Kant and the Unlicensed Engineer - Essay Example

Kant and the Unlicensed Engineer The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the case of the unlicensed engineer using the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. I will provide a detailed description of Kant’s deontological ethics as well as his retributivist theory of punishment. I will then reiterate the important aspects of the case and apply Kant’s theories to the case, demonstrating that according to Kant, Charles Landers’ behavior is immoral and the punishment imposed by Judge Wolverton is adequate. Finally I will argue that despite some shortcoming, Kant’s theory is the best for use in professional life. Kant’s theory of morality is categorized as deontological, which means its based in the idea that you have the moral duty to always pursue or avoid certain actions. Deontological ethics are often described in opposition to consequentialist ethics, which evaluate the morality of an action entirely on its consequences. A consequentialist will maintain that regardless of the act committed, if it results in an overall benefit to everyone involved, that act is permissible, and if it results in a greater amount of harm than good, then it is not permissible. In contrast a deontologist evaluates the morality of an act strictly on the act itself. Even if following your moral duty results in dire consequences, you must still strictly adhere to it. Kant’s particular version of deontological ethics is based in what he calls the Categorical Imperative. This is a system used to determine which actions are your duty to carry out or avoid. The system works as follows: to decide whether an act is moral first formulate a rule that summarizes your reason for committing the act (Johnson, sec. 5). Then, conceptualize what would result if the rule were made a universal law, such that anyone in any circumstance must always follow it (Johnson, sec. 5). Third, see whether a world is even conceivable where every person must act upon that rule, and if it is conceivable, whether you would rationally will that it become an obligatory law (Johnson, sec. 5). If so, then that action is morally permissible (Johnson, sec. 5). Kant further delineates categories of duties based upon results gained from the Categorical Imperative. These categories are perfect duties, imperfect duties, and morally permissible acts. If you formulate a maxim, which fails the third step in the CI, then it is a perfect duty, meaning you have an absolute duty to refrain from the act in any circumstances, regardless of the consequences (Johnson, sec. 5). If your maxim passes the third step but fails the fourth, then you have an imperfect duty, where you should refrain from the action in most cases, most of the time (Johnson, sec. 5). Only if the maxim passes every step, is it considered morally permissible, meaning it is something that is always okay to do. Kant’s theory of punishment is known as a retributivist theory. A retributivist theory of punishment is seen in contrast to a consequentialist theory of punishment, which would define as crime, only those actions which result in harm to the overall good of society. The punishment recommended for the crime, would be such that more overall good than suffering results from the punishment. In other words, the punishment should result in the greatest possible amount of deterrence, in exchange for the least amount of suffering imposed on the criminal, and the greatest chance of rehabilitation allowing for the punished to reenter as a productive member of society. A retributivist theory punishes based on desert. That is, you should be given the punishment you deserve. The retributivist believes that the consequences of an action should have nothing to with its status as a crime, and it should not be the goal of punishment to deter crime. The goal of punishment is simply to teach the criminal a lesson, by inflicting the same suffering on the criminal that he caused through his crime. Kant’s specific formulation of retributivism is based on two principles: the principle of equality and the principle of retaliation. The principle of equality rests on the idea that when someone commits a crime, they either gain an unfair advantage or harm someone else. Either the advantage one gains or the harm one causes through committing a crime needs to be balanced out. As Kant puts it, “the pointer of the scale of justice is made to incline no more to the one side than the other” (Kant, 104). In other words the criminal should not experience less suffering from his punishment than the person he inflicts harm upon, or suffer less of a setback than the advantage he gains from a crime. The effect of the punishment should be equal to the effect of the crime. The principle of retaliation states that the crime the person commits “is to be regarded as perpetrated on himself” (Kant, 104). Since the principle of equality states that the punishment and the crime need to be equal, there is no better way to satisfy that principle, than to use the crime itself as the punishment. If someone steals one hundred dollars, fine them one hundred dollars. If someone kills someone impose the death penalty. Using the crime as punishment achieves the exact effect necessary to following the principle of equality. Now that we have outlined Kant’s views in full, let us turn to the case of the unlicensed engineer and test their practical application. The case can be summarized as follows: Charles Landers, an unlicensed engineer, forged his licensed partner’s signature, and used his professional seal on 40 documents. The forged signatures were supposed to certify to the city’s health department that the septic systems met environmental and health regulations. Although none of the documents ended up having to be changed, Judge Wolverton removed Landers’ privileged to practice engineering for one year. He also sentenced him to 20 days in jail, 160 hours of community service, $4000 in fines, and a year of probation. He was also ordered to inform property owners about the forged documents, explain how he would solve the problem, and pay for a professional engineer to review, sign, and seal the documents. Lets apply Kant’s Categorical Imperative to this case. Consider a maxim dictating that I should commit forgery to satisfy my customer’s immediate demands so I can make money off of them. If I will conceive of a world where that maxim is made universal, I conceive of a world where everyone always deceives people to get what they want