CHAPTER ONE

Engineers: Professionals for the

Human Good

Main Ideas in This Chapter

• A person s profession is a part of her personal identity.
• According to several prominent accounts, engineering is a profession, although the
absence in a jurisdiction of a requirement for registration in order to practice
engineering weakens its professional status in that jurisdiction.
• Engineering codes and other statements from leaders of the engineering profession
impose on engineers an obligation to promote the public good, sometimes interpreted
as well-being and also as welfare or quality of life.
• Promoting the well-being of the public includes not engaging in professionally
prohibited actions, preventing harm to the public, and actively promoting the public s
well-being.
• In designing for well-being, engineers must keep in mind the social context of
engineering and technology, and the need for a critical attitude toward technology.

DRIVERLESS CARS ARE IN OUR future. It is easy to understand why; given the
advantages they offer. They promise a significant reduction in traffic collisions, increased
access of the elderly and disabled to automobile transportation, lower fuel consumption, and
major increases in traffic flow. On the other hand, they raise many social, legal, and ethical
questions. Perhaps the most obvious question is who should have responsibility for accidents.
The first fatal accident of a driverless car occurred in Williston, Florida, on May 7, 2016. The
occupant of the Tesla driverless car was killed when a tractor-trailer made a left turn in front of
the car. The car went under the truck s trailer without applying the brakes, evidently because
neither the autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the trailer against a brightly lit sky.
Where should moral responsibility and legal liability lie in this case? Investigation revealed that
the driver did not operate the Tesla according to instructions, and that Tesla did not deploy a
system capable of identifying situations in which the driver was not pre- pared to take
over at any time. And how realistic is it to install an autopilot system and then tell the driver
she must be able to take over at any time?
Liability and responsibility are not the only questions raised by driverless cars. How safe
are they? What kinds of information should be given to drivers before they purchase or use
these vehicles? How should the potential problems of hacking and terrorism be handled? (A
driverless car filled with explosives could be like a drone on the highway.) What about the
potential loss of driving-related jobs? Should there be retraining for other jobs?
Many of these questions have appeared in other forms and other contexts before.
Technology almost always raises new moral and social issues or, most commonly, old
issues in new ways. Questions of responsibility are not unique to driverless cars. They arise in
the context of so-called engineering accidents, such as the loss of the Challenger and
Columbia space vehicles. Moral issues also arise in thinking about the duties of engineers in
such areas as the relationship of technology to the environment and handling risk properly. The
issues are important to engineers not simply because engineers have usually created the
technologies involved, but because engineers are professionals, and the concept of
professionalism has a strong moral component. The two components of professionalism are (1)
expertise in a certain area (accounting, law, medicine, engineering, etc.) and (2) adherence to
moral guidelines, usually laid out in a formal code of ethics. Failure in either of these two areas
means one is deficient as a professional. This book is about the second component of
professionalism. We hope you are ready to begin your journey of discovery into the moral or
ethical dimension of engineering.1

1.1 YOUR PROFESSION IS PART OF YOUR IDENTITY

If you were asked to identify or describe yourself, how would you do it? You might give your
name and family affiliation, and maybe your place of residence. If you are employed, you
would probably give your occupation. I am a salesperson for Blue Jeans, Inc. I am an
executive with Safety First Corporation. If you are a professional, giving your profession would
probably be especially important to you. I am a cardiologist in private practice. I am an
accountant with Jones, Brown and Smith. I am a civil engineer with Galendo Engineering.

If you are an engineer and the chances are

good that, if you are reading this book, you
are an engineer or an engineering student
your professional identity will become an
important part of your conception of who you
are. To get some sense of the power of
professional identity, just ask yourself: How
does it feel to be an engineer? If you are not
yet a degreed engineer, ask yourself: Will I
feel differently about myself when I get that
degree? The answer to this question is
probably yes. You will of course give a deep
sigh of relief, now that you have finally done
it. And you will be proud of yourself, now that
you are a true professional. But there is
some- thing deeper. See Box 1.1 for an
account of how professional identity
develops.
1.2 WHAT IS A PROFESSION?

What, then, is a profession? The use of profess and related terms in the Middle Ages was
associated with a monk s public profession of a way of life that carried with it stringent moral
requirements. By the late seventeenth century, the term had been secularized to apply to
those who professed to be duly qualified to per- form certain services of value to others. Three
approaches to professionalism are especially important in understanding the concept, and can
be useful in understanding professional identity. First, there is the Sociological Account,
which holds that there are characteristics especially associated with professionalism.
See Box 1.2 for one widely known list of such characteristics.
A second way to understand
professionalism is the Social
Contract Account. On the Social
Contract Account, professionals have
an implicit agreement with the public.
On the one hand, professionals
agree to attain a high degree of
professional expertise, to provide
competent service to the public, and
to regulate their conduct by ethical
standards. On the other hand, the
public agrees to allow professionals
to enjoy above-average wages, to
have social recognition and prestige,
and to have a considerable degree of
freedom to regulate them- selves.
The idea of such an implicit
contractual relationship, if taken
seriously, imposes a powerful sense
of obligation on a professional or a
developing professional. A third
account of professionalism is offered by philosopher Michael Davis, who defines a profession
in the following way:

A profession is a number of individuals in the same occupation voluntarily organized to

earn a living by openly serving a moral ideal in a morally permissible way beyond what law,
market, morality, and public opinion would otherwise require.

