Morality and Ethics of Engineering Profession - Assignment Example

Ethics Assignment Name: Institute: Table of Contents Ethics Assignment 1 Table of Contents 2 Morality and Ethics 3 Introduction 3 The Concept of Responsibility 4 Essentially, there are two forms of responsibility; notion responsibility and casual responsibility, whereby responsibility refers to when engineers have some obligations and duties because they occupy a fundamental professional position and/ function within their society. Thus, they are expected to respond, clarify and prioritise their responsibility adequately in respect to various causes of action. For instance, mechanical engineers are casually responsible based on the results or consequences caused by their actions or omissions when acting as ethical agents. In case of an act or omission of a mechanical engineer, culpability, which is concerned with responsibility, emerges (Okita et al., 2010). On the other hand, the aspects of accountability, this relates to moral responsibility as well as liability that relates to legal responsibility, and are also important considerations. Furthermore, on the international scale, various laws requires some kind of compensation or repairing to the harms caused although a properly bad action may not have resulted from moral point of view (Consoli, 2008). However, moral responsibility is a broader aspect in comparison to legal responsibility in respect to engineering because ethics inspire the development of law whereas on the other hand law puts emphasis on limits to social life responsibility in order to prosecute with the instruments of power for instance penalties. Moral Obligation in Engineering 4 Ethics and Engineering professionals 7 Ethical Responsibility of Engineers 8 Engineering Code of Ethics 9 Conclusion 11 References 12 Morality and Ethics Introduction Engineering professions execute diverse tasks such as structural design, software development, designing new computerized machines, construction of bridges, maintaining and repairing bridges, among others. Essentially, engineering professions are accounted to execute the above tasks in a conscientious manner since their decisions influence the performance and operation of erected structures or machines, which as a result, influence the users safety directly and of others stakeholders indirectly (Verbeek, 2006). For instance, the software that regulates the automatic automobile transmission should reduce fuel consumption and ensure the security of both the driver and passengers. I believe the responsibility of engineering professions resembles the responsibility of software profession such as computer scientist. In this regard, when the obligations of engineering and computing professions are taken together they form professional ethics. Fundamentally, ethical responsibility has been studies by diverse philosophers who together with religious leaders have articulated it for many years. I agree with Dias (2011) sentiments that the ethical responsibility of an engineering profession traverse beyond consent with regulatory laws since these laws frequently lag behind technology advances. For instance, prior to enactment of 1968 U.S electronic communication privacy act, government officials had the power to gather personal information conveyed over computer communication networks even without search warrants. However, even with lack of privacy laws before 1968, Consoli (2008) believes that engineering professions should have been conscious of their responsibility to safeguard the personal information privacy. Engineering professions entails mechanical engineers, structural engineers, software engineers, civil engineers, as well as medical engineers. In this regard, the report seeks to provide an insight with regards to ethics and morality amongst engineers in the workplace and also in society. The Concept of Responsibility Essentially, there are two forms of responsibility; notion responsibility and casual responsibility, whereby responsibility refers to when engineers have some obligations and duties because they occupy a fundamental professional position and/ function within their society. Thus, they are expected to respond, clarify and prioritise their responsibility adequately in respect to various causes of action. For instance, mechanical engineers are casually responsible based on the results or consequences caused by their actions or omissions when acting as ethical agents. In case of an act or omission of a mechanical engineer, culpability, which is concerned with responsibility, emerges (Okita et al., 2010). On the other hand, the aspects of accountability, this relates to moral responsibility as well as liability that relates to legal responsibility, and are also important considerations. Furthermore, on the international scale, various laws requires some kind of compensation or repairing to the harms caused although a properly bad action may not have resulted from moral point of view (Consoli, 2008). However, moral responsibility is a broader aspect in comparison to legal responsibility in respect to engineering because ethics inspire the development of law whereas on the other hand law puts emphasis on limits to social life responsibility in order to prosecute with the instruments of power for instance penalties. Moral Obligation in Engineering Essentially, in early 80s, atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) produced and sold Therac-25, which was a cancer radiation machine that relied on computer software to execute its functionality. Statistics indicate that amid 1985 and 1987, the machine caused the deaths of three patients and a similar number endured serious injuries. Based on this case, the big question that disturbed most people was who to blame, wherein some blamed the operator who gave the massive radiation overdoses that generated severe burns, other blame the engineers who designed and created the machine, which had numerous errors (Kinnaman, 2012). For others, they blamed the system engineers who ignored to install the backup hardware security mechanisms that had been utilized previously. In my point of view, obligation can be characterized to causes; for instance, a tornado is accountable for damaging houses and property; this, in Therac-25 case, the closest cause of the accidents was the machine operator, who commenced the radiation treatment. However, just as weather it cannot be denounced for a moral failure since Therac-25 operators cannot be accused because they pursued standard routine, and the data displayed on computer screen was cryptic and deceive. According to Van den Hoven et al. (2012), an individual who is obligated to a function or task is observed as someone accountable for that role. In this regard, a supervisor in a chemical plant maybe