The FAQ on Engineers and Ethics

Contents

  1. Definitions
  2. Florman on ethics
  3. Characteristics of ethical statements
  4. Examples of ethical questions

Definitions

Return to Contents

The National Society of Professional Engineers describes Engineering Ethics as

...the study of the moral issues and decisions confronting individuals and organizations involved in engineering and also the study of the moral conduct, character, ideals and relationship of peoples and organizations involved in technological development.

The application of engineering ethics provides a consensus on the morality of engineering decisions and defines guidelines for moral conduct by all engineering professionals. Such guidelines are partially based on ethical codes developed by engineering societies, most notably the National Society of Professional Engineers, so as to maintain the aura of professionalism throughout the engineering discipline. Codes of ethics also may encourage engineers to behave in a manner that benefits both the profession and society. Above all else, engineering professionals are in service to society, and so it is implicit in both the ethical codes and engineering ethics, that the public good should be placed above the personal interest of engineers.

Definitions of Terms
TERM DEFINITION
engineer (V)
  1. to lay out, construct, or manage as an engineer
  2. to contrive or plan out usually with more or less subtle skill and craft
  3. to guide the course of
  4. to modify or produce by genetic engineering <e.g., grain crops engineered to require fewer nutrients and produce higher yields>
engineering (N)
  1. the activities or function of an engineer
  2. the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people
  3. the design and manufacture of complex products <e.g., "software engineering">
  4. calculated manipulation or direction (as of behavior) <e.g., "social engineering">
esprit de corps (N) the common spirit existing in the members of a group and inspiring enthusiasm, devotion, and strong regard for the honor of the group
ethic (N)
  1. (plural but singular or plural in construction) the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
  2. a set of moral principles or values
  3. a theory or system of moral values <e.g., the present-day materialistic ethic>
  4. (plural but singular or plural in construction) the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <e.g., professional ethics>
  5. a guiding philosophy
moral (N)
  1. the moral significance or practical lesson (as of a story)
  2. a passage pointing out usually in conclusion the lesson to be drawn from a story
  3. (plural) moral practices or teachings
  4. modes of conduct
  5. ethics
morale (N)
  1. moral principles, teachings, or conduct
  2. the mental and emotional condition (as of enthusiasm, confidence, or loyalty) of an individual or group with regard to the function or tasks at hand
  3. a sense of common purpose with respect to a group
  4. esprit de corps
  5. the level of individual psychological well-being based on such factors as a sense of purpose and confidence in the future
situation ethics a system of ethics by which acts are judged within their contexts instead of by categorical principles

(Definitions as given by Merriam-Webster, http://www.m-w.com)

Florman on Ethics

Return to Contents

Samuel Florman's _The Civilized Engineer_ dedicates three chapters to the subject of engineering ethics. His most fundamental ideas on the subject appear to be as follows:

Why will there be no unified code of ethics? Because we can't agree on even first principles:

Nevertheless, there has been in recent years a surge of interest on the subject -- even to the point of college programs (and degrees) in engineering ethics being offered, starting pretty much in the 80's. Ethics tend to arise in the career of the individual engineer when a conflict is recognized between professional and corporate obligation. And that conflict tends to chiefly arise when a failure, or risk of failure, is involved. (Not that the conflict ever arises -- for some of us, it never does.)

When engineering societies (or the AAES, for instance) have tried to address the issue of a code of ethics, the following related subtopics come up:

And clauses pertaining to these, in proposed codes, have either been voted down or watered down. Which is why there's no code of ethics.

There has been a great increase in the number (and scope) of laws regulating various aspects of the profession in the USA since 1970. Most of these involve safeguarding public safety, but also addressed are confidentiality, industrial secrets and intellectual property.

You pretty much have to have these not just to govern the engineers, but to protect them as well. Otherwise, industrial competition dictates that corners may be cut to get the product out the door. (Consider Kidder, _The Soul of a New Machine_.) Now there's a whole science established around the definition of "acceptable risk." Laws can dictate what corners may be cut. (Although those who make the laws, considering they don't know engineering, can screw that up -- consider the teeth being extracted during the current US presidential and congressional administration of the Fastener Design law signed by George Bush early in the 90's.) In the case of liability, all good intentions come to naught. Quality ends up being defined as "adherence to requirements" -- and hopefully, we got the requirements right.