Davis definition highlights the facts that a profession is not composed of only one
person, that it involves a public element, that it is a way people earn a living and is therefore
usually something that occupies them during their working hours, that people enter into it
voluntarily, and that it involves a morally desirable goal, such as curing the sick or promoting
the public good.
1.3 ENGINEERING IS A PROFESSION

Engineering is clearly a profession by all three accounts. There are a few rough edges to
the fit, but this may be true with all professions. First consider the Sociological Account.
Becoming an engineer requires high level of training at the college or university level.
Engineering is vitally important to the public. Just as one cannot imagine a modern society
without the services of lawyers and doctors, one cannot imagine our society without highways,
computers, airplanes, and many other technological artifacts designed by engineers.
Engineers have considerable control over the curriculum in engineering schools and the
standards for admission to the profession. Control is usually exercised through the influence of
professional societies and other professional organizations. The engineering profession does
not have complete control over the practice of engineering, because, in some countries, such
as the United States, one does not have to be a registered professional engineer (PE) in order
to practice engineering. In fact, in the United States, only about one-third of engineers are
registered with their state licensing boards. Further, the so-called industry exemption exempt
engineers whose services are not directly offered to the public.

To continue, while engineers who work in business and public organizations may not be
as autonomous as lawyers or doctors who have their own practice, they probably have more
autonomy than most nonprofessionals, if only because non-engineers do not have enough
technical knowledge to give more than general direction to engineers. Finally, engineers, like
other professionals, have ethical codes that are sup- posed to regulate their conduct for the
public good. Cynics may claim that professional codes are mere window dressing, designed to
disguise the fact that professionals are primarily out to promote their own economic self-
interest. While there is some truth to the claim, we believe ethical considerations are taken
very seriously by most engineers and other professionals.

The question whether engineers should have to be registered in order to practice

engineering is especially important for the professional status of engineering. It is also
controversial in the engineering profession itself. See Box 1.3 for a summary of some of the
arguments.

We believe the YES arguments are stronger and that the exemption from universal
registration weakens engineering professionalism. It is not, however, a fatal weakness. A
licensed PE must sign off on most public-works projects, and most business would probably
want their engineering work to be performed by a degreed engineer, if not a PE.

The engineering profession also satisfies for the most part the conditions set by the
Social Contract Account, although, again, it fits some aspects of the account better than
others. Engineers in general have a high level of professional expertise and render competent
service. Engineers also have ethical codes, but the loss of PE registration as a penalty for
unethical conduct does not prohibit an engineer from professional practice, as in most other
professions, since engineers are not required to be licensed to practice. So perhaps it can be
said that the engineering profession does not have the same ability to enforce ethical
sanctions as some other professions. Nevertheless, a severe ethical violation can tarnish the
reputation of an engineer and possibly subject the engineer to legal penalties.

On the other side of the social contract, engineers do command attractive wages and
considerable social status. Because most engineers work in large organizations, they may not
have as much freedom in the workplace as professionals who are in private practice; but
lawyers and physicians increasingly are also employed by large organizations, so this
difference can be exaggerated. Our conclusion must be, then, that, by the first two standards
we have used, engineering fits into the category of “profession”, although there are a few
rough edges in the fit, especially with regard to the lack of a requirement for universal
registration.
Look back at the Michael Davis definition of a profession. We believe you will conclude that
engineering satisfies this definition as well.

1.4 A PROFESSION WITH A DIFFERENCE: THE PRIMACY OF THE PUBLIC GOOD

In addition to not requiring registration, engineering has another feature that differentiates it
from most of the other major professions: the clear primacy of the obligation to the good of the
public, as opposed to the good of employers, clients, and patients. To see this difference,
contrast engineering with law, medicine, and accounting.

The Preamble to the 2013 Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar
Association says, a lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients,
an officer of the legal system, and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of
justice. Looking at the order of priorities, the obligation to clients appears to be primary, a
conclusion which may be justified by the nature of the adversary system of justice in the
United States. In the adversary system, each client has a lawyer who advocates her interests,
and the contest in court, regulated by the relevant laws, is supposed to produce a just
outcome. This at least is a common justification for the claim that lawyers owe their primary
obligation to their clients.

