TOPIC 1: WHY PROFESSIONAL ETHICS?
Social practice is inconceivable
PROFESSION is…
o Early meaning – free act of
commitment to a way of life.
o The act or fact of “professing”.
o The occupation which one professes
to be skilled in and to follow.
o A vocation in which professed
knowledge of some branch of
learning is used in its application to
the affairs of others, or in practice of
an art based upon it.
o This definition is not sufficient, must
consider the account of
professionalism from sociologists and
philosophers.
1. A Sociological Analysis of Professionalism
Characteristics of social status:
• Extensive training
• Vital knowledge and skills
• Control of services
• Autonomy in the workplace
• Claim to ethical regulation
The identifying characteristics of profession
may have one or both of the two functions:
• Altruistic
• Self-interest
2. Professions as Social Practices
o Any coherent and complex form of
socially established cooperative
human activity through which goods
internal to that form of activity are
realized in the course of trying to
achieve those standards
excellence which are appropriate to,
and partially definitive of, that form of
activity.
1. Social practice aims with “internal”
associated with it.
2.
without its distinctive aim.
3. Social practice must be morally
justifiable.
4. Provides a moral criterion for
evaluating the behavior of those who
participate in resolving moral issues.
Advantage – moral orientation and
cannot be a profession of thievery.
3. A Socratic Account of Professionalism
o 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.
“This approach seems a reasonable and
acceptable definition of ‘professional’ to
take.”
Two Models of Professionalism
1. The Business Model
o An occupation is primarily
oriented toward making a
profit within the boundaries set
by law.
o A profession sells a product or
service in the marketplace for
a profit.
2. The Professional Model
o Professionals have an implicit
trust relationship “social
contract” with the public to
regulate practice and
promote good for the public.
of
Three Types of Ethics or Morality
1. Common morality
o The basis or reference point of
moral beliefs shared by almost
everyone.
 Notions of Common Morality:
a. Designed to protect individuals
from violations or invasion of
personhood.
b. Distinction between the negative
and positive aspects.
c. Distinction between an evaluation
of a person’s actions and an
evaluation of his intention.
2. Personal morality/ Personal Ethics
o Set of moral beliefs that a
person holds.
o Personal moral beliefs closely
parallel the precepts of
common morality.
3. Professional ethics
o Set of standards adopted by
professionals as they view
themselves as professionals.
o Every profession has its own
professional ethics (e.g.
engineering ethics is that set of
ethical standards that applies
to the profession of
engineering).
Important characteristics of professional
ethics:
1. Professional ethics is stated in a formal
code.
2. Professional code of ethics focus on
the issues that are important in that
profession.
3. When one is in professional
relationship, professional ethics is
supposed to take precedence over
personal morality.
4. Professional ethics differs from
personal morality in its degree of
restriction of personal conducts.
5. Professional ethics has positive and
negative dimensions.
Preventive Ethics
o The NEGATIVE face of Engineering
Ethics
o Commonly formulated in set rules,
these rules are usually stated in code
of ethics.
o Rules are often in the form of
prohibitions or statements.
Aspirational ethics
o The POSITIVE face of Engineering
Ethics
o Promotes the welfare of the public,
prevent violations of safety and
health, improve the quality of human
life (e.g. do projects about
sustainable developments).
Spectrum of activities for Aspirational ethics:
1. Good works
o Refers to the more understanding
and altruistic examples of
aspirational ethics – those that
involve an element of self-
sacrifice.
o Exemplary or commendable
actions may go beyond what is
professionally required.
2. Ordinary positive engineering
o Done in the course of one’s job
which do not involve heroism or
self-sacrifice provided a good
argument can be made and they
contribute to human welfare.
Features of aspirational ethics:
Motivational Element
vs.
Discretional element
Professional character – refer to those
character traits that serve to define the kind
of person that is professionally speaking.
Good engineer – who has the traits of Engineering Standards
professional character which makes him an
❖ Engineers committing themselves to
ideal engineer.
a code of ethics gain trust to those
Professional character traits they serve and they work thereby
endorses high standards of
• Refers to the set of character traits
performance.
that would make an engineer a good
❖ Code of ethics/ code of standards –
engineer and as an effective
requires that works conforms with
practitioner.
