Ethics in Engineering: Concepts Analysis

Introduction

Issues of ethics often arise at work, especially in software engineering, when people are made to
do morally wrong things. Sourour played a crucial role in unethical marketing deceit that led to
many adverse effects such as depression and suicide. The company was deceit posing as a
general information website, asking patients to take a quiz and eventually prescribe a medication.
However, the website was a marketing approach where all recommendations recommended the
company's drug. No matter what the patient's symptoms were, they were advised to use the drug,
raising the chances of adverse side effects.

Preventing direct marketing of pharmaceuticals was prohibited in Canada, leading companies to

invent new marketing techniques. While Sourour's role was simply a job, he participated in the
deceit. He was requested to code a deceitful and unethical quiz for teenage girls. The act behind
the designing of the code was ill-intended and unethical, which had fatal implications that his job
was morally wrong. In this case analysis, I will argue that deontology shows us that the code was
ethically problematic because it was deceitful and ill-intended. Therefore Sourour should have
declined to complete the code with the provided deceitful requirements.

Codes of Ethics Concepts and Case Analysis

The code of ethics for the engineering field sets the behavior and standards of practice by
engineers in the field. It addresses moral and ethical issues surrounding safety, competence &
professionalism, among others. Some of the key concepts from the code are that engineers
should always hold the utmost respect for public safety, health, and wellbeing, always seek to act
in the public's interest, and not engage in any deceitful acts or practices to the public.

Public health, safety, and wellbeing are very paramount in engineering practice. The central
concept in this area from the code of ethics stipulates that engineers shall always hold the utmost
respect for public safety, health, and wellbeing. The code advises engineers to seek high
authority in cases the public safety, health, and wellbeing are threatened. The concept also
demands that the engineers avail only the necessary documents conforming to set standards.
Engineers shall not share with third parties any information which the client or the employer has
not consented to, permit the use of their names in fraudulent enterprises, not aid in the unlawful
practice of engineering, and report a violation of this code.

According to this code of ethics, the action by Sourour was unethical. Sourour judgment as an
engineer was overruled because the pharmaceutical company provided the requirements pushing
for the sale of the drug. Nonetheless, he should have notified the employer about the potential
danger of the code. While it initially bothered him, he took no action as he processed the issue as
a job, regardless of the potential impact. His action threatened public safety, health, and
wellbeing, especially the teenage girls to whom it was targeted. Therefore the involvement of
Sourour was against the code of ethics.

In regards to deontology, Sourour choice to proceed with the project was unethical. According to
the deontological tool, what makes a choice right and ethical is its conformity with a moral norm.
Therefore a morally right action conforms to a moral standard. In this case, the moral norm is
honesty and integrity. Deceit is against the honesty and integrity of a person. Creating a website
that makes users believe it is something else from what it is. Sourour participated in deceiving
people to believe their diagnosis and drug recommendation through the website was truthful and
well-intentioned.

Further, the action by Sourour remains unethical regardless of the outcome. According to the
deontological tool, the ethics of an action are not determined by the consequences of this action.
Even if an act maximizes the reasonable implications of the action against a moral norm, it is still
unethical. Referring to the case study, the pharmaceutical company benefited positively from the
use of the website. The sales from the drug from the website were high, and the client was happy
with the results. Sourour was even invited to dinner as a celebration for the excellent work in his
honor. However, the marketing and sales benefit do not justify the unethical and immoral acts
derived from them.

A related code stipulates that engineers shall not act in any way deceiving way to the public.
They are discouraged from making statements that contain factual misrepresentations or
omissions of a fact. Engineers are advised to create advertisements for personnel recruitment
prepare articles for the lay or technical press. In the case of Sourour, the design of the website
code was deceitful to the public. It was designed to appear as a general information website
while indeed it was a marketing website for the pharmaceutical company. The users were
deceitfully made to believe that the quiz was simply a test to help diagnose their illness using the
symptoms, while in reality, it was a misrepresentation.

Further, the website concealed the fact on which the prescriptions were given. No matter the type
of symptoms the users of the website had, they were all recommended to use the same drug, the
client's drug. There Sourour participated in this deceit.

In regards to deontology, the action itself is considered unethical because of the intention behind
it.