The Preamble to the 2001 Code of Medical Ethics of the American Medical
Association begins by saying that the provisions in the code are developed primarily for the
benefit of the patient. It goes on to say that the physician must hold responsibility to patients
foremost, as well as to society, other health professionals, and self. Here, obligations to the
patient take first place. As in the legal profession, the physician is the advocate of the patient
and his or her rights. Even if the patient has committed a crime, the physician must in general
be devoted to treating the medical needs of the patient, rather than
being concerned with legal or even moral issues. There are a few exceptions to this rule, such
as the obligation of physicians to report child abuse, but exceptions are few and far between.
Finally, under The Public Interest, section .02 of the code of the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants says that a distinguishing mark of a profession is responsibility to the
public but goes on to list clients as the first member of the public, along with credit
grantors, governments, employees, investors, the business and financial community, and
others....

The first place given to clients, as well as the italics, indicates the primacy of client
loyalty.
Prior to the 1970s, engineering codes also listed loyalty to clients or employers as the first
responsibility of engineers. The first canon of the 1912 code of the American Institute of
Electrical Engineers, for example, says that engineers should consider the protection of a
client s or employer s interests his first professional obligation. The first canon of the 1963
code of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers says that an engineer should serve with
devotion his employer, his clients and the public. Note here that employers and clients appear
to take first place.

In the 1970s, a profound shift of emphasis took place. The primary obligation of
engineers shifted from clients and employers to the public. This shift may have been
foreshadowed by an earlier code. The 1828 charter that established the Institution of Civil
Engineers in the United Kingdom defines engineering as the art of directing the great sources
of power in nature for the use and convenience of man. At the time of this code s writing, the
expression use and convenience of man was often associated with utilitarian thinking and
thus implied an obligation to maximize the good, and this good may have been the general
public good, as it was in utilitarian thinking.5 Whatever may have been the case with this early
code, engineering codes are now clear that the primary obligation of engineers is to the public.
As an example, the first of the Fundamental Canons of the code of the National Society of
Professional Engineers (NSPE) says that engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health,
and welfare of the public.
This change was not supported by everyone in the engineering profession. In October of 1978,
shortly after the change in priorities occurred, engineer Samuel Florman wrote a well-known
criticism of the change in priorities.6 Florman notes that engineering codes have traditionally
focused on gentlemanly conduct rather than concern for public welfare and expressed
dismay that the deceptive platitude that the professional s primary obligation is to the public...
should trump an employer s wishes or instructions... Florman provides several arguments to
bolster his opposition to giving priority to the public. One argument is that this new way of
thinking could produce organizational chaos. He fears that ties of loyalty and discipline
would dissolve, and organizations would shatter. Every engineer would follow her own
conscience, instead of allowing managers to decide issues, based on laws and judicial
decisions. Determining the will of the public can become weak if there is too much
reliance upon morality. He concludes this first argument by saying, Engineers are obliged
to bring integrity and competence to whatever work they undertake. But they should not be
counted upon to consider paramount the welfare of the human race.

Florman’s second major argument is that engineers are not qualified by training to make
ethical and policy decisions. This is not their area of expertise. He insists that engineers have
neither the power nor the right to plan social change. Engineers are not trained in social policy
issues, environmental issues, and other topics relevant to making decisions about the public
welfare, nor have they been given this right by law. Rather professionals should serve, not
lead in these areas. To be sure, business, government agencies, and citizen groups should
have access to engineering expertise, but engineers should not take the lead in making policy
decisions.

Both of Florman s arguments contain an undeniable element of truth. He is certainly

correct in wanting to avoid organizational chaos and in holding that engineers should in
general be loyal employees. He is also correct in his claim that engineers are not trained in
many areas relevant to the assessment of the social consequences of technology. In addition
to the areas he mentions, we could add that engineers are also not trained in psychology,
sociology, and economics.

Nevertheless, we believe that further considerations cast doubt on Florman s arguments.

First, Florman seems to believe that engineers should obey managers, no questions asked,
unless it is clear that they are being asked to disobey the law. If this is the case, engineers
would have no need of a code of ethics and probably should not be considered professionals
at all. Whether or not this conclusion would disturb Florman, it would disturb many engineers.
Second, Florman apparently assumes that organizational dissent weakens an organization,
but differing opinions and viewpoints often make an organization more creative and enable it
to anticipate problems before they cause trouble. Nowadays, some managers welcome
differing viewpoints and encourage employees to bring up criticisms. Third, engineers often
see problems before managers do, and understand them better. Being more on the ground
and involved more intimately in design and testing than managers, they can alert
managers to issues that should be considered.

How and to what extent engineers are obligated to concern themselves with the public
good is a complicated question of enormous importance. It is, we believe, an area where the
position of the engineering profession is still evolving. Think of the question of engineering
obligations with regard to the environment and the social effects of technology. We pursue this
issue only in the most general way here, but much of the rest of the book is devoted to the
question. How should engineering be devoted to the public good?

1.5 WHAT IS THE PUBLIC GOOD?

Even if we grant that engineers have an obligation to the public good, we can still ask what the
public good is. The most general answer to this question is spelled out in many codes, and the
answer is that engineers should hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
as the NSPE code states. Probably, the most fundamental term here and certainly the most
ambiguous and controversial is welfare.

