Critical Reflection 3 ENGE 5984 Marie Landivar

Virtue Ethics
I agree with Harris’s critique. Engineers usually follow a set-in stone code of good practices.
Even though there is merit in these types of rules, it can become mechanical. The article
explains as an example of a limitation “normalizing deviance”. This has happened a lot in my
career, where certain construction practices, that are not recommended by most design codes,
become normalized. This has led to issues everywhere, where the consequences can cost many
lives. So, a rule that says to avoid normalizing deviance could be good, however, it shouldn’t be
a rigid rule neither. In certain circumstances, like in concrete production, it may be acceptable
to allow deviances. Usually this follows a strict quality control in many of it’s characteristic, like
temperature. Codes usually recommend a max temperature during casting. However,
understanding the reason behind the limit of the temperature, it can be accepted a few higher
degrees, if it can be proved that the performance will not be affected. This decision would
require some level of experience, which is one of the points made by the author, who said
judgement is necessary to determine when that is the case.
Virtue Ethics education could be beneficial long rule. We usually are told the common ethic
practices but usually not told why. “It’s bad otherwise” is a vague answer. The ability to discern
when something should be done, or should be avoided, needs to be developed on engineers. A
set-in stone rule can result in trying to do the absolute minimum to comply with them. It
shouldn’t just be a “follow this and you will be fine”, one should feel some accountability for
their own practices. One of the non-technical excellences, commitment to the Public Good
should have a special emphasis, specially when hundreds of lives are at stake. Checking again
the math just in case or reviewing again the technical drawings to ensure it is clear, could mean
a world of differences.
There are some virtues I wish to develop during my professional life. In the technical ones,
“sensitivity to risk” would be ideal. Usually, there are many states that can be analyzed for a
structure. However, one usually chooses the most relevant, so being able to distinguish which
are riskier would be a serious help. Another thing is that it could help against getting
accustomed, which happens more easily as time passes, and can result in omitting important
considerations.
The techno-social sensibility one could be a great asset, but more in the social part in civil
engineering. We need to be able to recognize that we design would have great repercussion if it
where to end badly. To not just say “I did my part”, but to try to go beyond, being the
importance of our field of work. Inside here I would pair the commitment to the Public Good
and a bit of respect for Nature. Trying to do one best for the betterment of a community would
help improve it at long term. Construction tends to be polluting a lot and construction is not
going to stop neither, then, when possible, measures could be tried to minimize our impact. So
I agree there should be some amount of focus in the social impact that we carry, at some point
of the career.