THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION (ENGR5101) PART 3: ENGINEERING ETHICS G R Peters Note: The material in the notes below deals with the first 2 chapters of Schinzinger and Martin and includes material up to the case on Gilbane Gold which will be shown in one of the next couple of classes. Please ignore the reference to overheads. INTRODUCTION We will be using the book by Schinzinger and Martin as a text for this portion of the course. There are six chapters in the book and below is my rough plan for the time we have left. I have a video or two to show, and some exercises on case studies. I will also spend some time on PEGNL s Code of Ethics, in the first couple of lectures. We have already dealt with some of the material on the professional aspects of engineering (covered in Chapter 1 of S&M), but what is there is good review. The study of our own code of ethics fits in very well with this. I also draw your attention to the Codes of Ethics collected in Appendix A3. While these do not carry the legal weight for Canadian engineers that the Codes of their own Associations do, they are nevertheless informative, and work from the same basic philosophy. The fact that I do not mention everything in the book in class is not to be taken to mean that it is not relevant to the course. I encourage students to read it all; it is not a big book. [OH3001] OUTLINE Chapter 1: The Profession of Engineering [1 lecture] 18Mar06
Chapter 2: Moral Reasoning and Ethical Theories [2] Chapter 3 Engineering as Social Experimentation [3] Chapter 4 Commitment to Safety [3] Chapter 5 Workplace Responsibilities and Rights [3] Chapter 6: Global issues [?] Some of the material in Chapters 3 to 6 relates to the lectures on Appropriate Technology and Corporate Social Responsibility. I want to remind you here of the quote from Paul Goodman used by Postman, which was in fact also used by Martin and Schinzinger in their book Ethics in Engineering which we used in the course earlier as a reference. It is this: [OH3002] Technology is more than science... "Whether or not it draws on new scientific research, technology is a branch of moral philosophy, not [only] of science." -Paul Goodman, New Reformation We have had a look at the big picture. I have already remarked that the quotation was appropriate in relation to the choices open to the engineer in technological decision making. The types of choices which I had in mind at that time were between different technological paths, some of which might have more desirable short-term results than another, or less adverse societal impact than another. In later lectures we pointed out the difficulty of making predictions over even a moderate long term, and whether we as engineers should take it upon ourselves to make judgements for society. Now the focus is on the individual. We will now take a narrower and more specific focus on the way in which the choices are made, and often this will be on a personal level. There might be choices that affect your family, your employer, your job, or may put you on the receiving end of discipline from a professional engineering committee. Knowledge of engineering ethics will help us in making these decisions.
This idea contained in Goodman s quotation is behind the title of the first section in Schinzinger and Martin s book, which they call Engineering and Moral Complexity. They point out how moral values are embedded in the engineering process itself, which they diagram in Figure 1.1. [OH3003] The authors emphasize that the process is not a simple one-line progression. Rather, there are many choices made along the way, and the process is iterative. The complex process of iteration and change requires more than good technical knowledge. It also requires care, attention to detail, and an attitude of professional responsibility. They give the well-known example of the Kansas City Hyatt Regency walkway collapse, which killed over 100 people. (This is well documented, and the student should look it up.(p5) Some of the shortcomings of people and organizations which give rise to problems are the following: [OH3004] Lack of vision -tunnel vision: biased towards traditional solutions, overlooking alternatives - groupthink : promotes acceptance at the expense of critical thinking Incompetence lack of time, materials: usually due to bad management silo mentality : compartmentalization of information someone else will check for problems Possibility of improper use or disposal by user Dishonesty at any stage of the process The many linkages and intertwined responsibilities are illustrated in Figure 1.3 [OH3005] MOTIVATION (See also the Illustrative Cases in S&M p10) We will shortly get to the detailed study of engineering ethics, and the practical professional codes which come under that name. But to illustrate the nature of the problems which can arise, and the need for rules such as those embodied in codes of ethics, we will undertake a little exercise. I will present take three or four cases. I will ask
you to decide - without rules other than your own morality, sense of fairness, etc - how you would act. The first one is from our text, (p10) (but without the result) the next two from another reference, and I made up the last one, roughly based on an incident of my own experience.[oh3006,oh3007] 1. Construction manager under pressure [22]. An inspector discovers faulty construction equipment and applies a violation tag preventing use of the equipment. The inspector s supervisor, the construction manager, views the case as a minor infraction of safety regulations, and orders the tag removed so that the job will not be delayed. The inspector objects and is threatened with disciplinary action. You are the inspector. What do you do now? -is it really only minor? -should you give in to the threat? -write a memo to the bigger boss? - try to fix the machine? -go to the client? -the media? -quit? 2. Merry Christmas [23]. George is a city employee, and is the resident engineer for a large sewer contract. With his many years of field engineering experience, he is able, during the course of the job, to suggest techniques and procedures to the contractor which save time and money, although the work is done strictly in accordance with plans and specifications. At Christmas time, George receives a case of good Scotch from the contractor, with his greeting card attached. May George (you) accept the gift? -what s wrong with it, you certainly saved him and the city money. -does it depend on city policy? -how much is the scotch worth? -does that matter? -what about if you donate it to the city (or the contractor s) Christmas party? 3. The case of Deadfish Creek [24]. As plant engineer for Lotsa Chrome, Inc., Lisa Smith knows that the manufacturing process results in periodic discharges of cadmium and chrome into Deadfish Creek in concentrations which may cause serious long-term health effects for downstream water users. Because Lotsa Chrome Inc. is marginally profitable, management has made a policy decision to close the plant if and when waste water controls are imposed by the Government. When Lisa s boss is questioned by the Department of the Environment, he understates the levels of chrome and cadmium discharged, and Lisa knows this. Must she report the correct numbers to DOE?