“applicable engineering standards”.
❖ These may be a regulatory standards
1. Professional pride
that specify technical requirements
2. Social awareness
for specific kinds of design.
3. Environmental consciousness
❖ These may require that certain
TOPIC 2: RESPONSIBILITY IN ENGINEERING procedures be undertaken to
ascertain that specific quality are
• The concept of responsibility is many-
met.
faceted.
❖ Code of ethics/ code of standards
• It may be applied to individual
insists that engineers conforms to
engineers, divisions or units within
standards of competence.
organizations.
❖ Regulatory standard or standards of
• May focus on legal liabilities, job-
competence
defined roles, or moral
• intended to provide assurance
accountabilities.
of quality, safety, and
→ Moral accountability of individual efficiency in engineering.
engineers will be the focus on this lesson. • it also give considerable room
for professional discretion in
According to William F. May:
engineering design and
❖ “One test of character and virtue is implementation.
what person does when no one else
is watching”.
❖ “Important to professional ethics is
the moral disposition the professional
brings to the structure in which he
operates, and that shapes his
approach to problems.
Professionals’ approach to responsibility:
a. Minimalist approach
o Doing little to stay out of trouble,
keep one’s job. Civil Engineering Code of Ethics
b. Attitudes and disposition
❖ Product of collective reflection of
o Doing things above and beyond
members of one particular
the call of duty requires.
professional society of engineers.
 ❖ Members publicly endorse by the
code and commit themselves to
those standards.
“Engineers have a responsibility to use their
specialized knowledge and skills in ways
that benefit clients and the public and do
not violate the trust placed in them.”
Obligation – responsibility:
❖ Refers to a person who occupies a
position or role of supervision. Blame-responsibility and causation
❖ An engineer who is responsible or in-
- Negative concept of responsibility
charge of a design or other
for harm.
engineering project to see that
everything is performed in - Focuses on what is called the
accordance with professional “causes” of the accidents.
standards both technical and
Two Principal causes:
ethical.
1. Physical cause
Conceptions of responsibility:
2. Organizational cause
❖ Forward-looking (Obligation –
3 types of explanations needed if there’s an
responsibility)
accident:
• judgements how well we think
obligation responsibility have 1. Physical cause
been handled. 2. Organizational cause
❖ Backward-looking (Blame – 3. Individuals response/ accountable
responsibility) for the accident.
• judgement of praise and
Liability
blame.
❖ Although engineers and their
Standard of Care
employees might try to excuse failure
❖ Code of ethics of professional to provide safety and quality by
engineering societies are the result of pointing out that they met existing
efforts of their members to organize in regulatory standards, it is evident that
a structured way the standards they the courts will not necessarily agree.
believe should govern the conduct of ❖ The standard of care in tort law is not
all engineers and applying these restricted to regulatory standards.
standards requires professional
Explanation of Coombs v. Beede about
judgement.
standard of care:
❖ Engineering code of ethics make
statements about engineers being
required to conform to accepted
standards of engineering practices.

❖ Legal liability in many ways parallels
moral responsibility, although there
are important differences.
❖ To be legally liable for causing harm is
to warrant punishment for, or to be
obligated to make restitution for,
harms.
❖ Liability for harm implies that the
person caused the harm, also implies
about the conditions under which the
harm was caused.
Concepts of liability and moral responsibility
for harm:
1. Person can intentionally or knowingly
and deliberately cause harm.
2. Person can recklessly cause harm by
not aiming to cause harm but by
being aware that harm is likely to
result.
3. Weaker kind of legal liability and
moral responsibility associated with
negligently causing harm.
In law, a successful charge of negligence
must meet four (4) conditions:
1. A legal obligation to conform to
certain standards of conduct is
present.
2. The person accused of negligence
fails to conform to the standards.
3. There is a reasonably close causal
connection between the conduct
and the resulting harm.
4. Actual loss or damage to the interests
of another results.