The term welfare appears to have several equivalents in engineering codes, such as
well-being and quality of life. The Preamble to the NSPE code says that “
engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people. The code of the
Association for Computing Machinery obligates its members to con- tribute to society and
human well-being (I.1). This same section says that well- being includes a safe natural
environment. One of the Guidelines to Canon 1 of the code of the American Society of
Civil Engineers affirms that engineers should utilize their knowledge and skill for the
enhancement of human welfare and the environment. Finally, part of the introductory
statement of the code of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers states that its
members recognize the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life
throughout the world.
Assuming the equivalence of these terms, we shall take well-being as our term of choice and
say that promoting the well-being of the public is the primary responsibility of the engineering
profession.

1.6 BUT WHAT IS WELL-BEING?

No doubt, engineers have always assumed that their work contributes to the human good or
what we have now called human well-being, but, until recently, little explicit consideration has
been given to this goal. One reason for the increased interest in well-being is that the term
itself has been the focus of considerable public and academic discussion. Some countries,
such as the United Kingdom, France, Canada, and Australia, are measuring the well-being of
their citizens, with a view to basing national policy on the results.7 It is even conceivable that
engineers may one day be asked in some formal way to determine the well-being impact of
their work, just as they now are often asked to determine the environmental impact.

The mandate to engineers to promote human well-being or quality of life in their

professional work is clear, but more guidance about the nature of well-being is needed. A
simple equivalence of well-being (or welfare or quality of life) with material well-being is not
supported by psychological research. Psychologist Martin Selig- man maintains instead that
the five elements of well-being include positive emotion, enjoyment of activities in which one
can be absorbed, connection to something larger than oneself, accomplishment in projects or
work, and positive relationships.8 There is, if anything, even more agreement on what
constitutes the closely related concept of happiness. According to a poll conducted by the
British Broadcasting Corporation, the factors that promote happiness include human
relationships (47%) and health (24%); the remaining factors being work fulfillment (2%);
community and friends (5%); spirituality (6%); money and financial situation (7%); and a nice
place to live (8%).

These ideas, however, may be somewhat difficult to relate to engineering. One possible
way around this issue which may sometimes be useful is to take advantage of the widely
discussed Capabilities Approach (CA). Two important developers of the CA were Nobel Prize
winner in economics Amartya Sen and philosopher Martha Nussbaum. According to Sen and
Nussbaum, we do not have to determine what well-being is, but rather step back a little and
ask what conditions are necessary for the realization of some of the most commonly
recognized elements of well-being, regardless of how individuals or even experts may define
it. In his Foreword to the National Academy of Engineering s (NAE) presentation of the 20
greatest engineering achievements of the twentieth century, astronaut Neil Young put it this
way. Even though each of us may have our own concept of what comprises quality of life,
we can probably agree that certain living conditions are essential to a preferred quality in our
own lives. 10 If we look at the capabilities suggested by CA writers that are most closely
related to engineering, we get a clue as to what some of these living conditions might be:
having food, shelter, and water, having satisfying human relationships (communication, the
Internet), having free movement and expression (highways, air travel, the Internet, telephone,
etc.), and having a satisfactory relationship to the natural world (environmental preservation).

Whether or not we use the CA, we shall be considering the relationship of engineering to
well-being (or its conditions) throughout much of the rest of this book. In the next three
sections, we discuss three types of engineering activity identified by codes or other
engineering authorities and show how they relate to the theme of promoting human well-being.

1.7 PROHIBITED ACTIONS

Many precepts in ordinary or nonprofessional ethics identify actions we should not do.
Ethical precepts prohibit such actions as dishonesty, stealing, and murder. Prohibitions are
also a prominent part of professional ethics, including engineering ethics. Approximately 80
percent of the code of the NSPE is taken up with statements that are, either explicitly or
implicitly, prohibitive in character. See Box 1.4 for some examples.
Even many provisions of the NSPE code that
are not explicitly negative are actually
prohibitive in character. Section II.1.b states that
engineers shall approve only those
engineering documents that are in conformity
with applicable standards. In other words,
engineers shall not approve engineering
documents that are not in conformity with
applicable standards. This is not the same as
saying that engineers shall approve all
engineering documents that are in conformity
with applicable standards. Presumably, there
are other criteria that would need to be satisfied
for approval of an engineering document to be
required.

Many other provisions of the code, such as the

requirement that engineers notify the
appropriate professional bodies or public
authorities of code violations (II.1.f), are policing
provisions and thus are essentially prohibitive in
character. Even the requirement that engineers
be objective and truthful (II.3.a) is another way
of stating that engineers must not make biased and deceitful statements. Similarly, the pro-
vision that engineers shall continue their professional development (III.9.c) is another way of
saying that engineers shall not neglect their professional development.

