Lecture-3 Social &

Ethical Aspects in
Engineering
BY: ABDUL HANAN TAQI
Ethical Dilemmas, Choices, and Codes of Ethics
 Resolving Moral Dilemmas
1. Moral clarity
Need to know something is wrong! Do not ignore problems!
Loyalty to employer, responsibilities to public and
environment
(and complex relations between these)
2. Know the facts
Get hard, documented facts, discuss with others
Competence matters in gathering technical facts
 Resolving Moral Dilemmas
3. Consider options
Diversity of actions to take? Evaluate/discuss.
Long-term, short-term perspectives, repercussions?
“Creative middle solution”?

4. Make a reasonable decision

Weigh all factors, recognize “gray areas”/compromises
An engineering design problem?
 Codes of Ethics
Why are codes important?
Serve and protect the public
Guidance/support for engineers
Inspiration, deterrence, discipline
Shared standards, education, mutual understanding
Profession’s image

Limitations of codes
Too vague to be useful in every day ethical decision making?
Impossible to cover all eventualities
 National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
Code of Ethics for Engineers
Preamble: Engineering is an important and learned profession.
As members of this profession, engineers are expected to
exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity.
Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life
for all people. Accordingly, the services provided by engineers
require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity and must be
dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and
welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard of
professional behavior that requires adherence to the highest
principles of ethical conduct.
 Fundamental Cannons

Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

Perform services only in areas of their competence.
Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful
manner.
Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
Avoid deceptive acts.
Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and
lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness
of the profession.
 Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public”

How to assess impact on human safety, health, and “welfare”?

Example:
Amartya Sen uses a “capabilities approach:”
Being able to live a long life in health
Being able to get an education, being able to work
Being able to have freedom of expression and association
Lack of welfare=capability deprivation
Note: It does not say the engineer should be encouraged to focus on (even extreme)
capability deprivation. Should it?
 IEEE Code of Ethics
We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in
affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal
obligation to our profession, its members and the communities we serve, do hereby
commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree:

1. To accept responsibility in making engineering decisions consistent with the safety, health,
and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public
or the environment;

Concern: “Disclose” phrase nice, but “consistent” vs. ABET (NSPE), “engineers shall hold
paramount the safety, health, and welfare”... is a weaker statement? What does “consistent”
even mean?
 IEEE Code of Ethics
2. To avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to
disclose them to affected parties when they do exist;
Example: Ownership in a supplier’s company

3. To be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available

data;
Examples: When dishonest claims give you an advantage over a competitor,
or when unrealistic claims endanger individuals
 IEEE Code of Ethics
4. To reject bribery in all its forms;
Example: Supplier gifts, when are they big enough to constitute a
bribe?

5. To improve the understanding of technology, its appropriate application,

and potential consequences;
Examples: Importance of teaching youth about engineering,
importance of publishing engineering results in IEEE publications
 IEEE Code of Ethics
6. To maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake
technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after
full disclosure of pertinent limitations;
Example: A coop student who took on task that affected safety on a
manufacturing line

7. To seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge

and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others;
Note: Important to keep an emotional separation to your work so that when it is
criticized you do not take it personally
 IEEE Code of Ethics
8. To treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race, religion, gender,
disability, age, or national origin;
Note: There are certainly still problems in industry with these issues. We will
discuss this more later.

9. To avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or

malicious action;
Example: Speaking poorly of someone’s project results when they do not deserve
it
 IEEE Code of Ethics
10. To assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional
development and to support them in following this code of
ethics.
Example: If you are a manager, giving them opportunities
for professional development
(e.g., taking courses or attending a conference)
 Social justice perspectives
“Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and encourage engineers to
focus on improving the worst safety, health, and welfare problems”? Better?
Paid, or gratuitous, engineering with this goal:
Catholic: “preferential option for the poor” demands special attention for poor, and
demands that everyone contribute to the “common good”
Jewish/Muslim: Views on charity (which in some cases can be service, not money)
Rawls: “Difference Principle” as it applies to a state’s institutions, “inequalities are only
allowed that will reduce inequalities”
We should see Broad view of how to focus on promoting justices and avoiding injustices
Individual obligations to serve vs. a profession’s encouragement toserve

Does an engineer have an obligation to serve humanity (e.g., for free)?

Does an engineer have an obligation (even in paid employment) to help with the worst cases of
capability deprivation?
Are such obligations “duties” (certainly, engineers should not be coerced in any way to do these
things)?
If individuals do not have an obligation, does the profession as a whole? In connection with this, should
engineering profession’s codes of ethics “encourage” engineers to do these things (or “aspire” to doing
these things)? Not a requirement that any one engineer does these things.
 Case Study
Engineer A is employed by a health software company and is involved in the design of
specialized software in connection with the operations of facilities affecting the public health
and safety (i.e., nuclear, air quality control, water quality control). As the part of the design of
a particular software system, Engineer A conducts extensive testing and although the tests
demonstrate that the software is safe to use under existing standards, Engineer A is aware of
new draft standards that are about to be released by a standard setting organization-
standards which the newly designed software may not meet. Testing is extremely costly and
the company’s clients are eager to begin to move forward. The software company is eager to
satisfy its clients, protect the software company’s finances, and protect existing jobs; but at
the same time, the management of the software company wants to be sure that the software
is safe to use.
 Case Study
A series of tests proposed by Engineer A will likely result in a
decision whether to move forward with the use of the software.
The tests are costly and will delay the use of the software by at
least six months, which will put the company at a competitive
disadvantage and cost the company a significant amount of
money. Also, delaying implementation will mean the state public
service commission utility rates will rise significantly during this
time. The company requests Engineer A’s recommendation
concerning the need for additional software testing.
Question: Should Engineer A design the software
to meet the new standards?
Moral clarity:
Case Analysis
– What is wrong? What is the core issue/question?
– Will the software meet the new standards?
– Why are there new standards?
Experience shows new failure modes
New tests designed to test new failure modes
– Engineer’s role in new standards?
Development of new standards
Following new standards
Know the facts:
Case Analysis
– It is critical software (health/safety of public)
– New standards to test new failure modes (that you need to
understand)
– Testing is costly, company finances at stake
– Need to protect existing jobs
– Testing will delay release by > 6 months
– Testing will hurt competitive advantage?
– Utility rates will rise
 Case Analysis
Consider options
Option 1: Ignore the new tests, take risk to public safety/welfare, save time/money
Option 2: Conduct the tests, risk jobs, hurt finances, become certain software will work, protect safety/welfare of
the public
Option 3: Creative middle of the road solution:
Is there are limited version of full tests that could be conducted that would partially test, but save some
money/time?
 Case Analysis
Make a reasonable decision
– Pick Option 2 since safety/health/welfare of the public is
paramount
– If company says no, pick Option 3 and try to do a limited test for
the failure mode (your competence in coming up with an
economical test is critical here).
In this option, all constraints considered, you try to protect the
safety, health, and welfare of the public
 Case Analysis
• Harris et al. idea to try to make solving moral dilemmas more
analytical/quantitative
• Given moral dilemma
– Establish key features, issues
– Establish extremes of features/issues and paradigms (indicating
totally ethical vs. clearly unethical aspects)
– Construct a line drawing (see below)
– Evaluate “test case” (your current moral dilemma)