Definition of Ethics and Professionalism - Assignment Example

Name Instructor’s Name Course Name and Code Date Ethics and Professionalism Question 1 The problem is a disagreement between Safeguards engineers and Midland’s. Midland engineers, who have been procured to produce the machine, and find faults with Safeguard’s design. However, Safeguard deliberates and then advice their producers not to worry, and continue with production. Engineers are guided by professional code of ethics that states that they should use their skills and knowledge to the maximum use, and inform their clients of anything that would otherwise compromise the work, safety of what they do. The problem should be resolved by the Midland’s engineers. They should have a brainstorming session and invite the Safeguard personnel to participate. The session should entail discussion on what are the areas of the machine that they are not satisfied with, what safety measures can be put in place, ensure the machine is eco friendly, explain to the client why they consider the design faulty and what are the implications of using the design as it is. If the client refuses to agree to the new terms, Midland should cancel the contract and report the case to the professional board. They should conduct a brainstorming session, and cancel the tender if the client does not agree because, life of workers will be at risk, protect the client against probable financial and personal risks in the future. To comply with Engineers code of ethics and protect the name of the company in case the machine fails, is inefficient, and does not produce the desired outcomes The above fish – borne diagram indicates the problems that would arise from production of a machine with a faulty design. The machine can cause environmental degradation, the machine can be inefficient and ineffective for its work; increased lack of safety for workers working with the machine and increased cost of maintenance of the machine due to continuous breakdown thus reduced capacity of production. Conclusion Engineers are guided by professional code of ethics. This means that they cannot produce any type of machine no matter how high the profits they are getting and how adamant the client is, if they consider the design faulty or does not comply with set standards. From the report, the engineers holds a brainstorming session to ensure that the decision they make is correct and complies with standards set, and that the machine designed will work effectively and efficiently without causing harm either to the users and the environment. My study has not dwelt so much on why the Client (Safeguard) even after deliberations considers their design satisfactory. However, their opinions and ideas are sought during the brainstorming session, which they have been invited to participate. Question 2 Taking the life of another person is morally considered wrong and violation of not only the religious beliefs and teachings, but also it is politically and legally wrong. The killing of a fellow human being is violation of their fundamental right to live, and it is punishable based on the severity, circumstances and the intention behind it. However, there are circumstances when killing of a fellow human being is considered not right but necessarily. There instances when the medical fraternity with the approval of the patient, and the family of the patient agrees to what is popularly known as to ‘pull the plug.’ This is more so for terminally ill patients, patients in vegetative states, patients in long-term comas and those undergoing immense pain. Additionally, one can ask a friend to kill them to help escape hard times. When killing is approved by law is another instance. This happens when one is charged, prosecuted and found guilty of capital offence, which is punishable by death. Then the offender can be killed and considered necessarily. Individuals, who fund, incite and plan genocides or other forms of atrocities that cause harm to the masses is liable for death since no other form of punishment can measure to the vices and wrongs they have done. This is seen in hanging of political and civil leaders who initiates hatred and crimes against humanity, especially people they perceive as opponents. Another circumstance that one may kill a fellow human being is in self-defence. When an individual kills another because they were protecting themselves from harm since either a) they would have been killed b) they would have been violated, for example sexually and c) there was no other way to stop the other person from harming them. Additionally, police are allowed to kill those who are prone to cause harm and damage not only property, and themselves but to others. A circumstance that would necessitate one to kill a fellow human being is during abortion. This is whereby the life of the baby in the womb is cut short, in case the life of the mother is at high risk. The above fish borne diagram indicates possible circumstances that one would be ethically right to take the life of another. Conclusions From the report written, I have indicated that killing of a fellow human being is unlawful and contradicts majority of religious beliefs and teachings and it is legally prohibited. However, as mentioned there are circumstances that one can kill another and be considered ethically and morally right. This includes taking the life of another for medical reasons, if charged by law to hang or die as punishment, for self defence, procuring an abortion when the life of the mother is at risk, killing a person with the intention to destroy others and himself and killing people involved in inciting, planning and funding genocides and crimes against humanity. Further research studies should be done to ensure that people do not kill and use the above reasons as an excuse to kill, since life is sacred. Question 3 Justice is the element of fairness, objectivity and lacking biasness and favouritism and in this case when employing. When I have impressive credentials (a degree from a top university, a high grade point average, enough work experience and good recommendations from top engineers) and I still am denied a chance of employment, which is given to a less qualified person just because he happens to be a relative of the president of the firm seeking work from, it is an injustice. Why it is an injustice? An injustice I can say at this point has been done. It is an injustice to me because I have not been given a chance to exploit and use my qualified skills, knowledge and experience to the fullest. I am in a more capable position to add value to the firm, be innovative and resourceful more than the other person employed is. Moreover, the firm has not complied with international standards of employment, which states that employment opportunities should offered equally for job seekers. The firm does not offer an equal platform for job seekers to fill competitively the vacant positions. It is an injustice on my part since the firm categorically denies me a chance to work and earn myself a living. Thus, I cannot be able to satisfy effectively and efficiently my basic needs like paying for utilities like water, electricity, food, clothing and housing. It is an injustice for the firm. By employing a person with less qualification and less experience when there was a chance to employ one who does have impressive qualifications and experience, the firm losses and it is injustice for the firm. This is because, more resources and time is needed to train the unqualified employee, and if they work without training, work processes, which he is involved with, will be slow since he has to be careful since he does not have enough skills and knowledge to execute his duties. This will lead to slow performance, low capacity of production hence reduced profitability for the firm. Moreover, it is a financial risk for an engineering firm to employ unqualified employee since it will lead to accidents and malfunctioning of equipments. What is the Just Thing to do? The just thing to do is employ me, as the most qualified person with relevant work experience needed to execute the assigned duties. Additionally, to impress the President of the firm, they can take the brother in law and assign him a more junior role or as an intern. This is to allow him to learn, gain enough experience, skills and knowledge to accomplish even higher and more challenging tasks and roles, and when they promote him, it will be by merit and not nepotism. Opposing opinions, that justice has been done The firm however, can disagree with my opinion that injustice has been done. They can support their decision of making the brother in law of the firm’s president. They can say that since they know the reputation and track record of the firm’s president, they are willing to take a person connected to him and try and see what he has to offer, and further more, he is less a risk, since if anything goes wrong, they have someone to ask and to hold accountable. Another point they can put across is that a less qualified person is liable for a lesser amount of salary compared to a higher qualified one, which will cost the company less financially. The firm can defend their decision and insist that no injustice was done by indicating that a less qualified person has a room to grow experience and learn, since a more qualified person is likely to move from one company to another since they have credentials to show for it and are not trainable since they feel they know it all. Finally, the firm can state justice was done, since a more qualified person is more likely and easily able to secure a job elsewhere than a less qualified person is. The fish borne diagram above indicates how injustice is done Conclusions Based on the report, sometimes it is not easy to define where justice and injustice has been done. Since justice as in the case described above, is relative to whoever is concerned. Justice can be referred to as the lack of biasness and favouritism in decision making, which is influenced by equity, objectivity and fairness. Read More