There are several good reasons for the prohibitive tone of the NSPE code and many
other engineering codes. First, it makes good sense that the first duty of moral agents,
including professionals, is to refrain from harming others. Before doing good, one should not
do harm. Second, the codes are largely formulated in terms of rules that can be relatively
easily enforced by penalties, either of the societies or perhaps by law, and it is easier to
enforce rules that specify what is prohibited than rules that require, or at least encourage,
more open-ended and positive objectives. A rule that requires engineers to avoid conflicts of
interest is relatively easy to enforce, at least in comparison to a more open-ended requirement
such as the requirement that engineers hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the
public.
Without reviewing each of these provisions in detail, it is easy to see how refraining from
certain actions on the part of engineers can contribute to the well-being of the public.
Protection from harmful actions is an essential prerequisite for well-being, no matter how it is
defined. Taking just three examples, if engineers (1) are dishonest, (2) have their professional
judgment corrupted by conflicts of interest, or (3) do professionally incompetent work, their
clients or employers are harmed, because they are not given the benefit of honest, fair, and
competent judgments. This limits the ability of clients to use the services of engineers to
further their own goals and purposes.

1.7 PREVENTING HARM TO THE PUBLIC

Engineers are obligated not only to abide by code prohibitions, thereby refraining from
causing harm, but also, under some circumstances, to actively prevent harms caused by
technology or by other engineers. Prevention of harm usually involves (1) identifying and
disclosing potential harms and (2) attempting to prevent them. Such actions, even though
perhaps fundamentally negative, also have a positive dimension, since they often involve
courage, and it often requires considerable effort to oppose and prevent harms to the public. In
any case, they both protect and promote well-being.

Some codes are more specific than others about the obligations of engineers to actively
prevent harm. Canon 1 of the code of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers says
that its members commit themselves 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 [emphasis added].

The NSPE s Board of Ethical Review appeared to recognize the category of preventive
action in its decision on case 82-5, which was submitted by one of its members.12 In this
case, an engineer was terminated because he repeatedly protested his employer s actions,
believing the employer was wasting taxpayer money on a defense contract. The Board cited
section II.1.a. of the NSPE code operative at that time, which reads:

Engineers shall at all times recognize that their primary obligation is to protect the safety,
health, property and welfare of the public. If their professional judgment is overruled,
under circumstances where the safety, health, property, or welfare of the public are
endangered, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be
appropriate [emphasis added].

It also cited section III.2.b of the code as formulated at that time, which stated:
Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not of a design
safe to the public health and welfare and in conformity with accepted engineering standards. If
the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper
authorities and withdraw from further service on the project [emphasis added].

These two provisions underline the obligation of engineers not only to refrain from
harming the public, but to actively protect the public from harm. Citing the reference to the
welfare of the public, the Board concluded that the engineer had a right as a matter of
personal conscience to continue to protest his employer s actions, but did not have an
obligation to do so.
 Two of the most famous cases in engineering ethics have a strongly preventive theme.
Engineer Roger Boisjoly attempted to prevent the 1986 launch of the Challenger, a launch
which resulted in the destruction of the vehicle and the loss of the crew.13 Seventeen years
later, engineer Rodney Rocha attempted to persuade managers to arrange for photos of
possible damage the Columbia sustained when it was launched. This action might have
prevented the loss of the vehicle and crew.14 If we consider the astronauts in these two
examples to be members of the public, as surely they were, these examples also illustrate the
attempt to protect the public from harm. Actions illustrative of preventive ethics do not have to
involve such high-stakes actions, however. An engineer may simply believe that redesigning a
product can make it safer or that calling the attention of management to a problem might
prevent some later problem.

1.8 PROMOTING WELL-BEING: ASPIRATIONAL ETHICS

Although engineering codes of ethics place great emphasis on the importance of refraining
from certain kinds of behavior (prohibited actions) and engaging in behavior that prevents
harms, such provisions do not adequately capture the more positive aspects of engineering.
We call this more positive component of engineering ethics aspirational ethics. The
aspirational component can take many forms, ranging from actions that are obligatory since
engineering codes require engineers to promote human well-being to those that go beyond the
obligatory. In the next chapter, we shall call such actions supererogatory, or actions that are
praiseworthy, but go beyond what is required. We begin with some examples of aspirational
conduct that go beyond what is obligatory for engineers.

Engineer Bernard Amadei founded Engineers Without Borders (EWB-USA) in 2001. A

very compassionate man, Amadei was profoundly affected by the poor living conditions in
underdeveloped countries, such as the absence of clean water. In many cases, undergraduate
engineers could design and build water supply systems that would enable such people to have
a better life. Engineering students in EWB are responsible for many projects throughout the
world that have enhanced human well-being.