-what about loyalty to the other employees who will be out of work if the company closes?-make an anonymous phone call? -maybe the government won t do anything. - tell DOE that the boss s numbers are wrong, but not say what the correct ones are? - write the boss s boss? -the media? Company directors? 4. A Better Way. Joe is a civil engineer in a struggling firm specializing in municipal engineering. He is aware that a design contract has been awarded to a competitor for a sewage treatment system for his city. After talking informally to friends in the local government planning department, he learns some details of the design under way. Joe thinks the design concept is a poor one, and will cost the city more in the long run. The city council then asks him to look at the system being proposed, and to prepare an alternative design for their engineering department to examine. Should Joe accept this contract? EXERCISE: Students take a handout with all the above cases, and in about 5 minutes each, write their own answers in each case, with reasons. These are collected, summarized and then discussed following the presentation on the PEGNL Code of Ethics, next lecture.
CODES OF ETHICS (OH3008) One of the marks of a profession is the existence of sets of rules or guidelines known as "codes of ethics". Purpose. These rules are intended to inform members of the profession of standards of behaviour expected from them in the practice of their profession, and also to demonstrate to the public that standards exist and are being enforced. Doctors, lawyers and engineers all have them, as well as committees of the professional organization which enforces the rules. Examples In Appendix A3, Schinzinger and Martin have printed several sets, including those for the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). In this province, as in all provinces of Canada, the practice of engineering is governed by an act of the legislature. Our association (PEGNL), whose home page you can reach from our website course materials, has a code of ethics, and we will use this in our dealing with ethical exercises and examples. APEGN CODE OF ETHICS [3009,3010,3011,3012] Study and critical examination. One purpose of our study of this topic is to make you familiar with codes of ethics, others and ours. But these codes are the products of the minds of engineers, and they are not carved in stone. You may see ways they can be improved, and it is our responsibility to do this where we can. One of the features of codes of ethics is a fairly strong element of what might be called "guild rules". By this I mean that certain guidelines are clearly shaped with the benefit of the engineer or the engineering company in mind rather than the exclusive protection of society. This can sometimes lead to conflicting advice, as we shall see from time to time. So along with making ourselves familiar with them, we should question them with a view to improvement. We will now briefly discuss PEGNL s Codes of Professional Ethics, and follow this by applying them to the case studies we worked on in the last lecture.
See also the PEGNL Home page link on the Website, under "publications". My comments on various articles of the code below in italics. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Newfoundland 1. A professional engineer or geoscientist shall recognize that professional ethics are founded upon integrity, competence and devotion to service and to the advancement of human welfare. This concept shall guide the conduct of the professional engineer or geoscientist at all times. This foundation is pretty straightforward except perhaps for the word integrity. There is some relevant discussion in the text on pp43-44, some of which I reproduce here. The word implies wholeness and unity. Thus integrity is a bridge between responsibility and private life. We can t break it into parts, and say don t blame me (for this immoral act) I was just doing my job. Integrity makes possible the virtues of self-respect and pride in one s work. It precludes the attitude that one is not personally responsible for one s work. Duties of the Professional Engineer or Geoscientist to the Public A professional engineer or geoscientist shall: 2. have proper regard in all his or her work for the safety, health and welfare of the public; The safety of the public is first priority. 3. endeavour to extend public understanding of engineering and geoscience and their role in society; This is interesting, considering our recent discussions on Postman, etc. The notion appears in other codes, eg NSPE.
