Professional Ethics

Preliminary Conceptual and Philosophical Issues

2009-12-07T21:15:00.000-08:00

Profession:-

Taking these to be paradigm instances of profession:

Medicine
Dentistry
Veterinary Medicine
Law
Architecture
Accounting

Five features distinguish what we now call profession from other types of occupations.

“Entrance into a professing typically requires an extensive period of training and this training is of an intellectual character.”
“Professionals’ knowledge and skills are vital to the well-being of the larger society.”
“Professionals usually have a monopoly or near monopoly on the provision of professional services.”
“Professionals often have an unusual degree of autonomy in the work place.”
“Professionals claim to be regulated by ethical standards, usually embodied in a code of ethics.”

The importance of ethics to profession: -

The early meaning of the term profession and its cognates referred to a free act of commitment to a way of life. The earliest meaning of the adjective professed referred to the activity of a person who had taken the monastic vows of a religious order. We might think of a person who had made a public promise to enter a distinct way of life with allegiance to high moral ideas. One ‘professed’ to be a certain type of person and to occupy a special social role, which carried with it stringent moral requirements. By the late seventeenth century, the word had become secularized to refer to anyone who professed to be duly qualified.

So, with regard to engineering, professionalism and ethics:

To think of yourself as a professional is to believe in the importance of your work to society at large, and to be committed to various standards which transcend your relationship with a particular employer or client, to high standards of quality in your work but also to high ethical standards.

And:

Given the importance of engineering in all modern societies, it is reasonable to expect engineers to think of themselves as professionals, and the various professional societies increasingly stress the importance of engineering ethics.

Personal ethics, Common morality and Professional ethics:

Common Morality: “The set of moral standards shared by most members of a culture or society.”
Personal Ethics: “The set of one’s own ethical commitments.”
Professional Ethics: “The set of standards adopted by professionals insofar as they see themselves acting as professionals.”

Obviously these three kinds of standards sometimes conflict. Luckily, very few engineers will have to make truly momentous ethical decisions in the course of their careers, but, as this course will emphasize, more quotidian ethical decisions are called for in all engineer’s careers.

Ethics, Philosophy and Inquiry

2009-12-07T21:12:00.000-08:00

Normative ethics, Meta-ethics and applied ethics (medical, business, engineering, legal ethics etc) are all branches of the discipline called ethics, which is in turn a branch of the discipline call philosophy.

“Philosophy” derives from the Greek words for love (philo) and wisdom (sophia). For the ancient Greeks, “philosophy” was love of wisdom. But while this might give us the beginning of an idea of what philosophers do today, we need to get more specific to really understand what modern philosophy is.

[Caveat: not all modern philosophers would agree with the following explanation of philosophy. Interestingly, the nature of philosophy is itself a controversial issue among philosophers.]

Philosophy is an area of inquiry.

Inquiry is an attempt to discover truths about the world.

In this way, philosophy is like the sciences, historical research, investigative journalism and detective work. But philosophy is different than these other areas of inquiry in that most of the truths it attempts to discover are more fundamental (i.e., more general and pervasive) than those pursued by other areas of inquiry. Philosophical questions involve concepts like God, knowledge, truth, the mind and consciousness, free will, right and wrong. So philosophy is inquiry into some of the most important issues that face all human beings.

Philosophy is the area of inquiry that attempts to discover truths involving fundamental concepts, such as the concepts of God, knowledge, truth, reality, the mind and consciousness, free will, right and wrong.

[Important: not all philosophers would agree with this definition of philosophy!]

Some of the central questions of philosophy are:

Is there a God? If so, what is God like? Is the existence of evil compatible with the existence of an all-caring, all-knowing, all-powerful God? Is belief in the existence of a personal God compatible with belief in evolution? Is the omniscience (all-knowingness) of God compatible with people’s free will? Do people have free will to begin with?
What is a person and what is it about an individual that makes him or her same person over time? Is an embryo a person? If not, at what point in a human’s development does he or she become a person?
What is the mind and what is the relationship between the mind and the brain?
What is knowledge and do we know anything to begin with? Are there things about the world that humans are inherently incapable of knowing?
What is it for an action or behavior to be morally good or bad? What is the morally best way for people to live? Does morality depend on God? Does it depend on society? Is abortion morally permissible? Human cloning? Homosexuality? Are there objective moral facts or is morality simply a matter of opinion?

Those last examples are within the field of ethics:

Ethics is the area of philosophy that attempts to answer questions involving concepts such as right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral etc.

So ethics (like other areas of philosophy) is not a mere attempt to articulate what you believe or feel about a given issue. Because it is an area of philosophy, it is an area of inquiry, which means that it is a search for truth.

Nature and Scope of Ethics

2009-12-07T21:10:00.000-08:00

What is Ethics?

A few years ago, sociologist Raymond Baumhart asked business people, “What does an ethic mean to you?” Among their replies were the following:

“Ethics has to do with what my feelings tell me is right or wrong.”

“Ethics has to do with my religious belief.”

“Being ethical is doing what the law requires.”

“Ethics consists of the standards of behavior our society accepts.”

“I don’t know what the world means.”

These replies might be typical of our own. The meaning of “ethics” is hard to pin down and the views many people have about ethics are shaky.

Ethics and Feelings:

Like Baumhart’s first respondent, many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of following one’s feelings. A person following his or her feelings may recoil from doing what is right. In fact, feelings frequently deviate from what is ethical.

Ethics and Religion: -

Nor should one identify ethics with religion. Most religions, of course, advocate high ethical standards. Yet if ethics were confined to religion, then ethics would apply only to religious people. But ethics applies as much to the behavior of the atheist as to that of the saint. Religion can set high ethical standards and can provide intense motivations for ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it the same as religion.

Ethics and Law: -

Being ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. Our own pre-Civil War slavery laws and the apartheid laws of present-day South Africa are grotesquely obvious examples of laws that deviate from what is ethical.

Ethics and Social Standards: -

Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing “whatever society accepts.” In any society, most people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in society can deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is a good example of a morally corrupt society.

Moreover, if being ethical were doing “whatever society accepts,” then to find out what is ethical, one would have to find out what society accepts. To decide what I should think about abortion, for example, I would have to take a survey of American society and then conform my beliefs to whatever society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide an ethical issue by doing a survey. Further, the lack of society consensus on many issues makes it impossible to equate ethics with whatever society accepts. Some people accept abortion but many others do not. If being ethical were doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find an agreement on issues which does not in fact, exist.

Ethics is Two Things:

What, then, is ethics? Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well based standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well founded reasons.

Secondly, Ethics refers to the study and development of one’s ethical standards. As mentioned above, feelings, laws and social norms can deviate from what is ethical. So it is necessary to constantly examine one’s standards to ensure that they are reasonable and well-founded. Ethics also means, then, the continuous effort of studying our own moral beliefs and our moral conduct and striving to ensure that we, and the institutions we help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and solidly-based.

Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer

Thinking Ethically A Framework for Moral Decision Making

2009-12-07T21:07:00.000-08:00

Introduction:

Dealing with the moral issues is often perplexing. How, exactly, should we think through an ethical issue? What questions should we ask? What factors should we consider?

The first step in analyzing moral issues is obvious but not always easy: Get the facts. Some moral issues create controversies simply because we do not bother to cheek the facts. This first step, although obvious, is also among the most important and the most frequently overlooked.

But having the facts is not enough. Facts by themselves only tell us what is; they do not tell us what ought to be. In addition to getting the facts, resolving an ethical issue also requires an appeal to values. Philosophers have developed five different approaches to values to deal with moral issues.

The Utilitarian Approach:

Utilitarianism was conceived in the 19^th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help legislators determine which laws were morally best. Both Bentham and Mill suggested that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance of good over evil.

To analyze an issue using the utilitarian approach, we first identify the various courses of action available to us. Second, we ask who will be affected by each action and what benefits or harms will be derived from each. And third, we choose the action that will produce the greatest benefits and the least harm. The ethical action is the one that provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

The Right Approach:

The second important approach to ethics has its roots in the philosophy of the 18^th century thinker Immanuel Kant and others like him, who focused on the individual’s right to choose for herself or himself. According to these philosophers, what makes human beings different from mere things is that people have dignity based on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their lives, and they have a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose.

Of course, many different, but related, rights exist besides this basic one. These other rights (an incomplete list below) can be thought of as different aspects of the basic right to be treated as we choose.

The right to the truth: We have a right to be told the truth and to be informed about matters that significantly affect our choices.
The right of privacy: We have the right to do, believe, and say whatever we choose in our personal lives so long as we do not violate the rights of others.
The right not to be injured: We have the right not to be harmed or injured unless we freely and knowingly do something to deserve punishment or we freely and knowingly choose to risk such injuries.
The right to what is agreed: We have a right to what has been promised by those with whom we have freely entered into a contract or agreement.

In deciding whether an action is moral or immoral using this second approach, then, we must ask, Dose the action respect the moral rights of everyone? Actions are wrong to the extent that they violate the rights of individuals; the more serious the violation, the more wrongful the action.

The Fairness or Justice Approach:

The fairness or justice approach to ethics has its roots in the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who said that “equals should be treated equally and unequal unequally.” The basic moral question in this approach is: How fair is an action? Does it treat everyone in the same way, or does it show favoritism and discrimination?

Favoritism gives benefits to some people without a justifiable reason for singling them out; discrimination imposes burdens on people who are no different from those on whom burdens are not imposed. Both favoritism and discrimination are unjust and wrong.

The Common-Good Approach:

This approach to ethics assumes a society comprising individuals whose own good is inextricably linked to the good of the community. Community members are bound by the pursuit of common values and goals

The common good is a notion that originated more then 2,000 years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. More recently, contemporary ethicist John Rawls defined the common good as “certain general conditions that are…..equally to everyone’s advantage.”

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, peace among nations, a just legal system, and an unpolluted environment.

Appeals to the common good urge us to view ourselves as members of the same community, reflecting on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society. While respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals we share in common.

The Virtue Approach: -

The virtue approach to ethics assumes that there are certain ideals toward which we should strive, which provide for the full development of our humanity. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful refection on what kind of people we have the potential to become.

Virtues are attitudes or character traits that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop our highest potential. They enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control and prudence are all examples of virtues.

Virtues are like habits; that are, once acquired; they become characteristic of a person. Moreover, a person who has developed virtues will be naturally disposed to act in ways consistent with moral principles. The virtuous person is the ethical person.

In dealing with an ethical problem using the virtue approach, we might ask, what kind of person should I be? What will promote the development of character within myself and any community?

Ethical Problem Solving:

These five approaches suggest that once we have ascertained the facts, we should ask ourselves five questions when trying to resolve a moral issue:

What benefits and what harms will each course of action produce, and which alternative will lead to the best overall consequences?
What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which course of action best respects those rights?
Which course of action treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally justifiable reason not to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination?
Which course of action advances the common good?
Which course of action develops moral virtues?

This method, of course, does not provide an automatic solution to moral problems. It is not meant to. The method is merely meant to help identify most of the important ethical considerations. In the end, we must deliberate on moral issues for ourselves, keeping a careful eye on both the facts and on the ethical considerations involved.

Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer

Consistency and Ethics

2009-12-07T21:04:00.000-08:00

Consistency—the absence of contradictions—has sometimes been called the hallmark of ethics. Ethics is supposed to provide us with a guide for moral living, and to do so it must be rational, and to be rational it must be free of contradictions. If a person said, “Open the window but don’t open the window,” we would be at loss as to what to do; the command is contradictory and thus irrational. In the same way, if our ethical principles and practices lack consistency, we, as rational people, will find ourselves at a loss as to what we ought to do and divided about how we ought to live.

Ethics requires consistency in the sense that our moral standards, actions, and values should not be contradictory. Examining our lives to uncover inconsistencies and then modifying our moral standards and behaviors so that they are consistent is an important part of moral development.

Where are we likely to uncover inconsistency? First, our moral standards may be inconsistent with ach other. We discover these inconsistencies by looking at situations in which our standards would require incompatible behaviors. Suppose, for example, that I believe that it is wrong to disobey my employer, and also believe that it is wrong to harm innocent people. Then suppose that one day my employer insists that I work on a project that might cause harm to innocent people. The situation reveals an inconsistency between my moral standards. I can either obey my employer or I can avoid harming innocent people, but I cannot do both. To be consistent, I must modify one or both of these standards by examining the reasons I have for accepting them and weighing these reasons to see which standard is more important and worth retaining and which is less important and in need of modification.

A more important kind of inconsistency is that which can emerge when we apply our moral standards to different situations. To be consistent, we must apply the same moral standards to one situation that we apply to another unless we can show that the two situations differ in relevant ways. I might believe, for example, that I have a right to buy a home in any neighborhood I wish, because I hold that people should be free to live wherever they choose. Yet, I am among the first to oppose the sale of the house next door to a group of mentally retarded persons. But what is the difference between the two situations that justifies this difference in treatment? What is the difference that makes it all right for me to buy a home in any neighborhood, but not them?

There is another sense in which the need for consistency enters into ethics. We might hold consistent moral standards and apply them in consistent ways, but we may fail to be consistent in who we are as individuals. We often use the word “integrity” to refer to people who act in ways that are consistent with their beliefs. Here consistency means that a person’s actions are in harmony with his or her inner values. Polonius, a character in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, points out—perhaps with some exaggeration—how critical such integrity is to the moral life when he says to his son, Laertes:

This above all: to thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the right the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Consistency in our lives also implies an inner integrity. It may be the case that a person’s inner desires are allowed to conflict with each other. For example, a desire to be courageous or honest may be contradicted by a desire to avoid the inconvenience or pain that courage or honesty often requires. Allowing such a conflict is self-defeating because these desire to produce a kind of internal harmony.

