We've already talked about inventions and patents so I'm going to focus my notes on engineering as a profession.
Engineers are the people who design technological systems using specialized knowledge. How is what an engineer does different from what a craftsperson does?
see Discussion of Definitions for definitions of:
- technology
- science
- engineering
who develops new technology came in several steps:
- before 1795: local ingenuity
- 1795-1850: apprenticeship training (eg. canals)--these are the first professional engineers
- 1850-1880: most engineers were still trained by
apprenticeship but the profession became more formalized.
Engineers formed professional societies (eg. American
Society of Civil Engineers 1852). A lot of inventors were still
not formally trained
- 1880 or 1900 to the present: engineering schools
increasingly educate engineers and companies increasingly use
professional scientists and engineers in industrial research labs to
develop new technology instead of buying ideas from inventors
What is a profession?
- do you expect professionals to behave differently?
- what are the rights and responsibilities of being a professional?
- its members have somewhat standardized specialized knowledge
- they are certified in some way (usually by other members of the profession--this kind of self-selection is called gatekeeping). Usually this is by licensing but in engineering it is often just by graduating from an accredited engineering school
- they have a responsibility to serve the public good. This means that they put the safety and welfare of the public before their own selfinterest or profits for their employer. Should engineers be licensed?
Consider further this idea that engineers should serve the public good
Example:
Hyatt
Regency Walkway Collapse,
- A 3rd floor walkway across a hotel atrium
collapsed during a party, killing 114 people
- the builders made a change in the design of
the walkway support, which was already marginal
- a structural engineer named Jack Gillum put
his seal on the plans--he had 100 engineers working for him on many
different projects. The project engineer was a man named Daniel
Duncan.
- Gillum and Duncan were charged with gross
negligence by the licensing board and their licences were revoked even
though criminal charges had not been filed against them. Gillum's
defense was that he signed off on the plans without looking at them and
that this was common practice.
- they lost their licenses--the first
engineers to loose their licenses for negligence in the 20th century (source
of this material is a lecture by Sarah Pfatteicher, who wrote a
dissertation on the history of engineering ethics)
Professional ethics is
different from personal
morality.
- Why not take a bribe? three reasons--
- breaks
the law
- violates
professional ethics
- violates
moral norms about cheating
- professional ethics are a kind of contract
- you get certain privileges as a member of a
particular profession and in return you are required to follow the
rules of that profession
- because you agree to follow the rules in
return for privileges you don't have the right to ignore those rules
that you don't agree with (besides which, people who think they are
above the rules usually end up deceiving themselves into serious
trouble)
- professional ethics may expect you to do something contrary to your personal moral views, for example a lawyer who takes on defending a murderer is expected by professional ethics to do a good job even if s/he thinks the murderer deserved to be convicted. (Lawyers don't have to take a case, but somebody has to take the job of defending the murderer.)
- Here's a code of ethics for teachers: Code of Ethics of the Education Profession It includes:
- Shall not unreasonably deny the student's access to varying points of view.
- Shall not intentionally expose the student to embarrassment or disparagement.
- Shall not accept any gratuity, gift, or favor that might impair or appear to influence professional decisions or action
- Here
is another from the Association of
American Educators
Tacoma Narrows Bridge
story movie
An engineer named
Samuel Florman wrote an essay
in which he claimed
that engineers don't need codes of ethics any more.
- laws
have replaced ethics
- it is
more important to do a good job (sloppy work is a more common cause of
harm than ethical violations)
- everyone
has their own different ethics and we put more emphasis on individual
views and less on common values
- where
questions of individual concern are involved (eg. ban nuclear weapons?)
engineers should act through the political process
- to
improve the decisions made by the political process maybe engineers can
help educate the public
Specific issues:
- professional
ethics used to include a lot of what Florman calls guild
rules
- do
not advertise
- do
not engage in competitive bidding
- but
that isn't really to the point (and has been ruled in violation of
antitrust laws)
Florman asks:
what are the
responsibilities of the professional engineer? Serve the public
interest--means what?
Go here for
another
analysis of Florman's views or here for an
explicitly
Christian analysis of engineering ethics.
- not breaking the law?
- engineers
have been found guilty of everything from bribery to negligence
- But
this isn't a special dilemma for engineers.
- things
that used to be a matter of ethics, like product safety, have
increasingly been regulated
- Use technology for good rather than for
evil?
- But
Florman says "Engineers do not have the responsibility, much less the
right, to establish goals for society."
- You
may decide on the basis of personal ethics that you don't want to
design a gambling casino, but that isn't a matter of professional
ethics.
- If
we think cigarettes should be banned we should work for that as a
government decision, not call on individuals to not design cigarette
manufacturing machines or sell cigarettes.
- it
is not part of the engineer's job to second-guess government
regulations and prevailing standards or to challenge public
policy. Such action is appropriate as a citizen.
- So what is left for ethics in Florman's
view?
- Engineers should do their work
conscientiously.
- Diligence is more important than moral
intentions; sloppiness does much more harm than greed or intent to
deceive.
- Engineers should work
to inform the public so that better democratic decisions can be made.
Other people who
have
studied engineering ethics often make stronger claims--situations that
feel
like moral issues do arise fairly frequently. You can find a detailed code for dealing
with such
subjects at National Society of
Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers.(large
type )
- Do engineers have a responsibility to protect society simply on the basis of general morality, or do they have some special obligation as engineers (professionals with expert knowledge)?
- Use
that specialized know
- how
often do people find themselves caught between professional obligations
and their role as employees? Texas
Instruments Advice on Ethics
- whistle-blowing:
- obligation?
- legal
protection (for federal
employees in 1979)
- Between
1977 and 1992 (when protection for whistleblowers working for DOE
contractors went into effect) the Dept. of Energy had about 100 cases
of whistleblowing at the five sites like the
- more discussion
of whistleblowing
Finally, we should think about our
personal morality.
- Personal morality does not carry over
automatically into your career--we don't necessarily recognize the
ethical dilemmas we meet because we are too busy doing our jobs.
You need to think about the situations you meet in order to live by
your own morality
- Different people think of morality in
different ways:
- utilitarianism--an action is right or wrong
depending on its consequences, such as its effects on society.
More specifically--everyone should behave in such a way so as to bring
about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people
- idealism--there is
some fundamental standard of right and wrong by which we can judge our
actions. Copying software is always wrong, even if it does no
harm or has a beneficial effect on society as a whole. It is
relatively easy to say killing is always wrong, harder to say that
lying is always wrong.