Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
UNIT – I
Being the cause of an event is not always the same as being responsible for the
event.
Children playing with matches
Child shooting another with parent’s gun
Pilot with reversed controls flying into a mountainLegal Responsibility
One might be found legally responsible for an event and still be morally pure.
Chip flies off hammer, blinding user
- product problem – bad steel
- design problem – no bevel
- improperly used
- used beyond expected life
Contract law can create the converse; no legal responsibility, but clear moral
responsibility.
The fine print of a contract releases the designer or engineer from liability.
The fine print of a contract assigns the designer’s or engineer’s liability to the client.
One reason so many persons are named in law suits is that a contract can not
protect a person from the consequences of actions in all cases:
Negligence
Causal and legal responsibility have been shown to be different from moral
responsibility.
To the extent that these nonmoral motives reinforce moral behavior and
responsibility, they are positive. Any of these motives can lead to dilemmas for the
engineer if pursuing them conflicts with moral responsibility. But the dilemmas are
not moral; the engineer presumable knows what is morally required.
Professional responsibility can not be divorced from personal integrity “I was just
following orders” is no defense because there is a direct link between professional
behavior and personal integrity.
Virtues are general patterns of behavior, emotion, and attitudes that permeate all
areas of life.
Moral integrity can be defined as inner unity on the basis of moral commitments.
Moral integrity is maintained when virtues are manifested across the bounds of both
personal and professional life.
An engineer is not simply a part in a machine. Machine parts can’t think; being
human carries the special obligation to think.
Moral behavior does not depend on what others do (or don’t do). Persons who claim
these excuses are failing to take responsibility for their actions.
As Engineers we’ve to balance our self-interest with our moral obligation to safe
guard the society.
In this context we don’t want to be preached about what is right or wrong, rather we
would like to take autonomous decision after thorough analysis.
Ethical Egoism does provide guidance for behavior, but it denies the more global
notion of moral behavior.
But, Socrates asked, in effect, “Why does God make certain commands? Are the
commands of God based on whim? Surely not, God is (morally) good.
Divine Command Ethics seems to have things backwards- instead of commands of
God creating morality, moral reasons provide the foundation for the commands of
God.
This discussion does not rely on questions of the existence or supremacy of God.
Nor does it deny the importance or the purpose of religion, which is, in part, to
motivate right (moral) action.
Minimal Conception of Morality
Morality concerns reasons for the desirability of certain kinds of actions and the
undesirability of others.
What are moral reasons?
Reasons which require us to respect others, to care for their well-being in addition
to our own.
Reasons which place limits on the legitimate pursuit of happiness.
Reasons that can be used to analyze laws, customs, and conventions.
Moral conduct is based on concern for others, it is not reducible to self-interest, law
or religion.
But, can we be more precise about what makes some actions morally correct, and
others not? We are getting there…
As County Executive for Baltimore County from 1962-1966 had the authority to
award contracts for public works projects to engineering firms. In exercising that
authority, he functioned at the top of a lucrative kickback scheme.
Lester Matz and John Childs were two of many engineers who participated in the
scheme. Their consulting firm was given special consideration as long as they made
secret payments to Agnew of 5% of fees from clients. Even though their firm was
doing well, they entered into the arrangement to expand their business. They felt
that in the past they had been denied contracts from the county because they
lacked of political connections.
It is easy to see that such behavior is unethical. But why is it unethical? What moral
principles were violated?
Four types of theories are currently being debated; they differ mainly in what
principles they consider most important.
Ethical Theories
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is the view that we ought to produce the most good for the most
people, giving equal consideration to everyone affected.
Brandt: Rule-Utilitarianism
Moral rules are primary (as opposed to right action). We ought to act on those rules
which, if generally followed, would produce the most good for the most people.
Individual actions are right (moral) when they conform to those rules.
Rules should be considered in sets that Brandt calls “moral codes”. A moral code is
justified when it consists of a set of rules which, if adopted and followed, would
produce the most overall good. Such a code is said to be optimal. Code sets may be
very general, or highly specific (like engineering codes of ethics).
Duty Ethics
John Rawls tries to formulate general principles that can be ranked in order of
importance without having to rely on intuitive judgments.
Valid principles of duty are those that would be voluntarily agreed upon by all
rational persons in a “contracting” situation.
A rational person
1. Lacks all specific knowledge of himself.
2. Has general knowledge of human societies and science.
3. Has a rational concern for his long-term interests.
4. Seeks to negotiate a principles all will voluntarily follow.
All rational people will (according to Rawls) agree to abide by two basic principles,
namely,
1. Each person is entitled to the most extensive amount of freedom compatible with
an equal amount for others.
2. Differences in social power and economic benefits are justified only when they
are likely to benefit everyone, including members of the most disadvantaged group.
Human rights ethics differs from duty ethics in believing that human rights form the
highest principle; we have duties because others have rights. For example,
individuals do not have a right to life because others have a duty not to kill them,
but rather, the duty to protect life (not kill) arises from the right to life.
Locke argued that to be a person entails having rights- human rights- to life, liberty
and property generated by one’s labor. Locke’s view of rights are now called liberty
(or negative) rights. Such rights place duties on other people not to interfere with
one’s life. Locke’s theories had a strong influence on the founding fathers and are
reflected today in libertarian ideology.
Virtues are acquired habits that enable us to engage effectively in rational activities
– activities that define us as human beings.
Intellectual Virtues – foresight, efficiency, creativity, mental discipline,
perseverance, etc.
Moral virtues – courage, truthfulness, generosity, friendliness, etc.
The Golden Mean suggests that moral virtues occupy the middle ground between
two extremes:
foolhardiness – courage – cowardice
tactlessness – truthfulness – secretiveness
wastefulness – generosity – miserliness
Moral virtues allow us to pursue a variety of social goods within a community.
In order to apply virtue ethics to professional ethics, MacIntyre introduces the idea
of practices-cooperative activities aimed toward achieving social goods that could
not otherwise be achieved. The goods are said to be internal goods because they
are the results of the workings of the practice. External goods, fame, fortune,
prestige, etc., can be gained in many ways; internal goods are the result of practice.
The primary internal goods of medicine are good health and respect for patient’s
autonomy; the primary internal good of the law is social justice.
What is the primary internal good of engineering? The primary internal good of
engineering is the creation of useful and safe products while respecting the
autonomy of clients and the public. A responsible engineer is motivated (in part) by
the safety and autonomy of the public.