One of the things I always do toward the beginning of the engineering ethics classes I teach, when we are just being introduced to the subject, is to pose the following question. I say here we are, together in this classroom inside of this building on campus. Look around you; can you point to something in this room that has not been engineered in some way, shape, or form?
Inevitably, the students begin looking around; up at the ceiling, down at the floor, around at the walls, and at the physical objects in the room itself. It’s a tough exercise, as they can’t find much. Someone will inevitably say something like “us,” meaning the people in the class, the humans in the room. And that usually leads to a further discussion of the many ways that humans have been augmenting themselves for thousands of years via medical and surgical procedures, prosthetics of various kinds, dentures, eyeglasses, etc. All of which, of course, are built artifacts, products of engineering, no matter how rudimentary.
The point quickly becomes clear — we live in an engineered world. From our homes to our transportation to our clothing and food and the ways we entertain ourselves, to the ways we communicate with others; all of this (and much more) is a result of engineering activity.
So, what does this somewhat obvious and perhaps trivial fact mean? Well, for one, it makes clear engineering’s impact on the world and people’s lives. Every single day, all around the world, people are impacted and shaped by the many engineered products and systems they interact with and use on a daily basis.
Ok. So again, what does this mean? This fact itself suggests a kind of responsibility that engineers have towards the general public, broadly conceived. We might spell it out in something like an obligation to “do the right thing” so that these products and systems function in the way that they were designed to function and don’t fail prematurely or in some catastrophic ways that could injure or harm people, or even prove fatal.
If we look more closely at this responsibility or obligation, we find that it is a manifestation of a moral belief about our obligations towards other people.
As an example, consider our general moral obligations towards children. Most people would agree that for children that are not one’s own, some really basic principles apply such as not to harm them or put them in danger, or the more direct obligation to intervene on their behalf if they are in some obvious need of help.
But the moment one becomes a parent, that new role imposes on parents a unique moral obligation to their children that others who are not the child’s parents do not share; to care for them, house them, feed them, give them emotional support, see to their education and so forth. This shows how taking on a role imposes some unique moral obligations that those not in that role may not share, and demonstrates how the concept of “role responsibility” works. The analogy carries over to engineers and their work and the related moral responsibilities imposed on them by their role as engineers and the work that they do and its unique relationship to the general public.
This is why the first fundamental canon of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) code of ethics states that the primary moral duty of engineers is to “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.”
Of course, people will (and do) argue over what exactly this means practically speaking in terms of what is meant by the public good and to what extent engineers can (and should) act on this principle. But that is the natural thing to do in debates about ethics, as human beings go about negotiating the shared moral space we call life.
Miles Budimir
Senior Editor
Filed Under: Commentaries • insights • Technical thinking, NEWS • PROFILES • EDITORIALS