EWB-USA is an organization primarily for engineering students and professionals who

want to use their expertise to promote human welfare, especially, but not exclusively, in less
developed countries. In a typical example of the organization s work, engineering students
from the University of Arizona chapter developed a water supply and purification project in the
village of Mafi Zongo, Ghana. The project s aim was to supply 30 or more villages, with
approximately 10,000 people, with safe drinking water. In another project, engineering
students from the University of Colorado installed a water system in Muramka, a Rwandan
village. The system provides villagers with up to 7,000 liters of safe water for everyday use. It
consists of a gravity-fed settling tank, rapid sand filters, and a solar-powered sanitation light.15
The many Engineers Without Borders websites at colleges and universities around the world
feature a wide range of projects aimed at providing technical and engineering assistance to
impoverished areas Other engineers and like-minded people have advocated ideas and
projects that also illustrate aspirational ethics. Engineer P. Aarne Vesilind and Robert Textor
have come up with the term

Peace Engineering as a label for ideals such as global environmental management,

sustainable development, and seeking greater economic justice.16 In another example, the
Colorado School of Mines has created a program in Humanitarian Engineering which is
devoted to research and design intended to improve the well-being of poor and marginalized
communities around the world. Several other universities, including Dartmouth and Ohio State,
also have Humanitarian Engineering programs.

Examples of aspirational action are not confined to work in underdeveloped regions.

Engineers not infrequently engage in projects that go far beyond what employers or codes
require, and they do so out of a desire to promote the human good. Even after his retirement,
engineer Carl Clark devoted extensive time to the development of air bags for car bumpers,
and wearable air bags for the elderly to prevent broken hips. Much of his work was done on
his own time and without pay. Unfortunately, the air bags were eventually patented by
someone else.17

1.9 ASPIRATIONAL ETHICS AND THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING

Most engineers probably believe that their work promotes human well-being and that it is
required of them as engineers to promote well-being. A call to use techno- logical innovation
for the human good is evident in perhaps the most prestigious organization in American
engineering. In an unpublished speech in
2000 by the former president of the (NAE, on
the occasion of its selection of the 20
greatest engineering achievements of the
twentieth century, Dr. William A. Wulf
described the criterion for selecting the
achievements as not technological gee-whiz,
but how much an achievement improved
people s quality of life. He went on to say that
the achievements selected are a testament
to the power and promise of engineering to
improve the quality of human life worldwide.
18 Box 1.5 gives the NAE list of twentieth-
century
engineering s greatest achievements.
Recognizing the fundamental role that the
technological innovations of engineers will
have in determining the course of society in
the twenty-first century, in 2008, the NAE
formed a committee of distinguished
engineers to discuss what they referred to as
the Grand Challenges of engineering for the
twenty-first century. The list was
accompanied by a call to engineers to
dedicate themselves to ensuring the future in
the face of finite resources, increasing
population, and a current rate of consumption
that is unsustain- able. We believe that the
world’s cadre of engineers, as part of their obligation to promote human well-being, should
seek to put their engineering knowledge to work in meeting these grand challenges. Box 1.6
gives the list of the 14 Grand Challenges.

Recognizing that preparation for engineering careers should begin long before the
college years, NAE also established a K 12 mission to create an awareness of the NAE Grand
Challenges at the precollege level and to encourage students to pursue careers in
engineering. This mission includes the development of technical literacy and the motivation
that is necessary to successfully address these Grand Challenges. It also aims to educate the
populace on the engineering mindset and the role of engineering in address Grand Challenges
and improving the quality of life.
1.10 DESIGNING FOR WELL-BEING: THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ENGINEERING

The primary way in which engineers improve well-being is through design. In designing
for well-being, engineers must keep many things in mind. In this and the following section, we
discuss two important themes that should govern design: technology functions in a social
context and engineers must adopt a critical attitude toward technology.