So central is consistency to ethics that some moralists have held that it is the whole of ethics. They have argued that if people consistently treat all human beings the same, they will always act ethically. Ethical behavior, they argue, is simply a matter of being consistent by extending to all persons the same respect and consideration that we claim for ourselves. The Bible itself seems to imply that ethics consists of nothing more than consistency with the words: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you: this is the whole Law and the prophets.” (Matt. 7:12) This biblical verse sometimes has been interpreted as meaning that all of morality can be summed up in the requirement to avoid contradictions between what one thinks is appropriate for others and what one thinks is appropriate for oneself.

But is consistency all there is to ethics? We may be perfectly consistent with respect to our moral principles and values, yet our principles may be incorrect and our values misplaced. We may even be consistent in treating others as we treat ourselves, but this kind of consistency would hardly be the mark of a moral life if we happen to treat ourselves poorly.

We might say that while consistency is surely not sufficient for ethics, it is at least necessary for ethics, ethics requires that there be consistency among our moral standards and in how we apply these standards. Ethics also requires a consistency between our ethical standards and our actions, as well as among our inner desires. Finally, ethics requires that there be consistency between how we treat ourselves and how we treat others.

Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer

Characteristics of an Ethical Sentence

2009-12-07T21:00:00.000-08:00

The Descriptive VS the Normative

Normative: A normative statement, or question, or theory, concerns how things should be, how they ought to be, rather than how they actually are (a.k.a. evaluative prescriptive)

The opposite of “normative” is:

Descriptive: A descriptive statement, or question, or theory, concerns how things actually are, not how they ought to be (a.k.a.factual)

Ethical Sentence or Normative Statement:

We need to define an ethical sentence, also called a normative statement. An ethical sentence is one that is used to make either a positive or a negative (moral) evaluation of something. Ethical sentences use words such as ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’, ‘moral’, ‘immoral’, and so on. Here are some examples:

‘Rashad is a good person.’
‘People should not steal.’
‘The Simpson verdict was unjust.’
‘Honesty is a virtue.’
‘One ought not to break the law.’

In contrast, a non-ethical sentence would be a sentence that does not serve to (morally) evaluate something. Examples would include:

· ‘Rashad is a tall person.’

· ‘Someone took the stereo out of my car.’

· ‘Simpson was acquitted at his trial.’

· ‘Many people are dishonest.’

· ‘I dislike it when people break the law.’

M1: A sentence expresses a moral judgment if and only if it contains a value term.

Ethics (morality) is normative (and not just descriptive). That is

· Moral judgments express norms.

· They do not just describe reality.

· They tell us what is right and wrong.

· What we ought to do

· What is permissible

· What is forbidden

· And so on….

To evaluate this principle, let us assume that such terms as right, wrong, obligatory, required, ought to, good, bad, wicked, virtuous, and so on are all value terms.(Notice, some of them are used to evaluate or prescribe actions; others to evaluate situations and outcomes; others to evaluate humans and their character. The evaluation of actions, situation, and humans are three main areas of ethical inquiry.)

M1 allows us to distinguish moral judgments from purely descriptive claims:

Moral judgments vs. “pure description”

Moral Judgments Express norms and Evaluations	“Pure” Descriptions
Abortion is always wrong.	Abortions are frequent.
Everyone ought to love his neighbors.	Everybody loves somebody sometime.
Under certain circumstances, suicide is right.	Kevorkian assists people in their suicides.

Unfortunately, M1 does not allow us to distinguish moral evaluations (and judgments used to express them), from other norms.

Moral Judgment vs. other Norms:

Moral Norms	Other Norms
Abortion is always wrong.	I put in the timing gears all wrong.
Everyone ought to love his neighbors.	You ought to use more fertilizer.
Under certain circumstances, suicide is all right (morally permissible).	Under certain circumstances, suicide is legal (legally permissible).
Torturing babies is bad.	The acting was good but the lighting was bad.

M2: A sentence expresses a moral judgment if and only if it is about some moral issue.

M2 allows us to distinguish some moral norms from many norms that are not moral norms. E.g.: the following judgments do not express moral norms:

1. When rebuilding my engine, I put in the timing gears all wrong.

2. If you want larger yields, you ought to use more fertilizer.

3. He turned right at the corner.

4. The acting was good, but the lighting was bad.

Unfortunately, many judgments that are about moral issues are not in fact moral judgments. Here are some examples:

1. Abortion is illegal in some places.

2. Suicide occurs more frequently during economic depressions.

3. People sometimes request euthanasia for themselves.

4. Vigorous sexual activity can be good exercise.

M3: A sentence expresses a (valid) moral standard if

1. This standard concern behavior of serious consequence to human welfare;

2. It is especially important (overriding);

3. It is supported by good reasons.

The Moral Principles, Judgments and Arguments

2009-12-07T20:57:00.000-08:00

General Moral Principles

General moral principle make some general statement about what is morally right or wrong or good or bad or what we should or ought or should not or ought not to. Examples:

You should not take what does not belong to you without permission of the owner.
If you make a promise, you ought to keep it.

Particular Moral Judgments

Not all moral judgments are general principles. Some are about specifics. Examples:

John was wrong to tell you that.
Hitler was an evil person.

Other (non-moral) Normative Judgment and Principles

Some judgments are normative, and say what ought or ought not to be done, but are not moral. Examples of these include prudential, legal and aesthetic judgments. They may be general or specific. Examples:

You should quit smoking.
That’s the wrong hat for that outfit.

The Role of General Moral Principles in Moral Argument

General moral principles can serve as the major premise of a moral argument. For example,

1. Killing is wrong.

2. Capital punishment is killing.

3. Therefore, capital punishment is wrong.

The first claim here, ‘Killing is wrong’, is general moral principle. It takes a general normative position on a moral matter. It says of a general class of things that it is morally wrong or right.

To excel at moral reasoning it is important to be able to distinguish general moral principles from other claims.

THE STRUCTURE OF MORAL REASONING

Premise 1: General Moral Principle (GMP)

Premise 2: Factual Claim (FC)

Conclusion: Derivative Moral Judgment (DMJ)

Examples:

Premise 1: Killing people is wrong. (GMP)

Premise 2: Capital punishment is killing of criminals. (FC)

Premise 3: Criminals are people. (FC)

Conclusion: Capital punishment is wrong. (DMJ)

Premise 1: Harming people is wrong. (GMP)

Premise 2: Killing people is harming them. (FC)

Conclusion: Killing people is wrong. (DMJ)

Some Examples of Ethical Arguments:

An Argument about Cultural Relativism

1. “Right” means “approved in a certain society”.

