Practices of an Engineer as Ethical Actor - Coursework Example

Practices of an Engineer as Ethical Actor Name Institution Engineer as Ethical Actor Introduction There are binding ethical standards that guide the professional conduct of engineers in relation to the clients, the engineering profession, himself/herself, colleagues (including the employees and the subordinates), employers, and the society.This demands that a professional engineer adhere to the standards dictated by code of ethics in the different engineering avenues. Moral principles that apply to every branch of engineering are, in most case, well stipulated, conclusive and easy to understand. Therefore, the engineering ethics expect that every engineer act as a custodian of the set standards at all times. This paper explores the various contributions of authors in the field of engineering ethics. It details their assertions and scrutinizes the strengths and weaknesses of their assertion aboutThe Engineer as Ethical Actor”. Downey et all (2007) exemplifies the difficulties between the identity and the responsibility of the engineer as far as acting in adherence to ethical standards is concerned. With the varying attention to engineering ethics in different countries such as France, Japan, and Germany, the author attempts to put the standard role of engineers across the various distinctions especially aboutthe changing technological environment. By demystifying the identity of the engineer, the authors sum up the standard roles of the engineers after a comparative analysis across the countries. From the authors, it emerges that working as an ethical engineer, regardless of the location mustdemonstrate responsibility for their professional undertakings (Downey et all, 2007). It must also make sustainable and sensible technological structures, know the effect of these systems on the society, economy and the environment and act in line with identical ethical standards as anyone in the society where they are based (Downey, et all 2007).Additionally, they must stay clear of accepting limitations that reduce their responsibly in the profession.These assertions are credible and accurate to guiding the ethical behavior of the engineerin the society. The author contributes to the topic immensely on the aspect of sticking to the ethical engineering conditions despite the location. They assert that there are engineering ethics that fall under universal standards. They serve to form a basis for the behavior of an engineer even in location or countries where there is no much emphasis on the engineering ethical of formal education on the same (Downey et all, 2007). The “standard” ethical guidelines shape the engineering profession and ensure that the society benefits from the actions of the engineeringfraternity.Nevertheless, the author fails to concentrate on the effects of differentiated inequalities in different countries regardingthe emphasis and implementation of the engineering ethics. There may be national laws that affect the ethical functioning of the engineer. The Downey et all. (2007) falters in giving the implications of these laws and how to navigate through them. Being an ethical engineer requires not only the control of the engineer’s human behavior through a set of rules and discipline by regulatory frameworks but also personal attributes. Harris (2008) is specific on this issue and attributes virtue ethics as a complimentary essential in themaintenance of professional ethics by engineers. Accurately, an engineer’s personal discipline, motivation, and commitment to practicing professional ethics is a key determiner of the quality of his practice. This bears a significance to Downey et all (2007) assertions that an engineer be a follower of standard guidelines. Essentially, Harris (2008) prioritizes virtue ethics so as to have the motivation to follow the guidelines that shape the engineering profession. The authors get it spot on by asserting that negative rules do not necessarily guarantee that the engineer will stick to the set rules. The author notes that the engineering ethics largely concentrates on prevention of the harmful effects of technology and prevention of unethical conduct by the engineers (Harris, 2008). He provides such examples by giving examples of the Colombia and Challenger disasters. True to this, the world continues to see much effort in engineering ethics go in these two ways. The author is correct in stating that negative rules do not cover everything in professional ethics there is more to engineering ethics that preventive measures. Certainly, the engineer, in his or her path to being an ethical actor requires “aspirational ethics” and virtues that are instructive (Harris, 2008). The author highlights honesty, courage, compassion, and gratitude as some of the virtues that could be instrumental in the engineering profession. The strength of these assertions is clearly manifested and easy to decipher. Certainly, the human perspective, in terms of virtues, is needed in additional to adherence to the moral guidelines set by the engineering ethics bodies. They serve to increase the ethical performance of an engineer by considering all avenues that make up an ethical engineer. Harris (2008) assertions do not have many weakness about what shapes an engineer as an ethical actor. The only noted weakness is that he does not include ways to cultivate the virtues needed by engineers in different environments. The engineering dynamics are different in many areas as noted by Downey et all (2007). It would have been helpful for the author to include the limitations that affect the upholding on virtues by engineers in different localities as they perform their duties. Additionally, the article fails to include the ways on how engineers can personally partake and promote the application of virtue ethics in their performance. Individual moral values, alongside adherence to the engineering code of ethics, contribute immensely to the value of the decisions made by engineers. Downey et all (2007) observes that ethical obligations surround engineers in their activities, and the situations demand them to make firm decisions that consider all aspects of the environment and society.Lynchand Kline (2000) focuses on the individual morality of decision making as a guideline to shaping engineer who is also an ethical actor. The author asserts that the use of the moral theory can help engineering practitioners