This goes to failures. Florman shows that more than half of all celebrated engineering failures can be attributed to some form of human unreliability (again, not necessarily a "failure of the engineers" to do the best they can) -- many of them could have been caught with even *one inspection*. Florman's point: the great ethical need of engineers is competence. "The greatest threats to moral engineering are carelessness, sloppiness, laziness and lack of concentration." The greatest likelihood of danger to the public from engineers comes not from evil intent, but from miscalculation.

Here are some conflicts faced by the individual engineer:

These conflicts can be broken down to *how the engineer feels* about the military, the environment, product safety, etc. -- which are (and according to Florman, need to be) political concerns, best decided by society as a whole. And how the engineer feels isn't any different than how anyone else feels, right?

Florman mentioned a "unified code of ethics" governing the behaviour of all engineers in all disciplines. As of that writing (1987), IEEE had its code as well. Florman pointed out some of the contributions of individual societies to the attempts by the AAES to write the unified code. But he also made it clear that, since only one-third of US engineers belong to professional societies, those societies don't accurately reflect the views of, or speak to the needs of, all engineers.

Related questions include

Characteristics of Ethical Statements

Return to Contents

Most people make ethical decisions based on one or more of several moral philosophies:

Moral Philosophies
PHILOSOPHY DEFINITION
Egoism Advocates that a person to put his/her self-interests above those of others. With egoism, a person should choose the solution the best promotes or least harms his/her self-interests.
Natural Law Advocates that a person's actions be in accord with human nature. Natural law favors four basic values: life, procreation, knowledge, and sociability. A person may not violate anyone else's needs unless his/her own needs have been violated. To be a moral decision, the act itself must be good. If there is a bad effect associated with the good deed, the bad effect must be absolutely unavoidable. The good effect can not be brought about by the bad effect, but the bad effect may only be a side effect. Also, the undesirable degree of the bad effect must be outweighed by the desirable degree of the good deed.
Utilitarianism Advocates a person to put overall human welfare as a priority above courses of action. In utilitarianism, one asks, "Will this action produce the greater overall human well-being?" Out of any two courses of action, a person is obligated to choose the action that produces the greatest amount of utility. If the actions are equal in their amount of utility, they are equally morally acceptable.
Ethics of Respect
for Persons		 Advocates a person to respect the equal dignity of all human beings. An action is right if one can apply that action to all people in all situations without undermining one's own ability to act in accordance with it, and without defeating the purpose of the original action. Action can not override the freedom or well being of one's self or others. A person loses the right to be treated in such a way if he/she does not treat others with that same respect. This theory follows the general principle of doing unto others as you would have done unto yourself (the "Golden Rule").

One can analyze moral dilemmas based on these moral philosophies. Sometimes one will come up with different solutions to their ethical dilemmas depending on which theory they use to analyze a situation. Here we have used these guidelines to solve an ethical dilemma.

An engineering decision on public safety vs. client confidentiality is ideal for examining the complexity of what constitute engineering ethics. The case is as follows: " Tenants in an apartment building sue the owners of the building in order to force them to repair a number of annoying, but not dangerous, problems. The owners' attorney hires a structural engineer, to inspect the building and testify on behalf of the owner. The engineer discovers serious structural problems in the building, which are an immediate threat to the tenants' safety. These problems, however, are not mentioned in the tenants' suit. In response, the engineer reports this information to the attorney, who tells him to keep this information confidential because it could affect the lawsuit" (the Web site at Case Western Reserve University that contained this information has been moved).

The question then arises, should the Engineer conceal his knowledge of the safety-related defects because he was legally bound to maintain confidentiality, or should the safety of the public be placed above all else. If this scenario is analyzed in accordance with natural law theory, which is based on the utility of actions, then the ethical thing for the engineer to do is to report on the hazard. However, if an egoist approach is taken then the engineer should do what he believes is in his best interest.

The ethics of natural law can be summarized as "the promotion of those values that are the object of our fundamental human inclinations or tendencies" (Harris). The values include the preservation of human life, natural tendencies to procreate, and to be sociable. If we assume that all engineers are obligated to protect the public health and safety, then the safety engineer is morally obligated to report the hazard. Furthermore, the basic assumption made by the code of ethics proposed by The National Society of Professional Engineers is that "engineers with their education, training and experiences possess a level of knowledge and understanding concerning technical matters which is superior to that of the lay public," and as such all engineers are duty bound to engage in a manner which is in the best interest of the public (http://www.npse.org).