2. The extermination of Jews was socially approved in the Nazi Germany.

3. Thus, the extermination of Jews was right. [From (1) and (2)]

An Argument about utilitarianism

1. If utilitarianism is true, then it is always morally permissible to sacrifice innocent people whenever it benefits the society.

2. Sometimes it is wrong to sacrifice innocent people even if it benefits society.

3. Therefore, utilitarianism is false. [From (1) and (2)]

An Argument about Euthanasia and Suicide

1. All rational acts that do not harm anyone are morally permissible.

2. Euthanasia and suicide are rational and they do not harm anyone.

3. Thus, they are morally permissible. [From (1) and (2)]

Branches of Ethics

2009-12-07T20:55:00.000-08:00

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 words, it attempts to discover general rules or principles of moral behavior. In this area of ethics, you’ll find claims like the following:

If doing x will benefit someone without harming anyone else, then it is morally right for you to do x.

This is a claim about what sort of behavior is morally right in general. It’s also a rule you can use to help you decide what is the right thing to do in any given situation.

Meta-Ethics: -

Meta-ethics is the branch of ethics that tries to answer questions about the nature of morality itself. It doesn’t ask or make judgment about what types of action are moral and immoral; rather, it asks questions like:

Does morality depend on what we believe about it, or is it independent of our beliefs?
Does morality depend on what God commands?
Are moral judgments (statements attributing morality or immorality to a given act, .g. “Murder is immoral”; “Charity is morally good”) capable of being true or false? Or are they simply expressions of emotion? Or something else?
How can we justify moral claims? How should we justify them?

You can think of meta-ethics as trying to take a position above normative ethics, looking down on it and trying to explain where it comes from.(“meta” means above or about)

Applied Ethics: -

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, fair distribution of prescription drugs and medical treatment etc. For example, it’s wrong for doctors to deceive their patients; passive euthanasia is sometimes permissible)
Business ethics (corporate responsibility; rights and obligations of employees; diversity and discrimination etc. For example, lying and deception is permissible in business contexts)
Legal ethics (responsibilities of individuals working in the criminal justice system)
Environmental ethics (it’s morally wrong to exterminate rare species of animals and plants; raising animals in factory farms is morally wrong)

Ethics in education (teachers ought to provide their students with the access to information)

Applied Ethics

2009-12-07T20:53:00.000-08:00

Applied ethics is a discipline of philosophy that attempts to apply ‘theoretical’ ethics, such as utilitarianism, social contract theory, and deontology, to real world dilemmas. Topics falling within the discipline include medical ethics, legal ethics, environmental ethics, computer ethics, engineering ethics, media ethics, corporate social responsibility, or business ethics.

Many considerations of applied ethics also come into play in human rights discussions.

Applied ethics seeks to engage formal ethics in attempts to solve actual dilemmas. In so doing, it illuminates the potential for disagreement over the way theories and principles should be applied. Strict, principle-based ethical approaches often result in solutions to specific problems that are not universally acceptable. Drawing on medical ethics for an example, a strict deontological approach would never permit the deception of a patient about their condition, whereas a utilitarian approach would involve consideration of the consequences of so doing, and might permit lying to a patient if the result of the deception was ‘good’. The example demonstrates that a deontologist can derive a different solution to a dilemma than a utilitarian.

One modern approach which attempts to overcome the seemingly impossible divide between deontology and utilititarianism is case-based reasoning, also known as casuistry. Casuistry does not begin with theory; rather it starts with the immediate facts of a particular case. While casuistry makes use of ethical theory, it does not view ethical theory as the most important feature of moral reasoning.

Casuists, like Albert Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin (The Abuse of Casuistry 1988), challenge the traditional paradigm of applied ethics. Instead of starting from theory and applying theory to a particular case, casuists start with the particular case itself and then ask what morally significant features (including both theory and practical considerations) ought to be considered for that particular case. In their observations of medical ethics committee, Jonsen and Toulmin note that a consensus on particularly problematic moral cases often emerges when participants focus on the facts of the case, rather than on ideology or theory. Thus, a Rabbi, a Catholic priest, and an agnostic might agree that, in this particular case, the best approach is to withhold extraordinary medical care, while disagreeing on the reasons that support their individual positions. By focusing on cases and not on theory, those engaged in moral debate increase the possibility of agreement.

List of Subfields of Applied Ethics:

Medical ethics / bioethics
Business ethics
Engineering ethics
Environmental ethics (e.g. global warming)
Human rights issues (e.g. gender ethics / sexism, racism, death penalty)
Animal rights issues
Legal ethics
Computer ethics
Media ethics / journalism ethics
Research ethics
Marketing ethics
Education ethics
Sports ethics
Military ethics (e.g. just war theory)
International ethics (e.g. world hunger)

Bibliography:

Chadwick, R.F. (1997). Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. London: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-227065-7.
Singer, peter (1993). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-4397-X. (monograph)

Anthologies:

LaFollette, Hugh (2002). Ethics in Practice (2^nd Edition). Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-22834-9.
Singer Peter (1986). Applied Ethics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-875067-6.
Frey, R.G. (2004). A Companion to Applied Ethics. Blackwell. ISBN 1-4051-3345-7.

Journals:

Ethics (since 1890)
The Journal of Ethics
Journal of Applied Philosophy
International Journal of Applied Philosophy
International Journal of Philosophical Practice

Normative Principles in Applied Ethics

2009-12-07T20:50:00.000-08:00

Arriving at a short list of representative normative principles is itself a challenging task. The principles selected must not be too narrowly focused, such as a version of act-egoism that might focus only on an action’s short-term benefit. The principles must also be seen as having merit by people on both sides of an applied ethical issue. For this reason, principles that appeal to duly to God are not usually cited since this would have no impact on a nonbeliever engaged in the debate. The following principles are the ones most commonly appealed to in applied ethical discussions:

Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for the individual in question.
Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for society.
Principle of benevolence: help those in need.
Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests when they cannot do so themselves.
Principle of harm: do not harm others.
Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.
Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.
Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person’s freedom over his/her actions or physical body.
Principle of justice: acknowledge a person’s right to due process, fair compensation for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits.
Rights: acknowledge a person’s right to life, information, privacy, free expression and safety.

The above principles represent a spectrum of traditional normative principles and are derived from both consequentiality and duty-based approaches. The first two principles, personal benefit and social benefit, are consequentiality since they appeal to the consequences of an action as it affects the individual or society. The remaining principles are duty-based. The principles of benevolence, paternalism, harm, honesty, and lawfulness are based on duties we have toward others. The principles of autonomy, justice and the various rights are based on moral rights.

An example will help illustrate the function of these principles in an applied ethical discussion. In 1982 a couple from Bloomington, Indiana gave birth to a severely retarded baby. The infant, known as Baby Doe, also had its stomach disconnected from its throat and was thus unable to receive nourishment. Although this stomach deformity was correctable through surgery, the couple did not want to raise a severely retarded child and therefore chose to deny surgery, food, and water for the infant. Local courts supported the parent’s decision, and six days later Baby Doe died.

