Skip to main content

Engineering Responsibilities to the Non-Human Environment

Contemporary technologically advanced civilization has made massive changes in the environment. Western society has tended to conceive of nature as passive, as the fit object of human manipulation and control. This view of nature as passive is amply reflected in our language about the nature world. Land is to be “developed.” “Raw” land is to be “improved.” Natural resources are to be “exploited” and “consumed.” Trees are to be “harvested.” The rivers are to be “harnessed” to produce electrical power. The wilderness must be “managed.” Nature, like the rest of the non-human world, is to be subservient to human purposes.

The environmental movement, so influential during the last twenty-five years, is a reaction against this attitude toward nature, but there is still a question as to whether the concern for non-human nature should be a part of professional engineering ethics rather than an engineer’s personal ethics. What are some of the arguments for and against including a concern for non-human nature in the professional codes of engineers?

Those who believe that professional engineering obligations to the environment should not be extended beyond a concern for factors that endanger human health could make the following arguments.

First, the judgments that would have to be made in this area fall outside the area of professional engineering expertise and as such might be considered a violation of professional responsibility. Suppose an engineer is asked to participate in the design of a condominium which will be built on a wetland area. The engineer objects because she believes that the wetland area is especially important for the ecology of the area. This judgment is not a professional engineering judgment, but rather one more appropriately made by a biologist.

The same problem exists in many other areas related to the environment. An engineer may object to a dam that will destroy a wild river of flood hundreds of acres of farmland. Or he may object to designing a sawmill that is to be built in the midst of an ancient forest. In all of these cases the judgments involve considerations outside the engineer’s professional expertise. An engineer may well object to these projects, but he or she should not object as an engineer. To do so is to invite public disrespect for the engineering profession.

Such objections might even be considered violations of engineering codes. The NSPE code contains the following statement:

Engineers may express publicly a professional opinion on technical subjects only when that opinion is founded upon adequate knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter.

Many objections to environmental matters are not based on professional engineering competence. Suppose the NSPE code also contained another provision such as this:

Engineers must not participate in projects that are unnecessarily destructive to the environment, even if they do not endanger human life or health.

The judgments necessary to comply with such a provision would often not be professional engineering judgments engineering judgments, so that implementing such a provision might well involve violating section 11, 3, b.

Second, an extension of professional responsibility for the environment into areas not clearly related to public health or safety might cause considerable problems for engineering societies. Along with other members of society, engineers disagree over environmental issues, especially where human health is not directly involved. Forcing members of professional societies to take policy stands on such issues will introduce a new source of divisiveness into professional societies.

Another aspect of this same objection is that such issues will be especially troublesome for engineering managers who are members of the societies. Management cannot be expected to be sympathetic to policies that will inevitably result in greater expense for industry. The effect of introducing these issues into the societies may serve to weaken industry support for the societies themselves.

There are, however, reasons for believing that engineers should assume a professional responsibility for the effects of engineering work on the non-human environment.

First, a good argument can be made that the very concept of responsibility shows that engineers have a responsibility for environmental problems, even when they do not directly affect human welfare. Philosopher Kenneth E. Goodpaster finds several senses of the tern “responsibility,” two of which are relevant here. In the causal sense of responsibility, we say of a person that he or she is responsible for something when an action or event is brought about at least in part by that individual. By this definition, engineers should share in the responsibility for environmental concerns, because technology has brought about many environmental problems, and it has the capacity to remedy many of them.

Another conception of responsibility is a rule-following sense, referring to socially expected behavior associated with certain roles. Thus parents have responsibility for children. In this sense also engineers have responsibility for the environment, for many members of the public expect engineers to assume this responsibility.

Second, the engineering profession could make a substantial contribution to the protection of the environment. Engineers are, after all, major participants in virtually all of the projects that affect the environment for good or ill. If even a substantial number of concerned engineers refused to contribute their professional skills to some of the most environmentally destructive projects, the result might well be the cancellation of he projects or at least a modification of them so they will produce less environmental devastation.