to identify moral problems and consequently make sound decisions. This is the major strength of Lynch’s assertions as the first step to an engineer acting ethically is by identifying a moral issue and then acting appropriately after rational decision making that is guided by the insights of moral theory. The author further asserts that making moral choices is a continuous process (Lynch and Kline, 2000). This is true and serves make the ethical behavior of an engineer a continuous process rather than one prompted by a certain situation only.The moral responsibility guides an engineer who is an ethical actor that his or her practices should not endanger the life of another or put the environment at any risk. Similarly, acting virtuously as Harris (2008) observes had the same outcome as what Lynch and Kline observe. Lynch and Kline (2000) is keen to highlight the role of moral responsibility by focusing on the engineers who failed in their moral duties to prevent the Challenger disaster. The author’s use of this example demonstrates to an engineer what moral responsibility is and its purpose in the decision making. Just like Harris (2008) highlighted the challenger disaster, the magnitude of the effects of acting unethically is showed by Lynch and Kline (2000).The author’s claims are rich in evidence and demonstration. However, a major weakness is that the author fails to cover the kind of action that a morally responsible engineer can take in the case of defiant authorities.The author clearly notes that most engineers face constraints in decision making due to corporate cultures of the institutions they work for.(Lynch and Kline, 2000). It would have been essential to detail how an engineer who is an ethical standard can navigate through this obstacle. The article lacks in this but still contributes a great deal in shaping the decision making of an ethical engineer. An ethical actor must have undergone a period where he or she was educatedin the engineering systems. The most common method of instilling engineering ethics in individuals is through formal education in engineering courses. However, a debate rages as to whether this education covers all aspects of ethical performance by an engineer. Davis (2006) contributes to this education debate by initially recognizing that the dispute concerns parties that think engineering ethics inclines greatly towards individual decisions rather than the society.Davies (2006) disowns the notion that engineers have no choice but to follow what the culture in the environment they work in dictates. He asserts that though there are constraintson ethical decision making as put forward by Lynch and Kline (2000), it doesn’t mean that there are no other options. Pressure does not eliminate the option of making alternative decisions.This is a major strength in the body of teaching engineering ethics surely, there are options such as acting out of moral obligation and out of virtue as Lynch and Kline (2000) and Harris (2008) put forward respectively. It presents another perspective that is worth noting. In the endeavor to act ethically, an engineer is not completely without option but only needs to survive under the pressure set by the organizations. This information should be part of the sociological approach to the decision making by an engineer and should be taught to engineers. The weakness in this piece is the failure to offer recommendations on the best way to deal with teaching of the engineering ethics. The author offers more of opinion rather. This does not necessarily warrant consideration as it is based on personal judgment based on observation of teaching engineering ethics. The engineering code of ethics is central to every activity that an engineer undertakes. Not only does it offer initial guidelines but also offers a continuous point of reference, assessment, and general engineering advice. Michael Davies, in his 1991 article Thinking Like an Engineer: The Place of a Code of Ethics in the Practice of a Profession stresses the importance of adhering to a code of ethics for engineers. His contributions proof instrumental in shaping the character of an engineer to be an ethical actor. Essentially, Davies (1991) defines what a code is as well as a profession. These definitions are necessary and relevant to understand what each entails and thus avoid confusion in practice. The author notes that a code of ethics is in place to help in coordination rather than only rely on thepersonal conviction of what is ethically correct or not (Davies, 1991). The author’s use of the Challenger disaster is relevant in explaining the role of thecode of ethics. With the example, Davies (1991) highlights Lund’s failure to act ethically as an engineer by following the engineering guidelines. He asserts that the professional responsibilities of engineers go beyond the code and engineers should uphold them. (Davies 1991) It will not only guide their behavior but also safeguard them.This implies that it could extend to an engineer acting out of virtue as Harris (2008) put it or out of a moral obligation to the society and environment. Supporting the engineering code of ethics also makes their practice less of a morally justified embarrassment (Davis, 1991). This article bears strengths in the fact that it gives engineers direct reasons to follow the code of ethics to guide their behavior. The use of a practical example is another strength as engineers can easily relate to it and consequently see the benefits of following an engineering code of ethics and supporting it. The only weakness of the article is that it fails to detail a common issue where the code of ethics may conflict with the moral conviction of the engineer. Evidently, different kind of ethics are suited for varying engineering scenarios. Harris (2008) was keen to address the virtue ethics in relation to their application in engineering. Moriarty (2001) introduces two other types of ethics namely material and conceptual ethics. All of the shape an engineer to be an ethical actor based on different engineering modulations of theengineer, engineering and engineered.Moriarty highlights 3 kinds of engineering orientations; the pre-modern engineering which he calls traditional engineering as in the era of the building of Egyptian pyramids, the pre-modern engineering of the current era known as modernist engineering and future postmodern engineering named focal engineering. The author