Sydney Ly

Engineering Ethics
James Stieb
December 11, 2016
Final Paper
Evaluate Vanasupa et als arguments for fostering social responsibility in the classroom.
Vanasupas article proposes the idea that todays global challenges can be used to teach
students how to act socially responsible. She believes that social responsibility is at the core of
engineering and engineers have a moral obligation to society. She argues there are five principles
to socially responsible actions: 1. Everything is connected, 2. Earth is a closed thermodynamic
system, 3. Make responsible choices early in the design phase, 4. The sun is the earths energy
source, and 5. Optimize rather than maximize.
The first argument, everything is connected, suggests that life on earth is a series of
interactions that are all connected to one another. For example, glacier melting is caused by
global climate change, which is connected to greenhouse gas emissions. This argument does not
explain how things are connected or how this connection teaches students about being socially
responsible. In the paper, it seems like Vanasupa is assuming the students are inherently good
and want to serve society as engineers, which may not be the case. The students could have
chosen to be an engineer for financial stability.
The second and fourth principle are very similar principles. The second principle teaches
students to be mindful of their design decisions since earth is a closed system so, things are
finite. Once something is emitted it cannot be taken back and once something is removed it

cannot be replaced so, be mindful of how resources are used in designs. The fourth principle
proposes the notion of using the sun as our main energy to limit the negative impacts of
nonrenewable energy sources like gasoline. This principle is basically the same as the second one
as it is telling students to be mindful of their designs. These two principles do not explain how
resources should be used or how they should be distributed.
Vanasupas third argument teaches students that they should be responsible early in the
design process to prevent problems before they happen rather than to fix the problem when it
happens. The fifth argument, basically means maximizing the life cycle of a product can harm
the environment because once the product is thrown away, the product cannot be reused and will
take many years to break down. These principles very broad and does not explain anything. For
instance, most civil and structural engineers would probably want to maximize the life cycles of
the buildings and bridges they design rather than optimize them.
Although using the global challenges as an inspiration to promote social responsibility is
a nice idea, Vanasupa et als arguments focus too heavily on the global challenges. The article
fails to open a discussion on the different positions on moral responsibilities and neglect
controversy topics such as the arms industry. Real world situations are much more complex and
Vanasupa needs to address this if she wants to truly educate students on social responsibilities.

Explain the safety concerns in the 2010 Toyota Prius and Lexus Hs250h models. Are the design
engineers morally responsible for the resulting accidents? Why or why not?
In February 2010, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. issued a voluntary safety recall for
approximately 133,000 2010 Toyota Prius and 14,500 Lexus hs250h models because of a
software issue in the anti-lock brake system (ABS). Normally, the ABS is supposed to activate

and deactivate as the control system senses and reacts to road conditions. However, Toyota Prius
and Lexus hs250h car owners have reported that there have been inconsistencies when braking
on rough or slippery road surfaces as the ABS activates to switch from regenerative braking to
conventional hydraulic brakes. These reports raised a concern on the performance of Toyotas
new braking system for their 2010 models. After the recall, Toyota implemented a software
update to fix the regenerative and conventional hydraulic braking systems in the recalled models
(Abuelsamid).
This incident has raised concerns of the moral responsibilities of design engineers. When
a consumer buys a car, they trust the company to designed a car that is safe and perform like its
advertised, so when a car has faulty brakes because of a software bug, the software engineers
who designed the braking system are responsible for their design. They are morally responsible
for the accidents and the lives the vehicle has endangered because the fault lies in the design. No
engineer wished to harm others intentionally, but the brake system is one of the most important
parts of a car and they failed to ensure the safety of their design. The engineers and the people
who oversaw this project should have done a better job testing the performance of their anti-lock
brake system before releasing the cars to consumers. Any company who produces goods should
be responsible for their product if the product is not safe for use.

The 'Coast Guard' video shows an engineer whistle-blowing in public via Youtube. According to
DeGeorge and/or other authors is the engineer a) morally permitted, b) obligated to whistleblow?
Whistle-blowing is a topic that has been discussed and debated by ethicists and many
people. Ethicists and alike often discuss the notion of whether an engineer is morally obligated to

or morally permitted to whistle-blow. The engineer in the Coast Guard video, Michael DeKort,
was a project engineer at Lockheed Martin who was working on the US Coast Guards
Deepwater Program. While working on the program, DeKort noticed some of the equipment
designed for the boats were faulty and could compromise the security of the boats, putting people
in danger. Before uploading a YouTube video to the public, DeKort had notified of the US Coast
Guard and Lockheed Martin of these issues, but they found his concerns were baseless and chose
to move forward with the program. According to DeGeorge, DeKort would most likely be
morally obligated to whistle-blow. The design flaws of the equipment were serious enough that it
could have put peoples lives at risk and national security at risk. He had already exhausted all
channels before going public and provided solid evidence in his video to raise concern to the
public.
Contrary to DeGeorge, Ronald Duska would most likely argue that Dekort should be
morally permitted to whistle-blow. Duska believes that individuals have no obligation of loyalty
to their companies as he considers companies to not be an object of loyalty. He argues that
companies are tools to make money and that employees are only connected to companies
through this connection of money. In general, companies have no obligation to employees and
thus, employees have no obligation to their company when they whistle-blow. Duska believes
that if a company is endangering society in any way than the employee is permitted to whistleblow. In the case of DeKort, he noticed that the equipment designs that Lockheed Martin
designed for the Deepwater Program were faulty and could harm others. Hence, he is permitted
to whistle-blow in this situation.

Work Cited
Abuelsamid, Sam. "Officially Official: Toyota Recalls 2010 Prius and Lexus HS250h for ABS
Fix." Autoblog. N.p., 2010. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
Duska, Ronald. "Whistle-Blowing and Employee Loyalty." Ethical Issues in Engineering (1991):
241-247. Web. 10 December 2016
Vanasupa, L., Chen, K.C. & Slivovsky, L. "Global Challenges as Inspiration: A Classroom
Strategy to Foster Social Responsibility." Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (2006): 373-380.
Web. 1 December 2016