Design Standards
❖ Standards are one of the principal
mechanisms for managing
complexity of any sort, including
technological complexity.
Standardized terminology, physical
properties, and procedures all play
role in constraining the size of the
universe in which practitioner make
decisions.
❖ Standards of practice provide means
of mapping the universal onto the
local. Local contingencies must
govern the design and construction
of any particular bridge within the
frame of relative universals embodies
in the standards.
The Range of Standards of Practice
According to Palchinsky, two fundamental
principles of engineering practice he
applied:
a. First principle: gather full and reliable
information about the specific
situation.
b. Second principle: view engineering
plans and projects in context, taking
into account impacts on workers, the
needs of workers, systems of
transportation and communication,
resources needed, resource
accessibility, economic feasibility,
impacts on users and on other
affected parties.
Problem of many hands – “problem of
fractured responsibility”
Applied principle to the responsibility of
individuals which many people are involve:
“If a harm has resulted from collective
inaction, the degree of individual
responsibility of each member of a putative
group for the harm depends on the extent
to which the member could reasonably be
expected to have tried to prevent the
action.”
❖ This is called the principle of
responsibility for inaction in groups.
Impediments to responsible action: 7. An application of direct pressure on
those who show signs of
❖ Ignorance – lack of awareness is
disagreement, often exercised by the
willful avoidance turning away from
group leader who intervenes in an
information in order to avoid having
effort to keep the group unified.
to deal with the challenges it may
8. Mind-guarding, or protecting the
pose.
group from dissenting views by
❖ Egocentric tendencies – tend to
preventing their introduction.
interpret situations from limited
perspectives and it takes special TOPIC 3: FRAMING THE PROBLEM
efforts to acquire a more objective
→ Conflicting approaches of two
viewpoint.
organizational bodies arises (e.g Supreme
❖ Microscopic vision – thinking may be
Courts/ law implementing body and
highly accurate and precise but our
Engineering organizations) but agrees upon
field of vision is greatly limited.
on a certain moral beliefs.
❖ Uncritical acceptance of authority –
tend to accept the authority figure’s Example: issue on granting leave credits to
reassurances that he would take all employee
the responsibility for any unfortunate
→ It is a fact that we usually experience
consequences.
moral disagreement and controversy within
❖ Groupthink – individuals tend to work
a context of agreement.
and deliberate in groups. The
engineer will often participate in 3 statements about factual issues:
group decision making rather than
1. Often, moral disagreement turn out
function as an individual decision
to be disagreements over the
maker.
relevant facts.
8 symptoms of groupthink: 2. Factual issues are sometimes very
difficult to resolve.
1. An illusion of invulnerability of the
❖ It is important to understand that
group to failure;
many apparent moral
2. A strong “we-feeling” that views
disagreements are reducible to
outsiders as adversaries or enemies
disagreements over factual
and encourages shared stereotype
matters.
of others;
❖ In engineering, everything
3. Rationalization that tend to shift
depends on the facts that
responsibility to others;
everybody can agree on. Ethics is
4. An illusion of morality that assumes
just subjective.
the inherent morality of the group.
3. Once the factual issue are clearly
5. A tendency of individual members
isolated, disagreement can
toward self censorship, resulting from
reemerge on another and often
a desire not to “rock the boat”;
more clearly defined level.
6. An illusion of unanimity, construing
silence of a group member as
consent;
Known and Unknown Facts thinking of paradigms, or clear-cut
examples.
❖ People disagree in conclusion when
❖ It is useful to compare and contrast
they reason out different factual
the case in question with paradigms.
premises.
❖ Moral disagreement turns out to rest
❖ Disagreements that are difficult to
on conceptual differences.
resolve especially when difficult to
❖ We must know the notion of
obtain the information needed to
acceptable risk.
resolve them.
❖ The term “acceptable” should be
❖ It is important to distinguish not only
sufficient to understand the value
between relevant and irrelevant
element that cannot be determined
facts but also between known facts
by facts alone.
and unknown facts.
