the safety of human life plays a central role in engineering ethics;

●

list the first 6 basic ethical principles for global engineering and justify their derivation based on the primacy of safety, as well as identify instances in which they are relevant in the cases of Ford and Firestone/Bridgestone and Development and its Broader Contexts.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128112182000047