The situation involving the safety engineer can also be analyzed from an egoist perspective, with varying conclusions. The basic tenet of egoism stipulates that one has a duty to oneself to develop "those character traits, such as rationality, self-discipline and industry, that enable [one] to pursue ones well-being more effectively" (Harris 85). Therefore, the safety engineer might decide that avoiding a lawsuit for breach of confidentiality is in his best interest, and thus would be justified in keeping the information private. The ethics of egoism justifies this approach in that, it would be morally wrong for the engineer to act contrary to his interests, even if doing so violates his supposed code of ethics.

Examples of Ethical Questions

Return to Contents

These are very generalized questions, because of the variety of engineering fields, and the many different problems faced by engineers.

Based on some ethical codes and moral philosophies, we have analyzed a few of these questions and tried to find the best solutions for them.

Should an engineer notify his/her superiors about an unethical colleague?

According to the Engineering Code of Ethics, an engineer's foremost responsibility lies in protecting the safety and welfare of the public. In cases where the unethical conduct of the colleague threatens the well being of the public, an engineer is morally justified in reporting unethical conduct. Despite personal sentiments regarding betrayal and breach of confidentially, the engineering profession demands that the public good be placed above all else.

What can an engineer do when cost is put above safety?

First and foremost, it must be decided what level of safety would be compromised and if the cost warrants that compromise. If decisions regarding the safety cannot be adequately inferred, and if the engineer believes that the added cost of the project is not coupled with an increase in public safety, then the cost should be a consideration, since an engineer must also do what is in the best interest of his client. Consequently, if the level of safety is determined, then an engineer is morally bound to put public safety above cost.

Should engineers be place themselves in a situations where they stand to gain personally?

On this subject the Engineering Code of Ethics unequivocally states that

Engineers [should] not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests...

...and as such should not place themselves in situations, or make recommendations from which they can personally benefit. Despite the egoist argument, which stipulates that one should do what is in their best interest, engineers, due to the added accountability to the public that comes via their profession, should refrain from placing personal gain above the public welfare.

How can an engineer resolve a conflict in ethical standards with a client?

In engineering, the public health and welfare must come ahead of client preferences. For instance, engineers are expected to design structures for natural disasters even if the client does not explicitly demand it. To make an analogy, public accountants' audits are expected to disclose what the public needs to know about their clients, whether or not the client is happy about it. One can assumed that the public expects that engineers will do what is necessary to protect them, than what is merrily required by the client, even if that may cause conflicts with their clients. However, when disagreements over ethical standards arise between engineers and their clients, it is the decision of the engineer to either quit or continue work on the project. Engineering professionals are not obligated, as in the medical profession, to find suitable replacements for their clients before they sign of on a project due to ethical disagreements.

Should engineers be paid with commission-based wages?

On this subject the National Society of Professional Engineers voice unequivocally that engineers should not benefit directly from job recommendations. Since this entitles a conflict of interest, it may be immoral for engineers to be paid commission based wages.

Do environmental concerns or humanitarian concerns rule above all?

The Engineering Code of Ethics is silent on the morality of engineers placing personal feelings over the obligations of their profession when those feelings do not place the public good in jeopardy. This question can also we rewritten to read: "Should engineers refuse to give advice on projects they don't advocate." The question can then be posed on the ethicacy of an engineer opposed to the use of nuclear fuel making suggestions on viable sites for building a nuclear power plant. In this case we believe that the decision should be left up to the individual engineers. However, in his book, The Civilized Engineer, Samuel Florman makes the argument that engineers should refrain from allowing personal feelings or philosophical ideals prevent them from adequately practicing their profession. In essence, he sees no conflict in an engineer, who is a pacifist, making recommendation on the construction of a munitions factory. He clearly that at dangerous state of affairs could exist if engineering allowed their philosophical beliefs to prevent them from performing their duty to society.

When engineers are facing a deadline, should they release an unfinished product?

This question also raises the issue of the ethics of engineers placing monetary considerations above the well being of the public. The Engineering Code of Ethics stipulates that

Engineers [should] advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful...

and as such if this "unfinished product" is likely to be unsuccessful in its intended application, and possibly pose a danger to the public welfare then it is immoral for engineers to release unfinished products, regardless of the monetary loss.


View Ron Graham's profile on LinkedIn

References and Resources

Many of the engineering societies have codes of ethics that you can examine for further information.

Codes of Ethics

Authors

Kathryn Shontz (Lead)
Ron Graham (Editor)
Jermaine Rawlins

Florman, The Civilized Engineer