(These notes refer to Chapter 1 of the text Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases, Harris,

Pritchard, James, Englehardt, and Rabins. Cengage Learning, Inc. 2019. (6th edition) )

Summary of Chapter 1: Engineers: Professionals for the Human Good

Consider some of the projects of engineering: airplanes, computers, bridges, nuclear reactors,
and space satellites. Engineers are in a position to have a profound impact on humanity. These
projects can greatly benefit humanity or result in harm and destruction (through design or
negligence). What engineers, in fact, do is one question. What engineers ought to do is another
question entirely. This second question is the focus of Engineering Ethics.

Our focus here is on professional ethics. Professional codes of ethics have been created to
specify these shared ethical standards for each profession. The various professions (e.g.,
physicians, lawyers, CPAs) each have a code(s) of ethics. Engineering has many such codes.
One example is the NSPE (National Society for Professional Engineers’) Code of Ethics. Printed
below is the Preamble of the NSPE Code of Ethics:

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 principle of ethical conduct.

The NSPE Code of Ethics is meant to provide guidelines for all engineers, not just NSPE
members. Take a look at the Appendix in the back of the text where NSPE Code of Ethics is
found. You can also search online for the Codes of Ethics for some other engineering societies
such as the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).
Make sure that you can find the NSPE Code of Ethics in the textbook quickly, since I may ask
you a question about it on a quiz.

There are different functions for professional codes of ethics. Probably the most important
function is that professional codes of ethics provide common standards for professional conduct.
This benefits both the professional and the public. Professional codes of ethics tell professionals
what conduct is expected of them, and they also tell the public what they can expect from
professionals. Another interesting point is that the codes of ethics can provide a sort of moral
“backup” when professionals are pressured by others to violate their professional ethics. The
professional can simply reply that their professional code requires them to act in a certain
manner (e.g., disclose potential conflicts of interest or keep client information confidential).
Furthermore, historically, engineering societies have been involved in establishing standards of
acceptable design and practice.

The engineering codes of ethics should be taken seriously. They represent the ethical standards
of the professional engineering community. One should keep in mind, however, that they’re not
comprehensive. Although the codes often indicate a general direction to be taken, there is no
mechanical procedure for determining the best course of action. The codes are also open for
modification. For example, the idea that engineers have duties to the public (beyond duties to
their employers and clients) wasn’t widely introduced until the 1970’s. Now, nearly all the
major engineering codes state that engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare
of the public. The codes are also beginning to incorporate more references to the environment
than they have done in the past.

There are some occupations (e.g., physicians or lawyers) we would say are undeniably
professions and others (e.g., a worker at a fast-food restaurant) we would say are not professions.
It’s difficult to precisely define what constitutes a profession. Philosopher, Michael Davis,
defines a profession as follows:

“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.” (see text, p. 3 and
associated notes).

In addition, professionals generally undergo extensive training during which they achieve the
vital knowledge and skills for participating in the profession. Professionals generally control
their own services through licensing procedures and accreditation of educational institutions.
Furthermore, professions (like engineering) have knowledge and skills that are essential to the
welfare of society. On the other hand, the textbook emphasizes one way in which engineering
differs from other professions: in the United States, professional registration of engineers is not
a requirement. In Box 1.3 on page 5, the authors discuss some of the arguments for and against
requiring professional registration for engineers.

The textbook discusses three stages in the development of professional identity. Initially,
professionalism is interpreted as following a list of strict guidelines and behaviors external to
one’s own values. However, by the end of the development cycle, the professional (in our case,
engineer) ultimately integrates his/her personal values with those of his/her profession. A
commitment to life-long learning plays a critical role in this development.