We shall leave it to the reader to decide whether engineers should have an obligation as professionals to protect non-human nature. There is, however, another approach to the question. There is a precedent in other professions for allowing professionals to refuse to lend their professional expertise to activities to which they have personal objections. The morality of abortion is an issue outside the professional expertise of physicians. It is a matter for moral philosophy or theology rater then medicine. Nevertheless, physicians are not usually required to perform abortions if they have moral objections to it. Similarly, perhaps engineers should not be required to participate in environmental projects to which they object. Many engineers already have serious reservations about some projects that damage the environment. Without support from the codes, they may find it difficult to register their objections to the projects or to refuse to participate in them. Perhaps a provision in the code could be worded like this:

Engineers should not be required to participate in projects which, in their personal judgment, are unnecessarily harmful to the environment. They also have the right to make their objections known to the proper authorities.

Comments

Popular Posts

Branches of Ethics

Ethics: - Ethics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to help us understand which ways of life are worth following and which actions are right or wrong. Ethics addresses questions of right and wrong using reason rather than faith or tradition. The discipline of ethics has three branches: normative ethics, meta-ethics and applied ethics. Normative Ethics: - Normative ethics is the branch of ethics that asks general questions about the morality of behavior; it attempts to provide general moral norms of behavior. Normative: - A normative statement, or question, or theory, concerns how things should be, how they ought to be, rather than how they actually are. [The opposite of “normative” is descriptive: A descriptive statement, or question, or theory, concerns how things actually are, not how they ought to be.] So normative ethics is the branch of ethics that tries to answer general questions about how we should behave, how we ought to act. In other w

The Function and Value of a Code of Ethics

A code of (professional) ethics generally appears when an occupation organizes itself into a profession. Usually, the code is put in writing and formally adopted. Even when formalization is put off, however, the code may still be a subject of frequent reference, whether explicitly, as in “Our code of ethics,” or implicitly, as in, “That would not be proper for one of us.” Why this connection between codes of ethics and organized professions? Several explanations have been offered over the years. But, for our purposes, the most helpful is that a code of ethics is primarily a convention between professionals. According to this explanation, a profession is a group of persons who want to cooperate in serving the same ideal better than they could if they did not cooperate. Engineers, for example, might be thought to serve the ideal of efficient design, construction, and maintenance of safe and useful objects. A code of ethics would then prescribe how professionals are to pursue the

The Role of the Engineer in Society

Introduction: Engineers help to shape and impact our society. In this process, they are guided by professional codes of conduct. Professional engineers should internalize these codes. Viewing the ethical codes as static statements made by other people limits an engineer’s investment in the codes. For in reality, codes of conduct are dynamic and the ability to understand and apply the codes should be an integral part of the engineering process. Engineering is a scientific discipline in that it requires the study of scientific principles and methodology. However, science in and of itself is generally done to develop knowledge and understanding of the physical universe. Thus the pursuit of science is not driven by societal needs. Scientific study is somewhat of a “curiosity-driven process” and societal values do not necessarily direct the scope or limit the bounds of scientific curiosity. We can envision the base of scientific knowledge as an amoebae-like structure that

Glossary of Ethical Terms

Applied Ethics is the branch of ethics that asks relatively concrete questions about the morality of specific actions and policies. The following branches focus on various issues of applied ethics: · Medical Ethics (euthanasia, abortion, human cloning, genetic engineering etc.) · Business Ethics (corporate responsibility; rights and obligations of employees etc.) · Legal Ethics (responsibilities of individuals working in the criminal justice system) Common Good Approach: The ethical action is the one that contributes most to the achievement of a quality common life together. In this approach, we focus on ensuring that the social policies, social systems, institutions and environments on which we depend are beneficial to all. Examples of goods common to all include affordable health care, effective public safety, and peace among nations, a just legal system and an unpolluted environment. The common good is a notion that originated more than 2