Application Issues
Weighing the Importance of Facts
❖ It is emphasized that when engaging
❖ Even if two or more people agree on
in ethical reflection, it is important to
which facts are relevant, they might
get clear as we can about both the
nevertheless disagree about their
relevant facts and the basic
relative importance.
meanings of key concepts.
(Example: new car model with new safety ❖ However, even the concepts
features) reasonably clear, disagreement
about the applications in particular
❖ This raises questions about
cases can still arise. Because those
acceptable risk vs cost.
who disagree are operating from
Clarifying Concepts different factual premises.
❖ Another application issue, one that
❖ Good moral thinking requires not only
rests on a common feature of
attending carefully to facts but also
concepts. Attempts to specify the
having a good grasp of the key
meanings of terms ahead of time.
concepts we need to use.
❖ No matter how precisely we attempt
Examples: to define a concept, it will always
remain insufficiently specified
• Public health, safety, and
applications hence particular
welfare
circumstances will remain
• Conflict of interest
problematic.
• Bribery
• Extortion Common Ground
• Confidentiality
❖ An ethics case study describes a set
• Trade secret
of circumstances that calls for ethical
• Loyalty
reflection.
• Honesty
❖ It is helpful to begin an analysis with
• Agreement
two questions:
• Facts
1. What are the relevant facts?
❖ Most terms in ethics are open-ended.
2. What are the relevant kinds of
It is sufficient to clarify meaning by
ethical considerations?
 1. What are the relevant facts?
❖ Facts that have bearing on what is
ethically at stake.
❖ We need to have eye on what is
ethically important in order to
know how many facts to be
considered.
2. What are the relevant kinds of ethical
considerations?
❖ We need to draw the ethical
principles, rules and concepts
(e.g. conflict of interest).
❖ This includes the ideas of common
morality, professional code of
ethics and personal morality.
❖ We can call the stock of common
moral beliefs “common morality” .
The term is analogous with
“common sense”.
❖ People share a common belief
what to do in order to survive – a
body of beliefs we call common
sense – basic beliefs about moral
standards, rules, and principles we
believe should guide our lives.
Common features of human life that
suggests general moral beliefs:
1. We are “vulnerable”.
2. We value “autonomy”
3. We are “interdependent”.
4. We have “shared expectations
and goals”.
5. We have “common moral traits”.
List of basic duties or obligations (“prima
facie” or “conditional” duties) according to
W.D.Ross:
1. Duties resting on our previous acts.
a. Duties of fidelity.
b. Duties of reparation for wrong
done.
2. Duties of gratitude.
3. Duties of justice.
4. Duties of beneficence.
5. Duties of self-improvement.
6. Duties not to injure others.
List of 10 “moral rules/ideals” that captures
the basic elements of common morality (by
Bernard Gert):
1. Don’t kill.
2. Don’t cause pain.
3. Don’t disable.
4. Don’t deprive of freedom.
5. Don’t deprive of pleasure.
6. Don’t deceive.
7. Keep your promise.
8. Don’t cheat.
9. Obey the law.
10. Do your duty.
Universalizability - basic concept in ethics
that any moral judgement must be equally
applicable to every relevantly identical
situation.
“Whatever is right (or wrong) in one
situation is right (or wrong) in any relevantly
similar situation”.
2 General ways about moral issues that uses
the idea of universalizability:
1. Utilitarian ideal of maximizing
good consequences and
minimizing bad consequences.
2. Ideal of respect for persons.
Utilitarian approach – requires to focus on
the idea of bringing about “the greatest
good for the greatest number”.
3 Prominent ways to consider:
1. The Cost-Benefit Approach
2. The Act Utilitarian Approach
3. The Rule Utilitarian Approach
1. The Cost-Benefit Approach
- the course of action being chosen that
produces the greatest benefit relative to
cost.
- this approach applies the utilitarian
standard in quantifiable manner as
possible.
3 difficulties in the utilitarian standard:
• Knowing which course of action will
produce the most good in both short
and long term.
• Making choices that promise to bring
the greatest amount of good.
• Seems to favor the greater
aggregate good at the expense of a
vulnerable minority.