Ethics, including engineering ethics, is often divided into negative and positive ethics. The
category of negative ethics focuses on actions a person shouldn’t take (e.g., one shouldn’t steal),
while positive ethics focuses on which actions a person should take (e.g., one should help
others). The authors of the text refer to negative ethics as prohibitive ethics (or more
constructively conceived as preventative ethics), and positive ethics as aspirational ethics.
Although the code of ethics of the NSPE has traditionally been prohibitive in character (See Box
1.4 on paged 9), there have been some changes which seem to be moving in a more positive
direction. For example, provision III.9.e of the NSPE code states the following:

“Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers and
should keep current in their specialty fields by engaging in professional practice,
participating in continuing education courses, reading in the technical literature, and
attending professional meetings and seminars.” (see textbook, p 273)
The authors of the book believe that although preventative engineering ethics is crucial (e.g.,
engineers shall not reveal client confidential client information), more emphasis needs to be
placed on aspirational engineering ethics. Aspirational ethics range from the obligatory
(engineering codes require the promotion of human well-being) to the supererogatory (actions
which are commendable but not required). Engineers Without Borders provides a good example
of engineers (and engineering students) engaging in supererogatory actions. Rules (such as in
the engineering Codes of Ethics) are generally effective for expressing prohibitive (negative)
elements of engineering ethics. However, when analyzing aspirational (positive) ethics, it may
be more appropriate to speak of the character traits or virtues of the “good engineer.” These
character traits might include elements such as professional pride and social awareness.

The authors of the textbook conclude that “Promoting the well-being of the public is the primary
responsibility of the engineering profession” (page 8). They discuss two important themes which
should direct the manner in which engineers use design to improve this well-being.

First, engineers must also learn to take into account the social and value dimensions of
technology. Training engineers to be technically competent is no longer sufficient. By
considering “Engineering as Social experimentation” (with the public as the experimental
subjects), the importance of engineering responsibility with respect to technology is highlighted.
In ordinary scientific experimentation on human subjects, the explicit informed consent of the
subjects is required before the experimentation can take place. In contrast, in the case of the
social experimentation of engineers (through airplane, and automobiles (driverless in the
future!), and bridge designs), the subjects (the public) do not generally give such explicit
informed consent. This state of affairs highlights the role of engineers with regard to alerting,
informing, and advising the public of the nature and implications of technology. Furthermore,
this role indicates the need for engineers to be able to communicate effectively with the public,
whether through writing, online, or through oral communication. While there are several
different ways which technology can be defined, engineers need to realize that technology is
embedded in a social network. There is a two-way relationship between society and
technology: technology influences society, but society also influences the development of
technology. Technology clearly affects society. Some historical examples include the
invention of the printing press and the effect of the development of technology on warfare over
the centuries. A more recent example includes the effect on technology on available jobs
(consider bank tellers and travel agents). Also, consider the effect of technology on social
relationships (specifically, the effect of social networking). Society affects technology. The
field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) is briefly described. STS is based on empirical
studies, and STS researchers cite numerous examples to demonstrate the socially embedded
nature of technology. Even concepts such as “efficiency” which were previously thought to be
purely technical in nature, can be shown to be largely determined by social considerations. STS
researchers emphasize that there are usually several different routes for technology to take, and
social and value considerations are often the determining factors.

Second, engineers must develop a critical attitude toward technology. In order to evaluate
technology with regard to its many social effects, three terms are introduced: technological
determinism, technological optimism, and technological pessimism. Technological
determinism claims that the development of technology proceeds of its own accord and at its
own pace and cannot be stopped or controlled by society. Technological optimism claims that
the effects of technology on human welfare are generally good. Often, technological optimists
focus on the increased standard of living that technology affords human beings. On the other
hand, technological pessimism emphasizes the negative effects of technology, including the
effects on the environment, the threat to our freedom (especially electronic surveillance), and the
decline of meaning (for example, the effect of social networking on human relationships). Given
the many potential good and bad effects of technology, engineers must learn to take a critical
attitude toward technology. The rapidly changing nature of technology also makes clear the
importance of engineers continuing their professional development throughout their careers.
Engineers must be current in their fields to successfully fulfill all their responsibilities.