Should corrective surgery have been performed for Baby Doe? Arguments in favor of corrective surgery derive from the infant’s right to life and the principle of paternalism which stipulates that we should pursue the best interests of others when they are incapable of doing so themselves.

Arguments against corrective surgery derive from the personal and social disbenefit which would result from such surgery. If Baby Doe survived, its quality of life would have been poor and in any case it probably would have died at an early age. Also, from the parent’s perspective, Baby Doe’s survival would have been a significant emotional and financial burden.

When examining both sides of the issue, the parents and the courts concluded that the arguments against surgery were stronger than the arguments for surgery. First, foregoing surgery appeared to be in the best interests of the infant, given the poor quality of life it would endure. Second, the statue of Baby Doe’s right to life was not clear given the severity of the infant’s mental impairment. For, to possess moral rights, it takes more than merely having a human body: certain cognitive functions must also be present. The issue here involves what is often referred to as moral personhood, and is central to many applied ethical discussions.

Professional Ethics and Codes of Ethics

2009-12-07T20:47:00.000-08:00

Why do we need Professional Codes in the first place? Isn’t it a given that anyone with specialized training will, by definition, behave ethically on the job?

Actually, it isn’t that simple. No one starts out trying to be unethical—it’s more a question of juggling several responsibilities at once.

One way to look at Professional Codes is to see them as a systematized approach to mediating the conflicts that can occur when one person wears several hats. Another view is that formal Codes of Conduct are a reflection of the relationship between society and trained experts.

The topic of professional responsibility is about more than right or wrong conduct however. What of the goals, ideals and desires that bring one to a profession in the first place? The ideal of scientific training as a form of public service is what drives many scientists for whom research is more a way of life than a time clock to punch.

Professional ethics concerns one’s conduct of behavior and practice when carrying out professional work. Such work may include consulting, researching, teaching and writing. The institutionalization of Codes of Conduct and Codes of Practice is common with many professional bodies for their members to observe.

Any code may be considered to be a formalization of experience into a set of rules. A code is adopted by a community because its members accept the adherence to these rules, including the restrictions that apply.

Apart from codes of ethics, professional ethics also concerns matters such as professional indemnity. Furthermore, as will readily be appreciated, no two code of ethics and identical. They vary by cultural group, by profession and by discipline. The former of these three variations is one of the most interesting, as well as controversial, since it challenges the assumption that universal ethical principles exist.

In some cultures, certain behaviors are certainly frowned upon, but in other cultures the opposite may be true. Software piracy is a good case in point, in that attitudes towards software piracy vary from strong opposition to strong support – attitudes that are supportable within a particular culture. At the end of these pages is a section called Cultural Perspectives, where we hope to point you to alternative perspectives of ethical standards, attitudes and behaviors.

Issues: -

Codes of Ethics are concerned with a range of issues, including:

Academic honesty
Adherence to confidentiality agreements
Data privacy
Handling of human subjects
Impartiality in data analysis and professional consulting
Professional accountability
Resolution of conflicts of interest
Software piracy

The Advantage and Disadvantage of a Code of Ethics

A Code of Ethics enables us to:

Set out the ideals and responsibilities of the profession
Exert a de facto regulatory effect, protecting both clients and professionals
Improve the profile of the profession
Motivate and inspire practitioners, by attempting to define their raison deter
Provide guidance on acceptable conduct
Raise awareness and consciousness of issues
Improve quality and consistency

On the other hand, we must also consider:

Whether the so-called standards are obligatory or are merely an aspiration
Whether such a code is desirable or feasible
Whether ethical values are universal or culturally relativistic
The difficulty of providing universal guidance given the heterogeneous nature of the profession

What the point is of specifying responsibilities, given the limited regularly function of a code.

The Function and Value of a Code of Ethics

2009-12-07T20:43:00.000-08:00

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 their common ideal so that ach may do the best she can at minimal cost to herself and those she cares about. The code is to protect each professional from certain pressures (for example, the pressure to cut corners to save money) by making it reasonably likely that most other members of the profession will not take advantage of her good conduct. A code protects members of a profession from certain consequences of competition. A code is a solution to a coordination problem.

According to this explanation, an occupation does not need society’s recognition in order to be a profession. It needs only a practice among its members of cooperation to serve a certain ideal. Once an occupation has become a profession, society has a reason to give it special privileges (for example, the sole right to do certain work) if, but only if, society wants to support serving the ideal in question in the way the profession has chosen to serve it. Otherwise, it may leave the profession unrecognized.

A profession, as such, is like a union in that it is organized to serve the interests of its members, and unlike a charity or government, which is organized to serve someone else’s interest. But professions differ form unions in the interest they are organized to serve. Unions are, like businesses, primarily organizations of self-interest. They exist for the benefit of their members, just as businesses exist for the profit of their owners. A profession, in contrast, is organized to help members serve others-according to a certain ideal expressed in its code of ethics. In this sense, professions are organized for public service. That, I think, is true by definition. But it is not a mere semantic truth. When a group of individuals constitute themselves as a “profession,” they explicitly invoke this way of understanding what they are up to. They invite examination according to the standards proper to such an undertaking. They give what they do a distinct context.

Understanding a code of ethics as a convention between professionals, we can explain why engineers cannot depend on mere private conscience when choosing how to practice their profession, no matter how good that private conscience and why engineers should take into account what an organization of engineers has to say about what engineers should do. What conscience would tell us to do absent a certain convention is not necessarily what conscience would tell us given that convention. Insofar as a code of professional ethics is a kind of (morally permissible) convention, it provides a guide to what engineers may reasonably expect of one another, what (more or less) “the rules of the game” are. Just as we must know the rules of baseball to know what to do with the ball, so we must know engineering ethics to know, for example, whether, as engineers, we should merely weigh safety against the wishes of our employer or instead give safety preference over those wishes.

A code of ethics should also provide a guide to what we may expect other members of our profession to help us do. If, for example, part of being an engineer is putting safety first, then Lund’s engineers had a right to expect his support. When Lund’s boss asked him to think like a manager rather than an engineer, he should, as an engineer, have responded, “Sorry, if you wanted a vice-president who would think like a manager rather than an engineer, you should not have hired an engineer.”

If Lund had so responded, he would, as we shall see, have responded as “the rules of the engineering game” require. But would he have done the right thing, not simply according to those rules but all things considered? This is not an empty question. Even games can be irrational or immoral. People are not merely members of this or that profession. They are also persons with responsibilities beyond their professions, moral agents who cannot escape conscience, criticism, blame, or punishment just by showing that they did what they did because their profession required it. While we have now explained why an engineer should, as an engineer, take account of his profession’s code of ethics, we have not explained why anyone should be an engineer in this sense.