suggests that character issues were relevant to traditional engineering and thus inclines more to virtue ethics for an engineer (Moriarty, 2001). Modernist engineering favors the use of conceptual ethics which asks how engineers can partake in good engineering practices as stipulated in thecode of engineering ethics in various locations. This is more of what Davies (1991) emphasizes on. Material ethics relates more to focal engineering. Focal engineering, according to Moriarty (2001), concern development of future products while material ethics asks how the products can be designed to contribute to the greater good of the society. This inclines more to Lynch and Kline (2000) inclination of an engineer acting out of moral obligation to the surrounding fraternity.The author’s contribution bear their greatest strength in the differentiation of the engineering orientations. Through this, it is easy for engineers to apply and act ethically based on the orientation they are engaged in. However, the shortcoming in these assertions emerge as the author makes groupings of ethics and engineering orientations that do not represent all aspects of engineering and ethics. Nevertheless, the author’s contribution is noteworthy and helpful in making an ethical engineer. There are expectations placed on an engineer by the professional bodies and the society. Vesilind(1999) stresses the importance of professional norms and why punitive measures should be taken to individuals in the engineering fraternity who act against the norms. This is similar to Davies (1991) stand that a code of ethics should always guide engineers, failure to which would attract some consequences. According to the authors, engineers have a duty to decide consciously to be good actors and take actions that make them do so. According to Vesilind, manners, morals and regards to the law,make up a good engineer that appease not only the professional body but also the society (Vesilind, 2009). In the quest to be a good engineer, a person should loathe irresponsibility and thus avoid any harmful effect on his/her performance. The individual should also behave well to protect his/her won integrity by following standard rule as Downey et all (2007) also asserts. The main strengths of this argument are the simplicity and ease of comprehension and applicability. The author clearly shows what make a good engineer in the simplest and most practical terms.However, there is no much emphasis on the cultivation of these attributes in a person, especially, in environments that do not favor the same such as the aforementioned situations where the organization culture presents constraints in the decision-making. Arguably, an engineer encounters the influence of technology on the practice.This affects the ethical behavior as the concern for the negative effects of technology becomes prioritized. VandenHoven et all (2012) is correct to say that the engineering profession often sees technology as a source of moral dilemmas rather than thesolution. The consideration for ethics, according to all the authors of Engineering and the Problem of Moral Overloadis envisioned as a constraint. The authors demystify the issue by offering a credible differentiation. While moral overload is unavoidable, the authors suggest various ways to deal with them.There is creation of a moral residue in the process that prompts engineers to redesign their thinking to meet their moral obligations in their performance, the author’s use of the Value-Sensitive design is transformative and influential in guiding the process of engineering performance (VandenHoven et all, 2012. The use of well-constructed examples and approaches is the main strengths of their assertions. They support the argument through a clear description of the procedure of rethinking technology as a source of ethical dilemmas. However, the failure of the authors to detail an actual example of the application of the approach is a major weakness. Most of the other authors use the Challenger Disaster case to bring practicality to their arguments. Conclusion It is evident that the role of professional ethics cannot be downplayed. The authors present noteworthy statements. The role of virtue ethics is considered instrumental alongside the adherence to an engineer’s code of ethics. Additionally, Conceptual and material ethics for modernist engineering and focal engineering respectively are instrumental in shaping an engineer who is an ethical actor. In a nutshell, the authors’ assertions fall mainly into categories of personal ethical and moral initiatives and that of theexternalstandard set by the code of ethics and enhanced by regulatory bodies. The development of personal ethical initiatives such as upholding of moral reasoning, manners and personal virtues as well as adherence to engineering code of ethics ultimately makes an ethical engineer. Additionally, engineers need to see technology as not only a source of moral dilemmas but also a solution.In the engineering profession, it would be significant to consider ethics as a source of innovation instead of constraint. References Davis, M. (1991). Thinking Like an Engineer: The Place of a Code of Ethics in the Practice of a Profession. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 20(2), 150-161. Davis, M. (2006). Engineering Ethics, Individuals, and Organizations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 222-231. Downey, G. L., Lucena, J. C., & Mitcham, C. (2007). Engineering Ethics and Identity: Emerging Initiatives in Comparative Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics, 467-467. Hoven, J. V., Lokhorst, G., &Poel, I. V. (2012). Engineering and the Problem of Moral Overload. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18, 143-155. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9277-z Jr, C. E. (2008). The Good Engineer: Giving Virtue its Due in Engineering Ethics.Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 153–164. doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9068-3 Lynch, W. T., & Kline, R. (2000). Engineering Practice and Engineering Ethics. Science Technology & Human Values, 195-225. doi:10.1177/016224390002500203 Moriarty, G. (2001). Three kinds of ethics for three kinds of engineering. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 31-38. doi:10.1109/44.952763 Vesilind, A. (1999). The Good Engineeer. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5, 437-442. Read More

