Analysis of Engineering Ethics - Essay Example

Engineering Ethics Introduction Human civilization has always been mastering design in various technological fields in order to move towards better life opportunities. The achievements in this regard have been great so far, equally are the design failures as well. The “nature and reliability of engineering structures and technological systems of all kinds” come under scanner whenever there is an accident, especially caused by some problem with the design (Petroski, 3). Building collapses, space shuttle accidents, aircraft disasters, fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes go on challenging the engineering successes of humans one every dawning new day (Petroski, 3-4). This has given rise to discussions on good design and also on the fact that “even aflawless design is only as good as the materials used to execute it and the care taken to protect it” (Petroski, 13). On the other hand it is also true that even with certain level of flaws, “a sound design can prevail” (Petroski, 16). Petroski has drawn attention to engineering design failures that caused many lives to be lost (1). Pfatteicher has specifically explored the twin tower disaster to understand in a better light the engineering issues involved. Such post-failure exercises have drawn attention to the basic features of engineering and engineering ethics that demand immediate notice. Pfatteicher is of the view that it is a grave disaster that sometimes bring into light certain hitherto unnoticed engineering issues involved (3). Though always surrounded by an aura of “certitude”, how engineering really is an area equally haunted by “ambiguity,” is illustrated in Pfatteichers book (5). The potential risks of making a mistake in any act of engineering, the inefficiencies in the engineering achievements of humans so far, the act of balancing of safety with other aspects that become necessary in any practical application of engineering, the need for moderation, and a proper balance of “creativity and conservatism” are the features that define engineering profession as well as its ethics (Pfatteicher, 5-6). All the challenges discussed above involves “ethical dilemmas” that get manifest “at the heart of engineering” as a profession. Depicting the problems inflicted by technology on the peaceful life of humans, De Lillo has thrown light upon the vices of information overload and the excess use of science and technology in all wakes of life (XII). In an engineering context, this book can be read as reminder of the need for discretion in adopting technologies (XII). This is especially important before the criticism that engineers have of late been forgetting that “their primary objective is the promotion of human well being” (Bowen, 3). This lacuna in matters of evolving a credible engineering ethics is what this paper attempts to a address. By examining engineering ethics from the angle of comprehensive human well being, maximum tapping of the potential of technology with minimum risk of losses in human terms, is envisaged. Models, theories and approaches to engineering ethics The major ethical concern in the field of engineering is the unconscious prioritizing of “technical ingenuity over helping people” (Bowen, 6). It is from this angle, the “mechanics of what happened to the twin towers” has been a matter of investigation as it puts forth a number of sorrowful yet important questions from an engineers point of view (Pfatteicher, 12). It is also relevant to examine success models as well as Trachtenberg does when he leaves disasters behind and bring to the fore the humanistic engineering wonders like Brooklyn bridge, to explain how engineering evolves in a constant flux of necessity and creativity. There have been many theories and approaches to ethics in engineering. The traditional models of ethics have been mostly based on “consequentialism, contractualism and duty”, and an ethical framework based on virtue (Bowen, 8). Consequentialism is an ethical approach tht limits itself to calculating the “consequences and risks” involved but it has been criticized as yet another form of “utilitarianism” (Bowen, 8). Contractualism is an ethical approach that acknowledges that there is a social contract involved in any engineering work and that it is defined by “a regulative framework” (Bowen, 8). Bowen has criticized this approach for reinforcing the prevailing mediocrity and preventing growth towards higher “ethical aspirations” (8). There is also the duty-based ethical framework put forth by Kant that tells that every ethical action necessarily has to be in view of a higher universal paradigm and also considering “humanity (…) as an end, never merely as a means (qtd. in Bowen, 8-9). The virtue theory evolved by MacIntyre and stressing “human flourishing” as an end, has also been part of the traditional approach to engineering ethics (qtd. in Bowen, 9). There have also been new models and theories proposed. The aspirational model of ethics formulated by Bowen has developed as a model to replace the prevailing experience and use approach with a new “meeting nature and people” approach (Bowen, 11). It is a model that focuses on “relationship engendering care” (Bowen, 11). The expected outcomes of such an approach has been listed by Bowen as to include, engineering education reforms that pursue “quality of life” and “personal responsibility”, engineering institutions that give space to “compasion and generosity” and also aspirational ethics, an engineering industry and work ethics that is based on high aspiration, public and intellectual involvement in debates on engineering practices, incorporation of a “culture of peace within engineering” internationally, and shouldering of “personal ethical responsibility” by all engineers (13). Harris has developed a theory of virtue ethics in engineering further and observed that the basic foundations of such an ethical approach have to be “discretion and judgment (…) and inner motivation and committment” (153). He (Harris) has also asked engineering theoreticians to leave behind the ethics model that is based on negative roles of engineers and only on a concern to protect the people from misdeeds of engineers and the indiscriminate use of technology (153). Instead, Harris has called for a virtue model that incorporates the professional virtues of engineering like “(1) sensitivity to risk (2) awareness of the social context of technology (3) respect for nature, and (4) commitment to the public good” (153). Based on any or a combination of the theoretical models discussed above, many professional engineering bodies have formulated different codes of ethics in engineering. The code of ethics developed by American Society of Civil Engineers and presented in their website, asce.org, has focused on “human welfare”, honesty, impartiality, “fidelity” to “public, employers and clients”, and “integrity, honor and dignity.” The IEEE code of ethics as displayed in their website, ieee.org has given the fundamentals of their code as taking up responsibility for the welfare of the public, and to be honest and efficient in the profession. Works Cited American Society of Civil Engineers, Code of Ethics: Fundamental Principles, 1996-2012. web. 14 October 2012, http://www.asce.org/Leadership-and-Management/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/ Bowen,William Richard, Engineering Ethics: Outline of an Aspirational Approach, London: Springer-Verlag, 2009. Print. De Lillo, Don, Introduction. White Noise, London: Penguin Classic, 1986. Print. Harris Jr., Charles E. “The Good Engineer: Giving Virtue Its Due in Engineering Ethics”, Sci Eng Ethics, 14 (2008): 153-164. Print. IEEE, IEEE Code of Ethics, 2012. web. 13 October 2012. http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html Petroski, Henry, To Forgive Design, Harvard: Belknap Press, 2012. Print. Pfatteicher, Sarah K.A., Lessons Amid the Rubble, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2010. Print. Trachtenberg, Alan, Brooklyn Bridge, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Print. Read More