Let me put the point more dramatically. Suppose Lund’s boss had responded to what we just imagined Lund to say to him: “Yes, we hired an engineer, but-we supposed-an engineer with common sense, one who understood just how much weight a rational person gives a code of ethics in decisions of this kind. Be reasonable. Your job and mine are on the line. The future of Thiokol is also on the line. Safety counts a lot. But other things do, too. If we block this launch, the Space Center will start looking for someone more agreeable to supply boosters.”

If acting as one’s professional code requires is really justified, we should be able to explain to Lund (and his boss) why, as a rational person, Lund should support his profession’s code as a guide for all engineers and why, even in his trying circumstances, he cannot justify treating himself as an exception.

“There has been a dramatic increase in the ethical expectations of professions over the past ten years. Increasingly, customers, clients and employees are deliberately seeking out those who define the basic ground rules of their operations on a day to day….”

(Quote from the website of the International Ethical Business Registry)

A code of Ethics is important for the following purposes:

To define accepted/acceptable behaviors;
To promote high standards of practice;
To provide a benchmark for members to use for self evaluation;
To establish a framework for professional behavior and responsibilities;
As a vehicle for occupational identity;
As a mark of occupational maturity;

(From the website of Life Skills Coaches Association of BC)

“The need for special ethical principles in a scientific society is the same as the need for ethical principles in society as a whole. They are mutually beneficial. They help make our relationships mutually pleasant and productive. A professional society is a voluntary, cooperative organization, and those who must conform to its rules are also those who benefit from the conformity of others. Each has a stake in maintaining general compliance.” (Stuart Altmann, Chair, Ethics Committee, Animal Behavior Society.)

“…instruments for persuasion both of members of (a) profession and the public. They enhance the sense of community among members, of belonging to a group with common values and a common mission.” (Kultgen, J. 1988, Ethics and Professionalism, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp.212-213)

A profession’s ethical standards must be compatible with our common morality, but they go beyond our common morality. You could say that they interpret our common morality for the specific details of work of a particular occupational group.” (By Vivian Weil, from her paper “Prospects for International Standards”)

“The very exercise of developing a code is in itself worthwhile; it forces a large number of people…to think through in a fresh way their mission and the important obligations they as a group and as individuals have with respect to society as a whole.” (DeGeorge, Richard T. 1987, Military Ethics: A Code of Ethics for Officers, National Defense University Press, Washington.)

Sociological Factors and Effects of Technology

2009-12-07T20:38:00.000-08:00

Technology is a word with origins in the Greek “technologia”—“techne”, (“craft”) and “logia”, (“saying”). “Technology” is a broad term dealing with the use and knowledge of humanity’s tools and crafts.

Definitions:

It is difficult to obtain precise definition of technology. According to the involved science fields and engineering domain where it is developed, there are many kinds of BIGFOOT IS REAL technologies. Generally, the following distinctions can be made:

· Science is the formal process of investigating natural phenomena. It produces information and knowledge about the world.

· Engineering is the goal-oriented process of designing and building tools and systems to exploit natural phenomena for a practical human means. Engineers work within the constraints of natural laws and societal needs to create technology.

· Technology is the consequence of these two processes and societal requests. Most commonly, the term technology is used as the name of all engineering products.

For scientists and engineers, technologies are: conceptual tools – as methods, methodologies, techniques; instruments—as machines, apparatus, and software programs; as well as, different artificial materials which they normally use.

Until recently, it was believed that the development of technology was a concept akin and restricted only to human beings, but recent studies show that other primates (such as chimpanzees), and certain dolphin communities, have developed simple tools and learned to pass this knowledge to other generations, what would constitute a form of non-human technological development.

Sociological Factors and Effects:

The use of technology has a great many effects; these may be separated into intended effects and unintended effects. Unintended effects are usually also unanticipated and often unknown before the arrival of a new technology. Nevertheless, they are often as important as the intended effect.

The most subtle side effects of technology are often sociological. They are subtle because the side effects may go unnoticed unless carefully observed and studied. These may involve gradually occurring changes in the behavior of individuals, groups, institutions, and even entire societies.

Values:

The implementation of technology influences the values of a society by changing expectations and realities. The implementation of technology is also influenced by values. There are (at least) three major, interrelated values that inform, and are informed by, technological innovations:

· Mechanistic world view: Viewing the universe as a collection of parts, (like a machine), that can be individually analyzed and understood (McGinn). This is a form of reductionism that is rare nowadays. However, the “neo-mechanistic world view” holds that nothing in the universe cannot be understood by the human intellect. Also, while all things are greater than the sum of their parts (e.g., even if we consider nothing more than the information involved in their combination), in principle, even this excess must eventually be understood by human intelligence. This is, no divine or vital principle or essence is involved.

· Efficiency: A value, originally applied only to machines, but now applied to all aspects of society, so that each element is expected to attain a higher and higher percentage of its maximal possible performance, output, or ability. (McGinn)

· Social progress: The belief that there is such a thing as social progress, and that, in the main, it is beneficent. Before the Industrial Revolution, and the subsequent explosion of technology, almost all societies believed in a cyclical theory of social movement and, indeed, of all history and the universe. This was, obviously, based on the cyclicity of the seasons, and an agricultural economy’s and societies strong ties to that cyclicity. Since much of the world (i.e., everyone but the hyperindustrialized West) is closer to their agricultural roots, they are still much more amenable to cyclicity than progress in history.

Ethics:

Winston provides an excellent summary of the ethical implications of technological development and deployment. He states there are four major ethical implications:

1. Challenges traditional ethical norms.

2. Creates an aggregation of effects.

3. Changes the distribution of justice.

4. Provides great power.

But the most important contribution of technology is making life of common people much easier and helping them achieve what was previously not possible.

Lifestyle:

Technology, throughout history, has allowed people to complete more tasks in less time and with less human intellectual or manual labor. Many herald this as a way of making life easier. However, work has continued to be proportional to the amount of energy expended, rather than the quantitative amount of information or material processed. Technology has had profound effects on lifestyle throughout human history, and as the rate of progress increases, society must deal with both the good and bad implications. In many ways, technology simplifies life.

The rise of a leisure class
A more informed society can make quicker responses to events and trends
Sets the stage for more complex learning tasks
Increases multi-tasking
Global Networking
Creates denser social circles
Cheap price

In other ways, technology complicates life.

Sweatshops and harsher forms of slavery are more likely to be found in technologically advanced societies, relative to primitive societies.
The increasing oppression of technologically advanced societies over those which are not.
More people are starving now, in this most technologically advanced age, than at any point in history or pre-history.
The increase in transportation technology has brought congestion in some areas.
Technicism
New forms of danger existing as a consequence of new forms of technology, new types of nuclear reactors, unforeseen genetic mutations as the result of genetic engineering, or perhaps something more subtle which destroys the ozone or warms the planet.
New forms of entertainment, such as video games and internet access could have possible social effects on areas such as academic performance.
Creates new diseases and disorders such as obesity, laziness and a loss of personality.

