Ethical implications for engineering - student module  (Page 6/8)

Responsibility as a virtue (fingarette 1974)

• Herbert Fingarette, in Criminal Insanity , characterizes reponsibility as "responsiveness to essential relevance." (186) This implies, through perceptual, intellectual, and emotional sensitivities, the ability to recognize and respond appropriately to the (morally) relevant personal, moral, legal, and physical aspects of the situation. For example, engineers have the knowledge and skill to recognize threat to safety in situations that the rest of us might overlook. Thus, the civil engineer could spot weaknessness in a bridge that could lead to its collapse and would then be able to recommend fixes for this weakness based on engineering skill and knowledge.
• Part of this responding is the ability to attribute an action to an agent for the purpose of praising or blaming. We can praise or blame an individual for an action if that individual satisfy (1) an identity/causal condition in the sense that the agent caused the action and the agent's identity persists over time, (2) an agent has moral sense, that is, has general moral capabilitite that allow for the perception of moral relevance, and (3) that the agent owns the action in the sense that the action stems from situational knowledge and was not forced, manipulated, or compelled. This is a reactive sense of responsibility that focuses on the past.
• In responsibility as a virtue, we (1) diffuse blame avoidance strategies, (2) design role responsibilities that overlap, (3) extend the scope of depth of knowledge, (4) extend our powers and control in a situation, and (5) adopt a proactive, problem solving preventive approach.

Please see the Creative Commons License regarding permission to reuse this material.

An outline of engineering codes of ethics

The relation between engineering as a profession and society can be understood as a hypothetical social contract. The contract is hypothetical because no actual agreement has taken place; representatives from engineering and society never sat down and negotiated terms of a social contract. Yet the relation that has naturally evolved between engineering and society can be summarized as a social contract where each party gives something beneficial to the other. Contracts, in general, are mutually beneficial exchanges; to be legitimate these agreements must be entered into knowingly and voluntarily. These two requirements form the basis of much of engineering ethics, especially the different codes set forth by different engineering professional societies. Engineers provide products and services that benefit clients and society. But these also entail risks that, while they cannot be eliminated, can be minimized. Engineers are duty-bound to minimize these risks and inform the client and public about the nature of these risks. They are also required to participate in the social, collective decision as to the acceptability of these risks by communicating technical engineering matters in a clear and accessible manner. The first table below summarizes the exchange between society and the profession of engineering that forms the basis of this social contract.