They assert that there are engineering ethics that fall under universal standards. They serve to form a basis for the behavior of an engineer even in location or countries where there is no much emphasis on the engineering ethical of formal education on the same (Downey et all, 2007). The “standard” ethical guidelines shape the engineering profession and ensure that the society benefits from the actions of the engineeringfraternity.Nevertheless, the author fails to concentrate on the effects of differentiated inequalities in different countries regardingthe emphasis and implementation of the engineering ethics.

There may be national laws that affect the ethical functioning of the engineer. The Downey et all. (2007) falters in giving the implications of these laws and how to navigate through them. Being an ethical engineer requires not only the control of the engineer’s human behavior through a set of rules and discipline by regulatory frameworks but also personal attributes. Harris (2008) is specific on this issue and attributes virtue ethics as a complimentary essential in themaintenance of professional ethics by engineers.

Accurately, an engineer’s personal discipline, motivation, and commitment to practicing professional ethics is a key determiner of the quality of his practice. This bears a significance to Downey et all (2007) assertions that an engineer be a follower of standard guidelines. Essentially, Harris (2008) prioritizes virtue ethics so as to have the motivation to follow the guidelines that shape the engineering profession. The authors get it spot on by asserting that negative rules do not necessarily guarantee that the engineer will stick to the set rules.

The author notes that the engineering ethics largely concentrates on prevention of the harmful effects of technology and prevention of unethical conduct by the engineers (Harris, 2008). He provides such examples by giving examples of the Colombia and Challenger disasters. True to this, the world continues to see much effort in engineering ethics go in these two ways. The author is correct in stating that negative rules do not cover everything in professional ethics there is more to engineering ethics that preventive measures.

Certainly, the engineer, in his or her path to being an ethical actor requires “aspirational ethics” and virtues that are instructive (Harris, 2008). The author highlights honesty, courage, compassion, and gratitude as some of the virtues that could be instrumental in the engineering profession. The strength of these assertions is clearly manifested and easy to decipher. Certainly, the human perspective, in terms of virtues, is needed in additional to adherence to the moral guidelines set by the engineering ethics bodies.

They serve to increase the ethical performance of an engineer by considering all avenues that make up an ethical engineer. Harris (2008) assertions do not have many weakness about what shapes an engineer as an ethical actor. The only noted weakness is that he does not include ways to cultivate the virtues needed by engineers in different environments. The engineering dynamics are different in many areas as noted by Downey et all (2007). It would have been helpful for the author to include the limitations that affect the upholding on virtues by engineers in different localities as they perform their duties.

Additionally, the article fails to include the ways on how engineers can personally partake and promote the application of virtue ethics in their performance. Individual moral values, alongside adherence to the engineering code of ethics, contribute immensely to the value of the decisions made by engineers. Downey et all (2007) observes that ethical obligations surround engineers in their activities, and the situations demand them to make firm decisions that consider all aspects of the environment and society.

Lynchand Kline (2000) focuses on the individual morality of decision making as a guideline to shaping engineer who is also an ethical actor.

Read More