Institutions and Groups:

Technology often enables organizational and bureaucratic group structures that otherwise and heretofore were simply not possible. Example of this might include:

The rise of very large organizations: e.g., governments, the military, health and social welfare institutions, supranational corporations.
The commercialization of leisure: sports events, products, etc. (McGinn)
The almost instantaneous dispersal of information (especially news) and entertainment around the world.

International:

Technology enables greater knowledge of international issues, values and cultures. Due mostly to mass transportation and mass media, the world seems to be a much smaller place, due to the following, among others:

Globalization of ideas
Embeddedness of values
Population growth and control
Others

References:

Adas, Michael (1989). Machines as the Measure of Men: Science, Technology, and Ideologies of Western Dominance. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

McGinn, Robert E. (1991). Science, Technology and Society. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0-13-794736-4.

Noble, David F. (1984). Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation. New York: Knopf.

Smil, Vaclav (1994). Energy in World History. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 259-267.

Williams, Robin; Edge, David (1996). “What is the Social Shaping of Technology?” (The Introduction to paper “The Social Shaping of Technology”.). Research Policy 25. Retrieved on August 10, 2006.

Winston, Morton (2003). “Children of Invention”, in Morton Winston and Ralph Edelbach (eds.),: Society, Ethics and Technology, 2^nd ed., Belmont, Calif.: Thomson/Wadsworth.

New Technology and Social Change

2009-10-13T00:18:00.000-07:00

Three Unhelpful Views about Technology

1. Technology is a good thing. It liberates human beings and brings about prosperity (utopia).

2. Technology is a bad thing. It is an autonomous force that threatens individuality, freedom, and the environment.

3. Technology s nt as important as the first two groups think. History has shown that people can and have adapted to changes in technology.

All three of these views are oversimplifications that fail to grasp how technology causes social change and how it affects the future.

Some Countervailing Considerations:

1. Informational technology has not been the boon it was supposed to be in education.

2. The range of possibility and human choice implicit in technology seems to go against pessimism about the effects of technology on human freedom.

3. Technology, the organization of knowledge for practical purposes, is a genuine matter of concern, since (with its pervasive influence) it has made our contemporary situation qualitatively different from prior eras in three ways:

o Our tools are more powerful than any before.

o Modern technology has a quality of finality. That tells us that technology does have an influence on our culture and institutions.

o Consequently, there is increasing effort to try to understand and control technology.

How Technological Change Impinges on Society:

1. New technology creates new opportunities for men and societies.

2. New technology generates new problems for men and societies.

Any given technological development has both positive and negative effects. This is the mechanism:

1. Technological advance creates a new opportunity to achieve a certain goal.

2. Taking advantage of this new opportunity requires changes in social organization.

3. These changes interfere in the functions of existing social structures.

4. Goals which were achieved by means of the older social structures cannot be adequately achieved any more.

How Society Reacts to Technological Change:

Our challenge is to profit from the opportunities opened up by technology and to contain its dangers. Existing social structures often get in the way of taking advantage of advances in technology. Government and education have not made the public aware of the potential benefits of technologies such as urban policy techniques.

Containing the Negative Effects of Technology:

Private individuals and large corporations who develop new technologies because of their perceived benefits often do not think about benefits or harms that may affect many people in society. Many negative consequences of technology are due to the fact that particular technologies are developed by individuals (or individual corporations) for particular purposes without attention to the effect of their decisions on society as a whole.

The rights of individual decision-makers which have been traditionally politically protected may be the source of the problem. Technologies may be out of control to the extent that human institutions are not adequately controlling them.

Thus, there is tension between the need to control technology and values of market freedom, private enterprise, scientific freedom and individual autonomy. This tension makes it difficult to use social organizations to control the opportunities and the problems of technology.

VALUES

Technology’s Challenge to Values:

Social planning reveals conflicts in values. Economic values of leisure conflict with increase in productivity. Education values of equality conflict with values of achievement (merit).

Social planning (based upon knowledge) and changing technology confronts traditional values and requires that they change (accommodate themselves).

Technology as a Cause of Value Change:

Technology can change values by—

1. Creating new attainable goals (new options) and

2. Making old goals easier to attain.

When society fails to take advantage of these opportunities, tension arises. For example, representative democracy has been thought to be necessary since it has been impossible for all citizens to have a direct say or vote in policy. Does technology which would allow immediate electronic voting change all that? On the other hand, technology also makes it easier to use technical expertise in decision-making (and thus diminish the role of citizens).

The Value Implications of Economic Change:

Private profit motives cannot meet the expectations of society for public goods. Increased government intervention is required in social and economic affairs. This conflicts with a value system which has been primarily individualistic rater than collective or “societal.” In other words, control of widespread consequences of technologies must be on a social or governmental level.

Religion and Values:

According to Cox, there are three inconsistent traditions in religion:

1. Apocalyptic tradition: the end of the world is at hand, pessimism.

2. Technological tradition: everything is destined to turn out all right; there is a fixed purpose being realized.

3. Prophetic tradition: the future is in our hands and will be what we can make of it.

Technology seems most amenable to the third tradition—the prophetic. Religion is challenged to account for the creation of new values [and a future which is not determined in advance].

Individual Man in a Technological Age:

The impact of technology on the individual has both positive and negative sides. The balance sheet might look something like this:

Negative	Positive
Pressure on the individual to conform or adjust. [Loss of individuality]	Economic productivity, education, and modern means of communication have helped the individual to develop his individual potential. People feel like individuals more than ever before.
Decline in personal privacy with sophisticated eavesdropping and surveillance devices.	Privacy was not always a good thing, especially if it meant one died alone. Social security, public education and public health measures would not be given up for privacy.
Increasing power of government.	Government is more lacking in confidence than ever before.

According to Professor Shils, technological change has implications for the balance that individuals find between individual or private goals and responsibilities as a public citizen. The political requirements of a modern technological society seem to call for more emphasis on public responsibility.

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

The Enlarged Scope of Public Decision Making:

The political “encompasses all of the decision-making structures and procedures that have to do with the allocation and distribution of wealth and power in society.”

A society that fosters great advances in technology has to accept that it will have to “enlarge the scope of public decision-making,” probably because—

1. the development of technology leads to bigger and bigger social concentrations such as corporations, universities and government or leads to increased centralization of large social units such as cities and

2. The effects of advanced technology cover large distances (are widespread).

The power blackout in the northeastern United States showed how widespread and concentrated the effects of advanced technology can be.

Private Firms and Public Goods:

Corporations play a key role in developing technology. According to Galbraith, corporations and market forces are better at providing for and creating private wants than they are at satisfying public needs. Technological change seems to require a shift of emphasis from corporation government.