accountable for regulating disposal of toxic waste drums from the firm’s plant to the truck. Thus, based on the Therac-25 case, the system engineers as well as software developers are accountable of writing and designing the hardware and software of the machine. In such an extent as their shortcomings, they were accountable for these shortcomings because of their roles and obligations. I believe that that though the above engineering professions had finished their obligated tasks, their role obligation may have failed to encompass the full range of their professional responsibilities. Consoli (2008) is of the view that a person or a company can be accountable or liable, for the problem like Therac-25 the company was liable for damages this is according to the civil lawsuit. Based on legal responsibility, AECL could have been sued because the legal obligation is a strict liability, which holds the product manufacture liable if their product injures the end-user, regardless of whether the product met all vital safety standards. Arguably, strict liability principle inspires manufacturers to be more careful, and offers a way to compensate accidents victims. In Verbeek (2006) study, legal and casual responsibilities tend to be snobbish: if a person is accountable, then another automatically is not. Contrary, moral responsibility tends to be mutual in that software developers are accountable for the safety of the designed product, and not just an obligated safety engineer. I concur with Kinnaman (2012) opinion that a responsible individual should be careful, trustworthy, and considerate. Furthermore, responsibility is shared when several individuals join as a group such as mechanical engineering team, whereby the moral responsibility is atomized to the extent at which no one in the group is accountable. Instead, each group member is responsible to the other group members, those whom the group’s product may influence, individual personal action, and impact of their gathered effort. Ethics and Engineering professionals The drastic development within the field of engineering has brought about a scope of interest with reason being engineering-based applications has turn out to be a vital part of human life. In this regard, it is crucial for diverse control systems, health and financial systems, banking systems, education as well as diverse aspects associated to human life. It is worth noting that engineering is extremely fundamental; thus, it is vital to have qualified engineers both professionally and ethically mandated with development of machines or construction of structures. In the recent past, engineering ethics has gained a lot of attention and remains a crucial branch of ethics that is rapidly growing and changing proportionally to the growth and development of engineering technologies. I believe engineering ethics is the effort by professional philosophers to implement conventional virtue ethics or ethical theories to issues based on utilisation of engineering technology. In a broader aspect, it refers to utilisation of standards of professional practice, codes of conduct, principles of computer law corporate ethics, and public policy besides other topics in psychology and sociology of engineering. Okita et al. (2010) assert that engineering ethics posses various definitions that reflect both philosopher’s viewpoint and his culture. However, a common aspect among these viewpoints is that ethics revolve around a ‘set of right conduct values’, ‘system or moral principles theories’, or ‘inspiration relying on right and wrong’. Based on the field of engineering, there are several problems associated to ethical issues that include; professional responsibility, social responsibility, quality as a moral aspect, software ownership, computer crimes, intellectual property rights, privacy, responsibility and liability, confidentiality, impacts on workplace and society, safety, reliability and security, as well as professional competence. Ethical issues based on engineering are usually very costly and to some extent harmful; thus, the ethical responsibility of engineers as well as technicians are a major concern now days. Ethical Responsibility of Engineers I concur with Kinnaman (2012) assertion that engineers are ethical agents based on the fact they are free persons excising a certain degree of freedom. Therefore, ethics can be regarded as a set of limits that controls the level of freedom and it is the only way to lead one into becoming his/her own master. Without definite solid and specific ethical education, engineers may just be a mere technical depersonalized tool in the face other persons. It is for that reason National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) through a joint committee drafted and developed code of ethics for engineers. Engineering systems are highly complex in both the development process and manufacture of the product based on the increased demand of more heterogeneous, networked and distributed systems (Okita et al., 2010). Therefore, two impacts of engineering complexity in respect to ethical responsibility come into limelight; first, is that ethical responsibility is shared among a large group of individuals, from requirements engineer up to the architect, from designer to tester, and far and beyond the financial budget, in case they fail to meet the required deadline. Therefore, in case of human life in all aspects depends on properly working systems and being delivered on time; thus, there should be a precise distribution of ethical responsibility among various roles within the development process. Secondly, complexity of engineering systems renders the impacts of engineers to be much more uncertain and thus a consequentiality analysis of responsibility is much more difficult. Essentially, everyone would be much happier in case there is a perfect way to predict behaviour of software systems although they are not from mechanical world of perfect billiard-balls. Nevertheless, engineering fails to provide a setting in which formal proofs can be done to ascertain efficient functioning of engineering subsystems or systems. The unpredictability and imperfection of engineering systems relates to the nature of engineering profession and this is recognized both at the social and public level. However, there should be boundaries that limit the extent to which ethical responsibility of engineers. Besides, for an engineer to be held responsible for all the implications based on his acts would be too much for him, especially where such implications are difficult to predict (Consoli, 2008). In addition, the social consequences of using engineering systems are also difficult to predict. Engineers are not capable of precisely predicting them since they are not trained in social sciences. Briefly, an