4. where his or her professional knowledge may benefit the public, seek opportunities to serve in public affairs; 5. not be associated with enterprises contrary to the public interest; Who decides what is in (or contrary to) the public interest? The engineer? 6. undertake only such work as he or she is competent to perform by virtue of his or her education, training and experience; Note that you are required to judge your own competence. 7. sign and seal only such plans, documents or work as he or she has personally prepared or which have been prepared or carried out under his or her direct professional supervision; A professional engineer has an seal, or official stamp, to show the public who is taking responsibility for the document. You should not stamp something that has not been your direct professional responsibility. 8. express opinions on engineering or geo-scientific matters only on the basis of adequate knowledge and honest conviction; 9. have proper regard in all his or her work for the well being and integrity of the Environment. Proper regard can be open to interpretation. Is integrity of the environment a meaningful phrase? Duties of the Professional Engineer or Geoscientist to Client or Employer A professional engineer or geoscientist shall: 10. act for his or her client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee; This can sometimes put you on the horns of a dilemma - but it must always be a serious consideration.
11. not accept remuneration for services rendered other than from his or her client or employer; No case of Scotch. 12. not disclose confidential information without the consent of his or her client or employer; This can make it hard to blow the whistle externally. 13. not undertake any assignment which may create a conflict of interest with his or her client or employer without a full knowledge of the client or employer; There is a duty to keep your employer informed when you are serving some other master. Note that this does not say that you cannot have potentially conflicting jobs. 14. present clearly to his or her clients or employers the consequences to be expected if his or her professional judgement is overruled by other authorities in matters pertaining to work for which he or she is professionally responsible. Duties of the Professional Engineer or Geoscientist to the Profession We must watch out for potential self-serving items here. But is there anything wrong with being self-serving? A professional engineer or geoscientist shall: 15. endeavour at all times to improve the competence, dignity and reputation of his or her profession; A very broad requirement. 16. conduct himself or herself towards other professional engineers and geoscientists with fairness and good faith; 17. not advertise his or her professional services in self-laudatory language or in any other manner derogatory to the dignity of the profession; What moral basis is there for this, so long as the ads are factual?
18. not attempt to supplant another engineer, or geoscientist in an engagement after definite steps have been taken toward the other's employment. Why not, if you have a better idea? 19. when in salaried position, engage in a private practice and offer or provide professional services to the public only with the consent of his or her employer and in compliance with all requirements of such practice; Applies to consulting professors. 20. not exert undue influence or offer, solicit or accept compensation for the purpose of affecting negotiations for an engagement; No bribes. 21. not invite or submit proposals under conditions that constitute only price competition for professional services; Moral basis? This kind of clause has been stricken from codes in the US. Judged to be in restraint of trade, and therefore illegal. 22. advise the Council of any practice by another member of the profession which he or she believes to be contrary to the Code of Ethics. What about our reluctance to snitch? Review of our Cases. [OH3013,14,15,16] (Overheads show combined results) 1. Construction Manager under pressure 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Stand by decision (percent) (%) 67 53 49 30 56 Record, appeal, job continues (%) 23 35 29 39 22 Reconsider, remove (%) 10 12 22 30 22
Code of Ethics guidance: (Items 2,10,14,22) Do not remove the tag. Go to the next level if someone else does. Go to Association for advice, especially if you are threatened. Student Comments: -safety more important than deadline. Safety paramount. -inform employees in area. They have right to refuse. -if tag removed it is manager's responsibility. -write it up in your professional diary -leave it on and take a sick day -you must recognize the authority of a supervisor -just because someone is your boss, it doesn t mean that they know how to do your job better 2.Merry Christmas 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Accept the gift (%) 62 68 72 54 67 Depends, consult (%) 6 14 5 12 11 Decline (%) 24 26 23 33 22 Code of Ethics guidance: George should not accept the gift (10, 11) Student Comments: -May depend on whether public or private sector (employer policy). -Accept, but be sure you are not influenced. -refuse at first... then accept! -share the wealth - include city managers and let contractor know. -no one should ever turn down good scotch... (?) -maybe technically ok, but perception important -take it and donate to a shelter for homeless (?) -George may overlook mistakes in future -No. The key is that George does not work for the contractor. -Take it. A wise man never turns down anything thing that is free!
-Obviously, this is a trick question. Take it. 3. Deadfish Creek 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Report correct (%) 50 59 60 58 67 Inform, other ways (%) 30 18 22 33 11 Don t report (%) 20 24 18 8 22 CoE guidance: Report correct numbers. (2,5,9). Note in conflict with (10,12). Student comments: -public safety is more important than jobs. Safety paramount -She should be trying to reduce the pollution. -involve others -let boss know, use chain of command. 4. Better way 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Accept the contract (%) 58 62 67 83 83 Refuse it (%) 29 32 28 12 6 Other (%) 13 6 5 4 11 CoE guidance: Joe should take it only on condition that the competitor is made fully aware of his review. Note that the competitor does not have to give permission. (16,18 - the debate would be about intent). Some would argue that Joe should not take the contract until the relationship between the city and Joe's competitor is severed. Students comments: -This is not an ethical question. -if inferior work is being done, he should be replaced.