Technologies always function in a

social context, and in this context, they
have consequences for good or ill. Another
way to state this same idea is to say that
engineering is a type of social
experimentation.19 Engineering innovations
whether consumer products, bridges, or
buildings are tested on members of the
public. Think again about the autonomous
car. Whether this innovation will promote
well- being, all things considered, can be
known only after it is placed in the social
context in which it will function. The
autonomous car clearly has many
advantages, but it also raises some serious
issues. Whether the advantages will
outweigh the disadvantages can only be
determined by performing the social
experiment of immersing the car in its social
context, which is composed of physical
objects and tools, knowledge, inventors,
operators, repair people, managers, government regulators, and the like.20 The social context
comprises a two-way causal relationship: technology affects society and the social context
influences the development of technology. Let’s begin with the effect of technology on society.
Technology affects our behavior in many ways. Speed bumps, for example, virtually force us
to drive more slowly. The invention of the printing press had an enormous impact on European
civilization and was a major factor in the Protestant Reformation. It is difficult to deny the
effects of the development of the technology of warfare on the conduct of warfare itself.
Technology also obviously affects the jobs we hold. Some jobs have been diminished in
numbers due to technology, such as jobs for bank tellers and travel agents. Others have been
created, such as computer programmers. Technology has also affected our social
relationships in many ways, sometimes affecting people in different generations differently. For
many young people, the elapse of several hours with no cell phone call or text message
prompts them to won- der whether their friends still care about them, but for many of an older
generation, the absence of such communications is a welcome relief. Many young people feel
that they are not in a genuine romantic relationship until they are Facebook offi- cial, but older
people find this hard to understand. Regular use of social networking sites such as Facebook,
MySpace, and Bebo almost certainly has an effect on human relationships. As is often the
case, the technologies probably affect even our defini- tions of crucial terms in this case, what
it means to have a friendship or relationship. We have already mentioned some of the ways in
which the autono- mous car can affect jobs and other elements of the social context. Social
forces also direct the development of technology. One way to understand this is acquainting
ourselves with the rapidly growing field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), a discipline
created by sociologists, historians, and philosophers.
Detailed investigations of technology have shown that there are usually several workable
solutions to a technical problem and that social and value factors often determine which
solution is adopted. Sociologists of technology Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker illustrate this
theme with the early history of the bicycle.21 The early evolution of the bicycle had two
branches : a sportsman s bike with a high front wheel that was relatively unstable and a more
utilitarian version with a smaller front wheel that was more stable. The sportsman s version
was designed for speed and was especially attractive to young athletic males. The utilitarian
version was more appropriate for pleasure riding and ordinary transportation. Eventually, the
utilitarian design came to be more widely accepted, and the high-wheeled bike disappeared.
Most people evidently decided that producing a sportsman s toy was not as important as
producing a useful means of transportation.
On a still more subtle level of analysis, STS researchers have found that even concepts that
are usually thought to have a purely technical definition often have a social and value
dimension. For example, what constitutes effective functioning or efficiency especially
important terms in technology is not determined wholly by technical considerations, but also in
part by social considerations. In engineering, the efficiency of a device is taken to be a purely
quantitative ratio of energy input and energy output. However, in practice, whether a device is
considered to work well is a product of the character and interests of a user group.22 Child
labor was in some ways more efficient than the use of adults, but when it was decided that the
use of child labor was immoral, children were no longer taken into account as a possible
source of more efficient labor.
The use of child labor was no longer considered in determining efficiency. Instead,
children were redefined as learners and consumers, not laborers. These so-called technical
concepts, then, have a social dimension. A similar process seems to be occurring in many
areas related to the environment. Standards for consumption of gasoline are changing. Even if
it is more efficient to build automobiles by older standards or to use less environment-friendly
standards in other areas, society will almost certainly continue to change the standards in
favor of the environment. Many design standards that were once controversial no longer are,
and design standards already incorporate many safety and environmental considerations that
probably cannot be justified economically or even by a consideration of trade-offs. Society has
simply made certain decisions that are no longer in dispute. They become part of the definition
of what it means to design a product, such as an automobile. Can you think of ways in which
social forces have influenced the evolution of the autonomous car and an evaluation of its
advantages? What about the increasing size and importance of the elderly population? What
about increasing population densities and traffic congestion?
1.11 ADOPTING A CRITICAL ATTITUDE TOWARD TECHNOLOGY