engineer requires a limited ethical, legal and, moral responsibility. Although there should be some level of responsibility for engineers to bear, it should be limited because of uncertainty that characterizes engineering systems, and is not in order to hold a human being responsible for all probable consequences of his/her actions. However, this should not be an excuse or ignorance of one’s acts or omissions and extreme consequences is unnecessary in engineering field. Engineering Code of Ethics According to Shimizu (2010) code of conducts is an explicit set of professional behaviours and values, which must be abide. Furthermore, Code of ethics is a statement of rules, regulations, principles, or laws formulated by engineering profession societies such as Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA), and the Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland (BPEQ). The main aim of formulating the code of ethics in the engineering industry is to promote the quality of the product produced and punish any parties that intend to undermine the industry efforts. In this regard, all engineering industries are expected to use the code of ethics as a base of reference during their day-to-day work (Davis, 2000). In addition, code of ethics provides guidelines on what to do and what to avoid while working. Code of ethics purpose is to define the mandate of the profession association and outline the association governing powers in respect to both members and non-members. In addition, code of ethics provides the principle of ethical conduct statements, which prepares the engineers to fulfil their duties competently. It is worth noting that codes of ethics not only are meant for the professions in the engineering industry but also to educators, software developers, students, policy makers and practitioners. Some of the global organization that governs engineering code of ethics is National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) and Engineers Australia. Most of the principles in these organizations code of conduct are similar. Summarizing the code of ethics, engineers must always put the public interest first and should produce high standards products that meet the set profession standards (Davis, 2000). The ethics principles governing engineering practice should be strictly adhered. This in turn, will lead to ethical processes such as, efficient communication between the professions, best design, effective or pleasant quality assurance testing, increased knowledge, and skills on the engineering practice. Moreover, code of ethics results to ethical practices and patience; this in turn increases the integrity of engineers. It is worth noting that ethical practices rewards. In addition, code of ethics enhances professions development of both the investor and employees, and increase competence. As a result, the quality of product produced is increased having less or no flaws. Shimizu (2010) indicated that code of ethics protects the ownership rights possessed by the engineers. In this respect, organizations offering ethical conducts can easily find a company that violate the licensing and copyright rules. Additionally, for each engineer his/her responsibility to clients, workers, and public are stated clearly in the code of professional. But, Kinnaman (2012) posits that any code of ethics is vitally incomplete since no document can manage to address every potential situation, and all code of ethics requires interpretation to be practical in definite circumstances. Nonetheless, code of conduct can serve diverse purposes such as inspiring professional members to endeavour for the profession’s desires. Davis (2000) believes that a code can educate novel members regarding their professional responsibilities and advice non-members what they can anticipate members to do. In addition, a code helps to set standards of conduct for computing professionals and offer a platform for eliminating members who violate those standards. Conclusion In conclusion, every progress in engineering is attached to at least one ethical uncertainty, such as provision of ethical duty as well as fulfilling end user’s anticipation to use applications responsibly. Notably, ethics in engineering concentrates on issues such as property and ownership rights. In the study we have defined ethics as a set of principles of right conduct; therefore, morality involves abiding to the standards of conduct of a given group. Besides, ethical dilemma is a complex situation that entails mental conflict, where two sides argue about what is wrong, and what is right. Developing new machine requires time and effort, but unfortunately, most engineers are given a small window and compressed budget to release a quality machine, this pressure hinders the goal of achieving a machine that is free from flaw at a low cost and in good time. Due to a small window of time and strained budget, engineers have been tempted to use illegal and unethical acts to achieve their goals. However, code of conducts provided by engineering profession societies has managed to address these ethical issues. Also we have seen that when an engineer acquires a set of ethical standards, he could manage to overcome difficult standards. Ethics in engineering enhances awareness and self-reflection. References Consoli, L. (2008). The intertwining of ethics and methodology in science and engineering: a virtue-ethical approach. ISR. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 33(3), 234-243. Davis, M. (2000). Report: Writing a code of ethics by e-mail: My adventures with some software engineers. Science Communication, 21(4), 392-405. Dias, P. (2011). Aesthetics and Ethics in Engineering: Insights from Polanyi. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(2), 233-243. Kinnaman, T. (2012). Human Engineering: An Ethical Obligation? Ethics, Policy & Environment: A Journal of Philosophy and Geography, 15(2), 237-240. Okita, Y., Hayase, K., Oba, K., & Fudano, J. (2010). A New Concept for a Business Ethics Program and the Development of a Monitoring Method for the Engineering Ethics Environment of a Corporation. IEEJ Transactions on Fundamentals and Materials, 130(6), 591-600. Shimizu, K. (2010). A Case Study of Engineering Ethics -A Questionnaire Survey for Ethics Value of Students, Practical Use of the Code of Ethics and Cases for Electrical Engineers. IEEJ Transactions on Fundamentals and Materials, 130(1), 110-116. Van den Hoven, J., Lokhorst, G.-J., & Ven de Poel, I. (2012). Engineering and the Problem of Moral Overload. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 143-155. Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Materializing Morality: Design Ethics and Technological Mediation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(3), 361-380. Read More