-how would Joe like it if this were done to him? -take it - eat or be eaten! -Accept it, since it will save the taxpayers money. -Accept it. Competition in the marketplace is healthy. Some of the comments note the need for a bigger context, and more information. This is a good observation of the weakness of the case-study method. It lacks the complexity of real life.
REASONS FOR A DEEPER LOOK: OH3017 A fundamental point from which we start in terms of basic concepts is that while APEGN s code of ethics is a set of rules which members of our association must observe, the foundation on which this is built is worthy of deeper study. In fact, as we have indicated above, such codes sometimes include rules for which one might question the ethical and moral basis. Take the rule in the PEGNL code about not supplanting another engineer, for example, or the one about bidding for services: 18. not attempt to supplant another engineer, or geoscientist in an engagement after definite steps have been taken toward the other's employment. 21. not invite or submit proposals under conditions that constitute only price competition for professional services; As we have noted, these articles could be considered to be a matter of "the rules of the business game", and not having a strong moral basis. That is not to say there is no such basis, since it might be thought rather lacking in respect for a colleague to behave in the way implied in (18), for example. Having Rules of the Game is part of being a profession, and one underlying rationale for the rules is that individuals are presumably better off in the long run if they obey the agreed rules. For a good paper on this complex issue, see reference [4]. (Michael Davis. Thinking Like an Engineer: The Place of a Code of Ethics in the Practice of a Profession. Available on the Illinois Institute of Technology Website: http://www.iit.edu/departments/csep/md.html.) Sometimes items in codes of ethics have run into conflict with laws. For example, the American Society of Civil Engineers had several clauses of their code overturned in the mid 70's by the Department of Justice in the US, on the basis that they were in restraint of trade [5]. Two of the offensive clauses were similar to 18 and 21 of our code. In another vein, the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) in the US has a clause preventing participation in strikes. [S&M p230. Part III, 1(e)]:
Engineers shall not actively participate in strikes, picket lines, or other collective coercive action. [NSPE CoE, iii 1(e)] Some might regard this as a inhibition of personal freedom. Yet there is a moral basis which one can use for such a clause, and it could go something like this: how can the engineer discharge his moral duty to protect society if he refuses to work? And what about loyalty to the employer? (OH3018) Ethical questions are not black and white. Even with our short examination of a few cases, we can see that ethical issues are frequently complex, and even the question of what is an "ethical issue" is not always clear cut. We (and the authors of our text) now spend a little time on basics" in order to clarify the terminology and issues, and to make it easier for us to deal with the ethical questions and the moral judgements that go with them. Encourage Improvement. Before we leave our initial discussion of codes, I also want to make it absolutely clear that I am not trying to encourage a cynical view of codes of engineering ethics. Among other things, they relieve the engineer from the difficult task of making her own moral judgement anew on every issue. The codes have been thought out, and part of being a professional engineer is to abide by the profession's rules. Scepticism is fine, so long as it is healthy, for there is probably nothing that cannot be improved. Defining Engineering Ethics(p8) It makes sense to start with a definition; not of the code, but what we mean when we think of it as a subject for study. According to Schinzinger and Martin,( p8), there are three senses in which the term engineering ethics is used in their book: (1) Engineering Ethics is the study of moral values, issues, and decisions involved in engineering practice.
In this sense ethics refers to an area of inquiry, the activity of understanding moral values, resolving moral issues, and justifying moral judgements. The moral values take many forms, including ideals, character, social policies, etc. There are at least two other ways in which the term can be used: also 2) a specific set of beliefs or attitudes. This is the sense in which we identify our codes of ethics, for example. In fact, it is in this context that we are mainly interested. The distinction between ethical standards and legal ones (laws) is particularly significant and 3) "ethical" can be used as the equivalent of morally correct, according to some accepted moral principles. We say sometimes that an action may or may not be "ethical". In this sense, engineering ethics amounts to the set of justified moral principles of obligation, rights, and ideals that ought to be endorsed by those engaged in engineering. (S&M p9). This usage is rather more general than the specific principles embodied in a code of ethics, say. What is morality? In the above, and in many of our discussions, we have used the word moral. What do the philosophers (and others) mean by this? This is a big topic, and we will spend a bit of time barely scratching the surface, including a brief look at some of the underlying theory. It is more than simply what "ought" to be done. One ought to wear waterproof footwear to prevent wet feet, but it is hardly an issue of moral conduct. At an intuitive and common sense level, we observe that moral reasons (as distinct from other types of reasons) require us to respect other people as well as ourselves. This includes keeping promises, respecting rights, avoiding cheating and dishonesty, for example. We can see at once that the characterization of what is morally right is by no means precise and clearly definable. Two individuals might well have different judgements in the same situation. At this point you might be wondering whether the engineering profession - or this class - intends to inculcate moral beliefs in you all, or to give you moral training. There is no such paternalistic objective. You are responsible for your own set of beliefs and