Some scholars hold that technological development has a life of its own that can only
minimally be controlled by individual humans or even society at large. For example, the
steamship was developed from prior wind-driven vessels, and diesel-powered and atomic-
powered vessels could not have been developed apart from steamships. There seems to be
something inevitable about the progression itself and the order in which it occurred.
Furthermore, many people believe that if a technology (good or bad) can be developed, it will
be developed, and there is little we can do about it. This position, technological determinism,
has been rejected by most scholars in favor of the view that humans can influence the
direction of technological development. But if there is freedom to direct the course of
technological development, how should it be directed? Technological optimists believe that
most technological development promotes well-being and should be encouraged. Consider the
situation in India.23 The country seems finally poised to experience the kind of explosive
economic development necessary if the mil- lions who live on less than $1/day are to escape
poverty. Remarkable increases in mobile phone connections, shopping malls, and prime office
space are only a few examples of growth, and the IT industry, which barely existed in 1991,
has the potential to do for India what automobiles did for Japan and oil for Saudi Arabia.
Technological pessimists, on the other hand, while not opposing all technological
development, want to enter a cautionary note. In India, for example, the development which
technological optimists praise may weaken or destroy many aspects of traditional life, such as
close-knit families and community ties that have great human value. Philosopher Albert
Borgman illustrates how technological development can be responsible for the loss of a
complex network of relationships by contrasting the fire- place with the modern furnace.24 The
fireplace was once a focal point for family life. The family gathered there for conversation and
storytelling.
Often the father cut the wood, the children brought in the wood, and the mother built the
fire. The centrality of the fireplace to family life is not something new. In ancient times, the
hearth was the place where the household deities dwelled and important ceremonies, such as
marriages, were conducted. Contrast the fireplace with the modern furnace, from which heat
appears without effort and without the involvement of family members. Similar considerations
apply to the traditional family meal as contrasted with a micro- wave meal. At the traditional
meal, the mother prepared the food, which might have been raised in a family garden in which
the whole family worked. Mealtime was a time for grace and discussion of the experiences of
the day, thus linking family members with each other and the transcendent. All of this is lost
when we grab a bite on the run from a microwave dinner and eat it in solitude.
The truth lies between technological optimism and pessimism. Creators of technology
must recognize that technology can have both desirable and undesirable aspects, and that
designers should try to maximize the desirable aspects and minimize the undesirable aspects.
This requires a critical attitude toward technology. Consider the example of social networking,
where the critical attitude is needed. Philosopher Shan- non Vallor recognizes the
psychological and informational value of social networking sites for people with serious
illnesses, for victims of violent crime, or those suffering and alienated in other ways. 25
However, she raises concerns about the influence of these same technologies on what she
calls the communicative virtues especially in their early development in young people. These
virtues include patience, honesty, empathy, fidelity, reciprocity, and tolerance, and they are the
ones necessary, she thinks, for the development of effective and satisfying interpersonal
relationships. She worries that the Internet may not be conducive to the development of such
virtues.
Vallor focuses on three of the communicative virtues. Patience is an important virtue for
sustaining close relationships. One must be willing to remain in communication with a friend,
even when it may sometimes be boring or irritating to do so; but on the Internet, we can
always say got to run or just click the person off. Honesty in personal relationships is the
willingness to offer one’s authentic self in relationship with another, but social networking sites
offer opportunities for massive misrepresentation of oneself, which is incompatible with
genuine friendship. Finally, empathy or compassion, although crucial for genuine relationships,
usually requires an encounter with the embodied presence of another person, enabling us to
see bodily expressions of pain, anger, disgust, or caring. The best expressions of sympathy
and compassion may be physical touching and embrace, none of which is possible in online
relationships.
The answer to the problems posed by social media is neither to get rid of them nor to
view them uncritically. Some way must be found, Vallor believes, to minimize these negative
effects while preserving the undoubted benefits. It is up to the creators of technology and
others to solve this problem. Whether or not Vallor s concerns are well founded and only
empirical research can determine this it is reasonable to suppose that social networking
technology has affected interpersonal relationships in some way.

1.12 GETTING DOWN TO CASES

Professionals are men and women of practice. As a physician once said to one of the
coauthors, physicians are tied to the post of use. The same is true of engineers. While
professionals are required to master large amounts of intellectually challenging material, the
ultimate aim of professional knowledge is to deal with use, with concrete problems that arise in
professional practice. Something similar applies to the ethical dimension of professionalism.
Professionals do not encounter the ethical dimension of their work in the form of abstract
dilemmas, but in the form of cases which must be resolved or dealt with in some way in order
to get on with the task at hand. Because of the centrality of cases in all areas of professional
work, this book contains many cases at the beginning of the chapters, in the body of the
chapters themselves, and in the appendix.

Cases serve several important functions: (1) Through the study of cases, we learn to
recognize the presence of ethical problems, even in situations where we originally saw only
technical issues. (2) Studying cases is the best way to develop our skills in ethical analysis.
Cases stimulate the moral imagination by challenging us to think of possible alternatives for
resolving them and to think about the consequences of those alternatives. (3) A study of cases
shows us that the codes of ethics, however useful, cannot provide ready-made answers to
many of the cases generated by professional engineering practice. Cases can convince us
that there is no substitute for developing our own ethical skills, and that in some cases, the
codes themselves should perhaps be revised. (4) Cases can show us that sometimes the
world of practice presents us with dilemmas that are not easily resolvable and that
professionals may disagree about what is right.

1.13 CHAPTER SUMMARY

By several widely accepted accounts of professionalism, engineering is a profession, although,

in contrast to most professions, one does not have to be registered in order to practice. Most
engineers, like professionals generally, probably increasingly identify with the values of their
profession as they experience more of professional life. One of the professional values in
engineering is the obligation to promote the good (welfare, well-being, quality of life) of the
public. According to contemporary engineering codes, this obligation takes precedence over
loyalty to clients and employers. Determining what constitutes the good or well-being of the
public can be controversial, but almost any conception of well-being requires that people have
food, shelter, water, satisfying human relationships (including a way to communicate with
others, such as telephone), free movement, and a relationship with the natural world that is not
in a state of degradation. Engineering is probably involved in all of these conditions of a
satisfactory life.
In carrying out the obligation to promote the public good, engineers must honor certain
professional prohibitions, such as not taking bribes or having conflicts of interest, and attempt
to prevent harm to the public that is caused by technology. Engineers have also recognized an
obligation to promote the well-being of the public. They also, from time to time, engage in
nonobligatory actions, such as participating as students in projects sponsored by Engineers
Without Borders or developing technologies that promote well-being. In pursuing their
professional projects, how- ever, engineers must keep in mind that engineering always
functions in a social con- text, and they must adopt a critical attitude toward technology.