in any circumstance. In this world, it is never possible to believe what someone says or trust them, because anything someone says is a lie. In order to complete my maxim, which involves tricking people into believing I signed a document to get what I want, I must get people to believe it was me who signed the document. But in this world, it is never possible to believe someone. Thus, such a world is inconceivable, so you have a perfect duty to never commit forgery for personal gain. Interestingly, Judge Wolverton uses a similar analysis to declare Landers’ action as wrong. He remarks, “Our system would break down completely if the word of individuals could not be relied upon." In other words, a world where everyone is deceitful is impossible, because our entire system of communication would breakdown, so what Landers did was wrong regardless of whether his documents were later verified as unproblematic with regards to public health code. Landers’ lawyer takes the consequentialist approach arguing that although what Landers did was against the law, he did not do anything wrong in the moral sense of the word. After review by an engineer, it was found there was nothing wrong with the documents Landers forged, and so there was no risk to public health and safety. Since there were no negative consequences of the crime, he should be given the minimum punishment. The punishments discussed and issued at the trial fit in with both retributivist and consequentialist theories. Attorney General Dan Cooper recommended the maximum sentence, arguing, "The 40 repeated incidents make his offense the most serious within the misuse of an engineer’s seal." This recommendation has its basis in a retributivist theory of punishment, because he is recommending a punishment based on what he deserves according to the severity of the crime. Richard Armstrong, a chairman of the board that licenses engineers follows a consequentialist theory of punishment by pointing out the benefit punishing Landers has on deterring future offenders. He states, “The discovery of this case will cast a shadow of doubt on other engineering designed by properly licensed individuals”. Since this is a unique case in that a licensed engineer designed the engineering but an assistant forged documents, it sets a precedent for questioning engineering designed by licensed individuals, because someone else could always have forged the documents. Thus this case serves as deterrence to future crimes of the same nature. The actual punishment issued by the judge can be thought of as following a retributivist theory of punishment. Taking away his privilege to work as an engineer, and forcing him to go around admitting he committed forgery to the people he lied to, and making him hire an engineer to reevaluate the documents, provides a balancing effect, by evening out the damages caused by the crime. The second category of Kant’s theory, which involves punishing with the exact crime the person committed is tough to determine whether or not it is satisfied. You obviously cannot punish a forger by lying to them, so the prison sentence, community service, and fine seem like adequate retribution. I believe that Kant’s theory is the most effective that we have discussed for professional use. It is easy to apply quickly to any situation and you always arrive at a definite answer. This is opposed to utilitarnianism or consequentialism, which although is a good theory, requires weighing the pros and cons of all possible consequences. This can be a difficult and drawn out process, and is impossible to do perfectly, because you can never foresee all of the consequences. It is also superior to ethical egoism, which says you should always do what is best for yourself. As seen in the Landers case, doing what you think to have the best results for yourself does not always result in an ethical decision. Ethical egoism also is in specific violation of NSPE code. The code says to hold paramount the safety and welfare of the public, but egoism specifically says to hold paramount your own welfare. Moral relativism could hardly be thought of as a practical theory to apply to professional ethics. Ascribing to it basically eliminates morality, making your opinion of it correct. If you believe something opposite to the principals of the NSPE code, then both you and the code are correct and you are free to act, as you would like. However, it could be useful as a way of thinking about morality, helping you to tolerate opposing viewpoints. Divine command theory is also inadequate, because it is impossible to determine what God declares the rules to be. Nihilism could never be useful as a practical way of thinking about morality, because it states that morality does not even exist. Aristotle’s theory of virtue ethics is useful when considering how to live a good life. It helps you to develop character, strength and skills over a long period of time, to better yourself as a person. One who has always stayed true to Aristotle will have no problem following the NSPE rule that engineers should conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession. However, Aristotle’s theory is not useful for practical purposes, because it involves developing character traits over time, rather than making quick moral decisions. One problem with Kant’s theory though, is that ignoring the consequences of an action just to uphold your moral duty can sometimes be problematic. It especially can interfere with the first principle of NSPE code, dictating you should hold most important the safety and welfare of the public. There are certain actions that regardless of their dire effects on the welfare of the public Kant would say you couldn’t avoid. For instance, suppose you are dealing with a dangerous situation, that has to be kept secret from the public, or else mass panic and riots would ensue. Kant would maintain you cannot deceive people, and must tell them anyways. Despite its shortcomings, Kant’s theory remains the most useful for dealing with professional ethics. It offers a quick method of determining the morality of an action, and almost always results in a satisfactory answer. Works Cited Johnson, Robert, "Kants Moral Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Duff, Antony, "Legal Punishment", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Kant, Immanuel. “Justice and Punishment.” Trans. W. Hastie. In Philosophical Perspectives on Punishment. Ed. Gertrude Ezorsky. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1972. 102-106. Read More