standards. We do start from a supposed base of the worth of basic honesty, respect for others, and recognition of the golden rule. (Not the version that says that the one who has the gold sets the rules). As Shakespeare said to thine own self be true, and thou cannot be false to any man Or words to that effect. In other words, you retain moral autonomy, which S&M describe as the right to govern our own lives in the light of universal moral principles. (p45). Examples Your attention is drawn to the illustrative cases showing how moral issues arise in real life situations. We have already met the first one in our motivational examples (except for the last sentence) Here is another: [OH3019] Find the moral issues: (3) A chemical plant dumped wastes in a landfill. Hazardous substances found their way into the underground water table. The plant s engineers were aware of the situation but did not change the disposal method because their competitors did it the same cheap way, and no law explicitly forbade the practice. Plant supervisors told the engineers it was the responsibility of the local government to identify any problems. Some possibilities: environmental stewardship (this is explicit in the CoE) safety of the public concealing risk to the public what is right vs what is legal loyalty to employer
MORAL DILEMMAS (OH3020) (and related issues p12) Sometimes the application of ethical principles leads to a conflict between two sets of moral obligations. Such a situation is called a moral dilemma. For example the need to be loyal to an employer in the case where some issue (eg in the Lotsa Chrome case) indicates that a report contrary to his interest must be made. We have already referred to the now obvious fact that sometimes a moral question, or question of ethics, is not easy to settle. It can be just a question of vagueness about where to draw the line, eg what constitutes a real bribe. Then there are questions where a disagreement would exist between reasonable people involved in a moral issue. For example this might come about in a company where a decision has to be reached collectively, and the issue is not clear-cut. For example, how seriously should the company regard the hazards of smoking in personal offices? Furthermore, even when one tries to apply a set of agreed rules such as a code of ethics, it turns out that there are principles which conflict in that particular case. Invariably, one has to apply those rules as the particular circumstances require, and not in a dogmatic way. Resolving ethical dilemmas requires the careful weighing of conflicting moral obligations. The authors break the process into three related tasks: Conceptual inquiries are those which attempt to clarify concepts. For example, what do we mean by safety and risk? These concepts will get some elaboration later; we make do with an intuitive idea for now. What does it mean in our code of ethics when it says that you should act in good faith? This sort of question is often closely connected to finding out what is normal, or usually accepted. Factual inquiries are investigations as to the facts of the matter. This is usually the most simple to do. How much, when, where, etc. This is important, and must be done in any inquiry.
Interpersonal disagreements. Different people see things in different ways. Even among rational, well-meaning people, there can be different interpretations as to what is right and what is unreasonable. That is why in a profession, there has to be due process, the hearing of all sides of an issue, careful attention to facts (and details) and fair deliberation by experienced people, fairly chosen. The authors suggest six steps to deal with moral dilemmas: (OH3021) These are useful in real life as well as in assignments. In the real world of course, you have the opportunity to get clarification and do further investigation, which is not the case when you are given an academic problem, and you may have to make reasonable assumptions. But in the real world too, we rarely have complete knowledge, so engineers get used to working with what they have, and making good judgements. Here are the steps recommended by S&M: 1. Identify relevant moral factors, conflicts, etc. 2. Gather all the facts pertinent to the moral factors. 3. Rank (ie prioritize ) the moral considerations, if possible. For example, a duty to serious public safety would have to rank higher than a duty to an employer. 4. Identify the alternatives in solving the moral dilemma problem. 5. Discuss with colleagues. 6. Come to a reasoned conclusion. To put it succinctly, in any inquiry: (For example if you are being asked to decide on a particular case) what are the facts? what is the moral standard? what does that mean in this case? Exercise: Consider the plant engineer responsible for the chemical plant described in example (3) above. Is his or her behaviour ethical? Use PEGNL Code of Ethics. [OH3022 two pages]
Facts: -Due to the plant s disposal practice, hazardous substances are polluting the ground water. -The engineer and others involved are aware of this. -The disposal method is cheap, and competitors are doing the same thing. -There is no law that explicitly forbids the disposal practice. -The engineer s supervisors said it was the government s responsibility to identify any problem. Articles in CoE bearing on the case: 1...integrity, etc. Permitting hazardous environmental practice and not reporting it violates integrity. 2. proper regard for health and safety of the public... 5. not be associated with enterprises contrary to the public interest.. 9. proper regard for environment. 10. act for employer as faithful agent... 16. fairness and good faith towards other engineers Analysis. Permitting hazardous environmental practice and not reporting it violates the first basic guideline of the code regarding integrity. Specifically, the engineer is clearly in violation of articles 2, 5 and 9. The engineer could defend his behaviour by noting that 10 and 16 support it. The lack of action is serious, and a danger to the environment and to the public. The fact the practice is legal does not change this. It could be that lawmakers are unaware that the practice is hazardous, but if the engineers are, that is not an excuse. Articles 1, 2, 5 and 9 have a much higher priority than the loyalty to the company and to other engineers. Conclusion. The engineer is in violation of the Code of Ethics. The Professional Engineer.