According to the tool, what makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm. The only
thing unqualifiedly good is goodwill. Therefore any action without a good will or intention is not
ethical. Sourour coding of the website quiz was a deceit to the public whose purpose was only
leading to sales and not helping the target population find a solution to their problems. Because
all instances of symptoms were prescribed the same drug, the intention is clear that the motive
behind the action is ill and not for the users' goodwill. Sourour should not have completed the
code specification when he learned the intention was not for the benefit or wellbeing of the
public.

Armstrong Concepts and Case Analysis

Armstrong also covers key concepts on professionals' ethical and moral practice, specifically
medicine, engineering, and accounting. The guidance covers the professionals' actions or
expected behaviors in handling confidentiality matters between the clients. Further, the
professionals still have to consider the interests of the public. One of the raised concepts is that
the engineer's loyalty is to the clients of the employer. However, the distinction between the
positive and negative duty to the client is discussed, which determines if a professional should
take action. Positive duties bring about good merits, and the profession requires some action. On
the other hand, it is negative duty duties to harm and requires no action from the profession.

According to this concept, the client's interests in the pharmaceutical company are to be
protected. Even with the knowledge of the deceit, Sourour's loyalty is to the client who requested
the website design. Therefore it is considered ethical that Sourour protected the clients' interests
by not disclosing or reporting the matter. The interests of the public are harmed by keeping this
confidentiality, as the approach requires the engineer to assume negative duty. Professional
confidentiality to the clients falls under negative duty. It is a stronger duty than a positive duty
stipulating that the individual should take no action to prevent harm if there is an equal measure
of harm to both client and public. However, in this case, the public's interest is higher than those
of the client. The use of the website led to adverse side effects such as suicide and depression.
These implications are a higher stake than what the client may lose in sales.

The deontological approach to matter defends confidentiality to the client. According to

deontology, a professional should always guard confidentiality and protect the client's interests.
Therefore Sourour owed his loyalty to the client by keeping the information he knew. As such, it
was ethically right to protect the clients' interests and privacy of the matter. However, the case of
confidentiality, in this case, is not strong as it does as the deontology premises are not
substantial. This is because of loyalty to the client. In this case, they undermine and contradict
the very respect for persons. The use is potentially harmful to people's health, hence not
guaranteeing a strong premise for loyalty and confidentiality to the client. Therefore Sourour was
not right to protect the clients' interests and should consider they were against public interests.

Another core concept raised by Armstrong is that professionals are expected to consider the
consequences and implications of their professional duties on their adverse effects for both
present and future public health. Engineers are also encouraged to advise the employer or
consider further disclosure if necessary. They are permitted to go public with information
regarding the safety of a product.

Analyzing the case using this concept points out that Sourour should have considered the
implications of the action now and in the future and acted accordingly. Both short-term and long-
term consequences of using websites include adverse health effects such as suicide and
depression. Already cases of suicide were reported from the service, and continued use would
lead to more such cases. Therefore these are the consequences that Sourour should have
considered and sought advice on. The safety of the website as a product was compromised. He
should have sought the authority of the superior upon receiving the requirements from the client.

Looking at this concept from the deontology view, present or future implications have no weight
more than the action itself. According to deontology ethics, severe and considerable harm from
the product means ill intention behind the design. The pharmaceutical company was well aware
of the product's side effects but still pushed it to the market. The harm done is severe and against
moral norms. As such, deontology allows for infringement of this confidentiality when the action
meets specific criteria. In this case, disclosure would have been warranted as the moral objective
of saving lives justifies the violation of privacy.
Further, it has a realistic prospect of achievement, which prevents using an unsafe health product
in the market.

There are no other morally preferable alternatives to this action. Therefore expected action for
Sourour was to disclose the product to the employer and other relevant authorities to prevent the
use of an unsafe health product by the public.

Conclusion

In summary, Sourour's action was morally and unethically wrong from the view of the engineer's
code of ethics and Armstrong. The professional code of ethics requires engineers to protect the
public interests, health, and safety. Concepts from Armstrong demand that confidentiality and
client interests be considered but in cases where they do not outweigh or contradict the present
and future claims of the public. In applying the deontology tool, Sourour's action was morally
wrong and unethical because the intention behind the action was deceitful.

An opposing view is a utilitarian approach, through Sourour's action can be analyzed regarding
his obligations to his employer. His loyalty was to his employer and the client.

Applying the opposing utilitarian tools reveals that the client's side supported the action's good
merits. Therefore Sourour's involvement was only doing his job, helping his client make sales for
a product. However, this view fails to consider the act's ill intent, deceit, and dishonesty.