In this regard, the report seeks to provide an insight with regards to ethics and morality amongst engineers in the workplace and also in society. The Concept of Responsibility Essentially, there are two forms of responsibility; notion responsibility and casual responsibility, whereby responsibility refers to when engineers have some obligations and duties because they occupy a fundamental professional position and/ function within their society. Thus, they are expected to respond, clarify and prioritise their responsibility adequately in respect to various causes of action.

For instance, mechanical engineers are casually responsible based on the results or consequences caused by their actions or omissions when acting as ethical agents. In case of an act or omission of a mechanical engineer, culpability, which is concerned with responsibility, emerges (Okita et al., 2010). On the other hand, the aspects of accountability, this relates to moral responsibility as well as liability that relates to legal responsibility, and are also important considerations. Furthermore, on the international scale, various laws requires some kind of compensation or repairing to the harms caused although a properly bad action may not have resulted from moral point of view (Consoli, 2008).

However, moral responsibility is a broader aspect in comparison to legal responsibility in respect to engineering because ethics inspire the development of law whereas on the other hand law puts emphasis on limits to social life responsibility in order to prosecute with the instruments of power for instance penalties. Moral Obligation in Engineering Essentially, in early 80s, atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) produced and sold Therac-25, which was a cancer radiation machine that relied on computer software to execute its functionality.

Statistics indicate that amid 1985 and 1987, the machine caused the deaths of three patients and a similar number endured serious injuries. Based on this case, the big question that disturbed most people was who to blame, wherein some blamed the operator who gave the massive radiation overdoses that generated severe burns, other blame the engineers who designed and created the machine, which had numerous errors (Kinnaman, 2012). For others, they blamed the system engineers who ignored to install the backup hardware security mechanisms that had been utilized previously.

In my point of view, obligation can be characterized to causes; for instance, a tornado is accountable for damaging houses and property; this, in Therac-25 case, the closest cause of the accidents was the machine operator, who commenced the radiation treatment. However, just as weather it cannot be denounced for a moral failure since Therac-25 operators cannot be accused because they pursued standard routine, and the data displayed on computer screen was cryptic and deceive. According to Van den Hoven et al. (2012), an individual who is obligated to a function or task is observed as someone accountable for that role.

In this regard, a supervisor in a chemical plant maybe accountable for regulating disposal of toxic waste drums from the firm’s plant to the truck. Thus, based on the Therac-25 case, the system engineers as well as software developers are accountable of writing and designing the hardware and software of the machine. In such an extent as their shortcomings, they were accountable for these shortcomings because of their roles and obligations. I believe that that though the above engineering professions had finished their obligated tasks, their role obligation may have failed to encompass the full range of their professional responsibilities.

Consoli (2008) is of the view that a person or a company can be accountable or liable, for the problem like Therac-25 the company was liable for damages this is according to the civil lawsuit. Based on legal responsibility, AECL could have been sued because the legal obligation is a strict liability, which holds the product manufacture liable if their product injures the end-user, regardless of whether the product met all vital safety standards.

Read More