This might be a good point to note the discussion that the authors present on what it means to be a professional. Davis (ref 4) also has some good points in this area. S&M set out useful criteria for professions such as engineering: (p17), and we have seen these earlier, at the start of the course: Marks of a Profession: (OH3023) 1. Advanced Expertise. The beginnings are founded in a good educational system, and built upon by experience and continual learning. 2. Self Regulation. The group of people claiming to be a profession must be organized to set standards, generate and enforce codes of ethics, and represent members before the public. This authority for self-regulation is embodied in an Act of the Provincial Legislature 3. Public Good. The profession must serve some public good. In engineering, for example, we claim to protect the public by insuring that public infrastructure is safely built, among other things. The question of just who constitutes the public can arise. Are fellow employee engineers the same kind of public as consumers of a company s product, for example? Generally, no. The engineer insists on a lower level of risk for the "innocent" consumer. Employee Engineers [OH3024] The question sometimes arises as to whether an engineer serving as an employee, and not taking direct responsibility for work beyond his or her employer, should be considered a professional in the sense of the criteria above, and require registration with the profession. Some take the view that only engineers dealing personally with clients can claim to be acting as independent professionals, and employee status prevents this [27]. In the opinion of most people, including me, this is an extreme view. Anyone can take personal responsibility for his or her work. A professional is one who never needs a boss.
THE ROLE OF CODES OF ETHICS [OH3025] With all this emphasis on the engineer as a responsible agent, having moral autonomy, being accountable, and so on, what role do codes of ethics play? We have already discussed these to some extent, but it is of interest to hear what S&M have to say. They take this topic up beginning on p18. Shared Standards We have already seen how easy it is for reasonable people to have different views on moral issues. It is very important that all members of the profession, and the public, know what the accepted standards are. Support. One of the very real advantages of the code of ethics is to give the engineer support in making ethical decisions. The legitimate appeal to the professional group - e.g. to do that would be professionally unethical, i.e. against the code of ethics of my profession - is a persuasive argument. Guidance A code of ethics - certainly the ones we have seen - are obviously written with the intention to inspire the reader and guide behaviour. The language is full of idealistic statements such as having proper regard for the health and welfare of the public, integrity of the environment, and so on. The down side is that the grand language of these noble statements can be a bar to clarity, allowing vagueness to creep in, and actually reducing its effectiveness. Inspiration Because of the recognition by all members, the code give a motivation for the type of behaviour described or at least implied in it. Education and Mutual Understanding We are using codes for this very purpose at the present time. Their standing as a formal document approved by the licensing body makes it a valuable standard, with acceptance by members, governments and the public. Deterrence and Discipline From the professional association s point of view, having the code written down and distributed is a deterrent to unacceptable behaviour of members. Contravention of the code can lead to penalties ranging from reprimand
(which might include public notification) to the cancellation of membership and loss of the right to practice as an engineer. By the way, the right to practice cannot be revoked in the US by the profession alone (p19, S&M). In Canada, this is under the control of the profession in all provinces. The application of discipline is handled by a peer group, with proper due process and usually, legal advice. Contribution to Profession s Public Image The acceptance and standing mentioned above helps the reputation of the engineering profession in the public eye, and is essential in retaining its right to be self regulating. It is very important to note that this standing can only be earned; is not granted. It may be taken away by the public (and government) if the performance of the profession does not meet the standards being claimed. By the way, surveys consistently show that engineers have a very high public rating for trustworthiness and dependability. Limitations and abuse of Codes. Protecting the Status Quo? Codes can also have a negative effect, and this is one of them. We can run into the syndrome of minimal compliance.(remember the lifeboats on the Titanic?). S&M have an interesting paragraph (p19) on this subject which goes as follows:[oh3026] Probably the worst abuse of engineering codes in the past has been to restrict honest moral effort on the part of individual engineers in the name of preserving the profession s public image and protecting the status quo. Once the rules have been laid down in a code, the effect can be to discourage dissent and improvement. The status quo is not always good enough. There have been cases where engineers have been disciplined by the profession, when in fact, they have been serving the public interest. (See the text, p19, referring to a 1932 case) It is not hard to see how this could happen. In the PEGNL code, for example, the requirement to keep company data confidential could be a problem for someone who felt they should reveal it to a regulator, in response to what they judge to be a public health hazard.
