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.

Testing and refining ethical theories. Now you ask, which one of these theories is

best. The authors of the text go on to say that they do not intend to evaluate them, since

they all have insights to offer, and complement each other. It would take a professional

philosopher, which I am not, to explain all the nuances and details of these theories,

together with the history of their development by the great philosophers of the world.

They do offer a set of conditions that any ethical theory must exhibit to be useful:

[OH3040]

1. clear, coherent and applicable. 2. internally consistent. In other words, none of its basic tenets can contradict each other.

3. not rely on false information. 4. comprehensive. That is to say, it must be capable of providing guidance in specific situations of interest

to us.

5. compatible with moral convictions.

This last one is most important, since any ethical theory which supports a morally

repugnant act must be very questionable.

“Ethical theories are developed to illuminate, unify and correct common-sense

judgements; and refined common-sense judgements about specific situations are used

to test ethical theories.” In other words, it is an interactive process.

VIRTUE ETHICS. [OH3041] The three major theories already examined were

described as “right action” theories. They focused on what kind of action was best.

Another ethical theory does not look at it that way at all, but emphasizes the ideals of

good character.

It is the oldest type of ethical theory, going back to Aristotle, (384-322 BC) and occurring

in many of the world religions. It seeks balance between extremes of conduct, emotion,

desires, etc. This theory can also be used as a basis for professional ethics.

The most basic and comprehensive professional virtue is professional responsibility.

(P53). The authors call this an “umbrella virtue” which encompasses many others which

may apply to various situations. Some of these others are what they call self-direction virtues, such as self-assessment, humility, courage, self-respect, and integrity.

Secondly, there are public-spirited virtues. These focus on the good of clients, and

the general public. Striving for public safety and welfare come into this category. Third,

there are team-work virtues. This includes loyalty to employers, respect for colleagues,

and leadership. Finally, we can identify proficiency virtues, such as competence,

diligence, and creativity.

OTHER VIEWS - Just a few words [OH3042]

Pragmatism (William James, John Dewey) This theory is somewhat like utilitarianism,

but as the name suggests, allows more flexibility in applying moral rules in line with the

circumstances. S&M say that it “carries the danger of paying insufficient attention to

moral principles through immersion in specific practical contexts.” They further suggest

that nevertheless, in the right spirit, it could be seen as an extension of utilitarianism and

the others we have talked about.

Customs and ethical relativism. No doubt you have sometimes read or heard of

companies operating in foreign countries “where standards are different from ours” and

where it is argued, for example, that it is ok to provide bribes and kickbacks, or to exploit

child labour, because that is the way business is done there. This would presumably be

thought by the same companies to be unethical in this country. So what we have here is

a case of what we can call ethical relativism. This theory equates moral correctness

with acceptance by laws and customs of the society. S&M argue that this is an

indefensible theory in general, and I agree.

It must, nevertheless, be recognized that customs and laws have to be taken into

account when making moral judgements. Although the context of the time and place will

have influence on how they are applied, the basic moral principles may well hold, if

sometimes in a way that might not be apparent in our own society. We should not

confuse this moral relationalism with ethical relativism.

Religion and divine command ethics. Another view that the authors do not support is

that moral values depend on a particular religion. This is referred to as divine command

ethics. It is recognized that religion may be personally important, but morals may exist in

its absence.

Self interest and ethical egoism .All the ethical theories recognize the importance of

self-interest, but also require that it be balanced by moral responsibility to other people.

(Then we call it “enlightened” self interest). But there is a view, known as ethical egoism, which reduces morality to the sole rational pursuit of self-interest, and

maintains that in professional and business affairs, overall good will result. The authors

use Adam Smith (remember him?) and the present-day Nobel-winning economist Milton

Friedman as examples of ethical egoists. The authors (and I) argue that surely morality

requires a willingness of individuals and corporations to place some restraints on the

pursuit of private interests. One of the beneficial outcomes of studying engineering

ethics is to help in uncovering the moral limits on the pursuit of self - interest in the

profession of engineering.

Meaningful Work and Professional Commitment. [OH3043]

S&M conclude their introduction with a short discussion on motivation for professional

work such as engineering, and the committments that go with it. They identify three

catagories:

Craft motives. Engineering is interesting and challenging work.

Moral Motives. The idea that engineers can help society and do good for people is

often a factor. See Florman “The Existential Pleasures of Engineering” [28]

Compensation and self interest. There is nothing wrong in trying to make a good

living.

GILBANE GOLD shown here most years. Video, study guide, and overheads. See

binder with Challenger documentation, etc.

GILBANE GOLD

Introduction

-Distribute synopsis and cast of characters

-overheads with main facts and cast of characters

-show video

22. Mike W. Martin, Roland Schinzinger. Ethics in Engineering, 3rd ed. McGraw Hill, 1996. P6.

23 Jack McMinn. Ethics Spun From Fairy Tales in Engineering Professionalism and Ethics, James H Schaub, Karl Pavlovic, editors. Wiley, 1983. P466.

24 Ibid, p467.

25 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.

26 Ref 2, p458.

27 Robert L. Whitlaw. The Professional Status of the American Engineer: A Bill of Rights. In Schaub and Pavlovic, (see ref 2) p295.

28. Samuel C. Florman. The Existential Pleasures of Engineering. (New York: St. Martin’s, 1976)