The Promise and Problems of Scientific Decision Making:

More and more emphasis is being put on technical processes of decision-making by using sophisticated computer and statistical technologies. This seems to put more and more administrative control in the hands of technical experts.

However, this cause difficulties for traditional values of popular and participatory democracy. Scientific management of the opportunities and problems arising from technology has both positive and negative consequences.

The Need for Institutional Innovation:

We need new institutions and social structures to deal with the management of the opportunities and problems of technology. These would call for a collaboration of government, corporations and social organizations.

CONCLUSION:

1. The creation of new physical possibilities and social options by technology tends toward and appears to require the emergence of new values, new forms of economic activity and new political organizations.

2. Technological change also poses problems of social and psychological displacement.

Individuals will be fully integrated into society only when we can extract from our knowledge not only its technological potential but also its implications for a system of values and a social, economic and political organization appropriate to a society in which technology is so prevalent.

Engineering Ethics

2009-10-13T00:09:00.000-07:00

Engineering ethics is the field of applied ethics which examines and sets standards for engineer’s obligations to the public, their clients, employers and the profession. This essay addresses the subject for both professional engineers and other engineers.

Engineering does not have a single uniform system, or standard, of ethical conduct across the entire profession. Ethical approaches vary somewhat by discipline and jurisdiction, but are most influenced by whether the engineers are independently providing professional services to clients or the public if employed in governmental services; or if they are employees of an enterprise creating products for sale.

In the United States the first are usually licensed Professional engineers, are governed by statute, and have fairly consistent codes of professional ethics. The latter, working as engineers in industry, are governed by various laws including whistleblowing, and product liability laws, and often rely on principles of business ethics rather than engineering ethics.

Professional and Chartered Engineers:

Professional engineers (Chartered engineers in the United Kingdom.) are distinct from other engineers in that they have obtained some form of license, charter, or registration from a government agency or charter-granting authority acting on their behalf. As such they are subject to regulation by these bodies, as are other regulated professions.

Professional and Chartered engineers enjoy significant influence over their regulation. They are often the authors of the pertinent codes of ethics used by some of these organizations. These engineers in private practice often, but not always, find themselves in traditional professional-client relationships in their practice. Engineers employed in government service find themselves on the other side of the same relationship.

Engineers in industry, sometimes termed “graduate engineers” in the US if they hold a Bachelor’s Degree, are not formally accredited by government agencies. Their professional relationships much more likely to be employee-employer relationship.

Despite the different focus, engineers in industry or private practice face similar ethical issues and reach similar conclusions. One American engineering society, the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) has sought to extend professional licensure and a code of ethics across the field regardless of practice area or employment sector.

Current Codes of Ethics:

Many American engineering professional societies have prepared codes of ethics. Some go back to the early decades of the twentieth century. These have been incorporated to a greater or lesser degree into the regulatory laws of most states.

The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) in the UK has a code of ethics incorporated into its standards of conduct. The Canadian societies of Professional engineers likewise have as well. These codes of ethics share many similarities.

General Principles:

Codes of engineering ethics identify a specific precedence with respect to the engineer’s consideration for the public, clients, employers, and the profession.

This is an example from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE):

“Fundamental Canons

1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional ethics.

2. Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence.

3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.

4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees and shall avoid conflicts of interest.

5. Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.

6. Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption.

7. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers, and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision.”

Like virtually all professional societies and chartering authorities, ASCE expends upon these and publishes specific guidance.

First Principle:

As noted above, generally the first duty recognized by Professional and Chartered engineers is to the safety of the public.

The ICE’s “Code of Professional Conduct” identifies similar ethical values as the ASCE’s but likewise places the good of the public as the highest ethic.

“Members of the ICE should always be aware of their override responsibility to the public good. A member’s obligations to the client can never override this, and members of the ICE should not enter undertakings which compromise this responsibility. The ‘public good’ encompasses care and respect for the environment, and for humanity’s cultural, historical and archaeological heritage, as well as the primary responsibility members have to protect the health and well being of present and future generations.”

Canadian engineering codes of ethics also place the public good above all other concerns:

· Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO): “A practitioner shall, regard the practitioner’s duty to public welfare as paramount.”

· L’Ordre des Ingenieure du Quebec (QIQ): “In all aspects of his work, the engineer must respect his obligations towards man and take into account the consequences of the performance of his work on the environment and on the life, health and property of every person.”

As in ASCE’s Fundamental Canon 1, other American professional societies are likewise specific on this point:

· National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE): “Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall: Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.”

· American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME): “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties.”

· Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE): “We, the members of the IEEE,... do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree: 1. to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;”

· American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE): “To achieve these goals, members shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and protect the environment in performance of their professional duties.”

Whistleblowing:

A basic ethical dilemma is that an engineer has the duty to report to the appropriate authority a possible risk to others from a client or employer failing to follow the engineer’s directions. According to first principles, this duty overrides the duty to a client and/or employer. An engineer may be disciplined, or have their license revoked, even if the failure to report such a danger does not result in the loss of life or health.

In many cases, this duty can be discharged by advising the client of the consequences in a forthright matter, and assuring the client takes the engineer’s advice. However, the engineer must ensure that the remedial steps are taken and, if they are not, the situation must be reported to the appropriate authority. In very rare cases, where even a governmental authority may not take appropriate action, the engineer can only discharge the duty by making the situation public. As a result, whistleblowing by professional engineers is not an unusual event, and courts have often sided with engineers in such cases, overruling duties to employers and confidentiality considerations that otherwise would have prevented the engineer from speaking out.

Other Ethical Issues:

There are several other ethical issues that engineers may face. Some have to do with technical practice, but many others have to do with broader considerations of business conduct. These include:

Quality
Ensuring legal compliance
Conflict of interest
Bribery and kickbacks
Treatment of confidential or proprietary information
Consideration of the employer’s assets
Relationships with clients, consultants, competitors and contractors
Gifts, meals, services and entertainment
Outside employment/activities (Moonlighting)

Some engineering societies are addressing environmental protection as a stand-alone question of ethics. The field of business ethics often overlaps and informs ethical decision making for engineers.

References:

· American Society of Civil Engineers [1914] (2006). Codes of Ethics. Reston, Virginia, USA: ASCE Press. Retrieved on 2006-10-20.

· American Society of Civil Engineers (2000). Standards of Professional Conduct. Reston, Virginia, USA: ASCE Press. Retrieved on 2006-10-20.

· Institution of Civil Engineers (2004). Royal Charter, by-laws, Regulations and Rules. Retrieved on 2006-10-20.

· Layton, Edwin (1986). The Revolt of the Engineers: Social Responsibility and the American Engineering Profession. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: The johns Hopkins University Press.

· Petroski, Henry (1985). To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design. St Martins Press.