S&M go on to say: Preoccupation with keeping a shiny public image may silence the healthy dialogue and lively criticism needed to ensure the public s right to an open expression. And an excessive interest in protecting the status quo may lead to a distrust of the engineering profession on the part of both government and the public. The best way to increase trust is by encouraging and aiding engineers to speak freely and responsibly about the public safety and good as they see it. And this includes a tolerance of criticism of the codes themselves, rather than allowing the codes to become sacred documents that have to be accepted uncritically. Promoting Business Interests? This commercial objective is clearly contained in codes. For what is perhaps a somewhat cynical view, listen to a quotation in an article in one of our references from a senior American engineer: ethics are rules old men make to keep young men from getting any business. [2] We have already mentioned the general dislike of competition on the basis of price, although one can argue that its inclusion is for the protection of the public. In fact, clauses such as our 21 have not been enforceable in the US since 1979, when a court decision struck them out on the basis that they are in restraint of trade, and not in the public interest. There is a tendency for the professional group to set up rules so that newcomers cannot overturn the established members.. For an example of a very simple code including penalties for infractions, see...[oh3027] Babylonian Building Code (1758 B.C.) (Hammurabi code) If a builder has built a house for a man and has not made his work sound, and the house which he has built has fallen down and so caused the death of the householder, that builder shall be put to death. If it causes the death of the householder s son, they shall put that builder s son to death. If it causes the death of the householder s slave, he shall give slave for slave to the householder.
If it destroys property he shall replace anything it has destroyed; and because he has not made sound the house which he has built and it has fallen down, he shall rebuild the house which has fallen down from his own property. If a builder has built a house for a man and does not make his work perfect and the wall bulges, that builder shall put that wall into sound condition at his own cost. We note no provisions for any loss of life except householder, sons and slaves. We have made a little progress since then. CORPORATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY [OH3028] The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits -Milton Friedman. (Nobel Prize winning economist) The famous economist argues that managers must limit their goals to those authorized by stockholders, and that is to generate a maximum return on their investment, within the laws of the land. To adopt other objectives, such as protecting the environment, or providing for the employment of disadvantaged workers, or other social goals is to violate the shareholders trust. (Good area for discussion) S&M think that Friedman s philosophy is ultimately self defeating; i.e. that approach will not maximize profits. The engineer s problem has centered on a conflict between professional independence and bureaucratic loyalty, rather than between workmanlike and predatory instincts. Edwin T Leyton Jr. quoted in Ethics in Engineering by Martin and Schinzinger, p236. The usual context of engineering practice is within corporations. Leyton s comment is a recognition of this. In other words, the problems usually arise because the employer has a different sense of what and how something should be done, possibly involving some moral judgement, than the engineer does. It is not that the engineer is out to create shoddy work. Ethical corporate climate. [OH3029] This provides for a working environment where morally responsible conduct is fostered and encouraged. There should not be a conflict
between business objectives and professional responsibilities. With engineers in management, as is often the case, the potential for this kind of tension should be recognized. There are at least four characteristics of a good ethical climate identified by S&M: 1) Ethical values in their full complexity are widely acknowledged by management and employees. 2)The use of an ethical language is applied: e.g. in a corporate code of ethics. 3)Top management sets a moral tone in words, policies and by personal example. 4) Procedures exist for conflict resolution. E.g. ombudsman or identified resource people. It is important to avoid the trap of legalistic procedures and solutions. Good engineering, good business, and good ethics work together in the long run... (S&M). MORAL REASONING AND ETHICAL THEORIES (Chap2) [OH3030] Doonesbury cartoon p58 (How much is this principle worth?) Ethical theory provides a basis for identifying moral issues and making decisions on moral responsibilities. The authors tell us that during the past three centuries, three ethical theories have been especially influential. [OH3031] Utilitarianism, duty ethics and human rights ethics focus on principles about right and wrong conduct. These three types of right action ethics relate to what one considers to be the most fundamental moral concept. (1) utilitarianism (maximize overall good) (2) rights ethics (emphasis: respect human rights) (3) duty ethics (emphasis: what we owe morally to others) We will now take up the main features of each of these in turn, observing especially how they differ in providing a basis for making moral judgements.
Truthfulness. [OH3032] S&M use truthfulness as an illustration of a basic moral consideration which any ethics theory will have to take into account. Moreover, as the authors illustrate with several examples, it often turns up in cases of discipline, and is relevant to anything we do in engineering. They quote from the NSPE Code: Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements or testimony (Our own code has to depend on Article 1 for this particular thought, in a less specific form.) This truthfulness rule is affirmed by all major ethical theories, but for different reasons can be linked to the bottom line of utilitarianism, rights, or duty ethics. Ethical Theories [OH3033] Utilitarianism. This theory maintains that we should seek the greatest utility ie the overall balance of good over bad consequences. These are the only moral considerations. Hence everything reduces to the greatest good for the greatest number. Truthfulness is understood in terms of its contribution to good consequences. The philosopher most identified with this theory is John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). He was an Englishman, and you will note that he lived at the time we identify with the Industrial Revolution. He was a contemporary of Brunel. Perhaps it is not unlikely that this era would produce a cost/benefit ethical theory, and one that mostly underlies our codes of ethics. Philosophers identify two types or variations of this theory: rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. Codes of Ethics are examples of the applications of rule utilitarianism, in that accepted behaviour is codified into a set of rules. It focuses on overall consequences. Individual actions are right when they conform to the rules. Act utilitarianism focuses on individual cases, and is more flexible. Rules are open to modification, depending on the circumstances. The truthfulness rule is a guideline, not
absolute. It is not hard to imagine circumstances where the rule could not be absolutely applied. For example, suppose one is dealing with extreme situations such as a kidnapping. One would hardly be expected to be bound by the truthfulness rule when dealing with the hostage takers. Rights ethics. [OH3034] This is an older theory than utilitarianism, and is identified with John Locke, (1632-1704) another Englishman. Human rights, not good consequences, are fundamental. Actions which respect human rights are obligatory, regardless of whether they maximize good. Truthfulness follows because trust is essential in order to be able to exercise liberty. These ideas had a strong influence on the two great revolutions that were to follow in the latter part of the 18th century in America and France, and the American Constitution is built on the foundation of individual rights. Again we can identify two branches. The first is the strongly individualistic version, called Liberty Rights. These place a duty on others not to meddle in one s life. There is a strong sense of independent action. The viewpoint is sometimes identified as libertarian, and takes a dim view of taxes and too much government. The second version of rights ethics is more oriented to the collective right of the community (Welfare Rights). The logic is that to have moral rights is based on a concern for others, and to be accountable to the community in which you live. Duty Ethics. [OH3035] The name most associated with duty ethics is Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Right actions are governed by duties to others and ourselves. According to Kant, each duty expresses respect for persons. This can be viewed as the mirror image" of rights ethics. By this is meant that one has a duty because another has a right. For most individual rights, there are corresponding duties incumbent on others. For example, the right not to be deceived puts a duty on another to be truthful. Duty ethics emphasizes one s responsibility to respect persons, (including oneself, by the way). A principle of duty must be applicable to everyone, that is, everyone is expected (generally) to accept it. One respects a person s individuality and rationality, as you expect them to accept yours. Also, there cannot be qualifications or conditions on
a duty. For example, it does not make sense to have a duty to be honest, if it only applies when convenient. Again for example, the statement If you want to improve your health, it is your duty to stop smoking does not constitute a valid duty principle, because it depends on whether or not you want to improve your health. A list of duties from a modern philosopher: 1) Don t kill; 2) don t cause pain; 3) don t disable; 4) don t deprive of freedom, 5) don t deprive of pleasure; 6) don t deceive; 7) Keep your promise; 8) don t cheat; 9) obey the law; 10) do your duty (work, family, etc.) One difficulty is confusion between 1) rules being universally applicable to all rational agents, and 2) rules being exception-less. Some duties have to come before others, and exceptions have to be allowed for. Examples given. Example. Problem. 1(c), p47. [OH3036, 3037,3038] Robert is third-year engineering student who has been placed on probation for a low average, even though he knows he is doing the best work he can. A friend offers to help by sitting next to him and sharing his answers during the next exam. Robert has never cheated on an exam before, but this time he is desperate. Should he accept his friend s offer? Question: Apply utilitarianism, duty ethics, and rights ethics in resolving the moral problem. Do the theories lead to the same or different answers to the problem? [OH3037] Applying utilitarianism. In this case we identify the good and bad consequences for everyone, and assess the balance. Good consequences: Robert might pass exam. Robert might get off probation. Bad consequences: Robert might be discovered and disciplined, etc. Friend would be implicated.
Guilt (both) Robert s loss of knowledge of what his independent performance would be. Loss of self-confidence. Turning an ethical corner (cheating for the first time) Evaluation system is subverted (OH3038) Applying duty ethics There is a duty to not cause risk to others (his friend) There is a duty not to deceive (those who might put trust in the results of the exam.) There is a duty to not disappoint those who expect him to succeed (??)(eg parents) (Note that this duty is in favour of cheating) There is a duty to realistic self-evaluation (he is working as hard as he can). There is a duty not to disturb an exam (which would happen if he were discovered) [OH3039] Applying rights ethics (to Robert and to others) Robert has the right to choose his own strategy for success (?) His friend has a right to avoid the risk, and possibly guilt. His friend also has a right to use his own mind - he made the offer. Examiners have a right not to be undermined in their assessments. Society has a right to be able to rely on the educational standards for engineers. Fellow students have a right to an undisturbed exam. Conclusion? The balance is in favour of saying no, thank you. We will observe that there is no answer in the back of the book for these questions. You may have some different ideas. There is bound to be some subjectivity. Sometimes the application of different theories leads to different conclusions. For example suppose the question is whether seat belts should be worn. Utilitarianism would support it. Rights ethics probably would not.