➢ Cost-benefit analysis is often used in
engineering with an effort made to
translate negative and positive utilities into
monetary terms.
➢ Cost-benefit analysis is sometimes
referred to as risk-benefit analysis because
much of the analysis requires estimating the
probability of certain benefits and harms.
3 steps involved in the cost-benefit analysis:
• Assess the available options.
• Assess the costs and the benefits of
each option.
• Make the decision that is likely to
result in the greatest benefit relative
to cost.
Problems encountered using cost-benefit
analysis a sole guide for protecting the
public:
1. Assumes that economic measures
of cost and benefit override all
other considerations.
2. Often difficult to ascertain the
costs and benefits of many factors
that enter into a cost-benefit
analysis.
3. Cost-benefit analysis might seem
to justify many practices in the
past that there’s good reason to
believe were morally wrong.
2. The Act Utilitarian Approach
- utilitarian approach to problems that do
not necessarily require that values be
rendered in strictly quantitative terms.
Useful procedures in the Act Utilitarian
Approach:
1. Identify the available options in
this situation.
2. Determine the appropriate
audience for the options, keeping
in mind the problems in
determining the audience.
3. Bear in mind that whatever option
is selected, its sets an example for
others.
4. Decide which available option is
likely to bring about the greatest
good for the appropriate
audience, taking into account
harms as well as benefits.
3. The Rule Utilitarian Approach
- there are problems that are best resolved
by commonly accepted rules that enables
to predict reliably the actions.
- the rule utilitarian propose rules that are
justified and understood and generally
accepted.
- it is an advantage for individuals using rules
as a guide to action
- This approach does not consider directly
the utility of a particular action unless no
generally observed rules or practices that
serve utilitarian are available.
- Judges the moral acceptability of
particular actions by whether they conform
to rules: those whose general observance
promotes utilitarian ends.
- In general, more good is served by
providing people with assurance s that they
will be treated in accordance with rules and
practices that treat them justly with respect
for individual rights.
Respect for Persons
The moral standard of the ethics of respect
for person is as follows:
Those actions or rules are right that
regard each person as worthy of respect as
a moral agent.
This equal regard for moral agents
can be understood as a basic requirement
of justice.
A moral agents must be distinguished
from inanimate objects which can fulfill
goals or purpose that are imposed
externally.
3 Approaches to respect for persons
thinking:
1. The Golden Rule Approach
2. The Self-Defeating Approach
3. The Rights Approach
1. The Golden Rule Approach
❖ Like utilitarian approach, to moral
thinking, this also employs the idea of
universalizability. If we think person
are acting in a morally acceptable
fashion, then we find it also morally
acceptable.
❖ Insights can lead to ask questions
about fairness and equal treatment.
❖ The idea of universalizability implies
that my judgement should not
change simply because the roles are
reversed.
❖ Reversibility is a special application of
the idea of universalizability: In
thinking about treating others as I
would have them treat me, I need to
ask what I would think if the roles were
reversed.
❖ Universalizing our thinking by applying
the idea of reversibility can help us
realize that we may be endorsing
treating others in ways we would
object to do if done to us.
❖ Presented above are the ideas
behind the GOLDEN RULE.
Two problems were identified with the
Golden Rule:
a. Those that result from exclusive
attention to what the agent is
willing to accept
b. Those that result from exclusive
attention to what the recipient is
willing to accept.
➢ Both perspectives seem important for an
appropriate interpretation of the Golden
Rule.
➢ Rather than focus on what a particular
individual wants, prefers, or is willing to
accept, we need to consider matters from
a more general perspective – one in which
we strive to treat others in accordance with
standards that we can share.
2. The Self-Defeating Approach
A universalized action can be self-
defeating in two ways:
a. The action itself cannot be
performed if it universalized.
b. The purpose in performing the
action is undermined if everyone
else does what you do.
3. The Rights Approach
➢ A right may be understood as an
entitlement to act or to have another
individual act in a certain way.
➢ Rights serve as a protective barrier,
shielding individuals from unjustified
infringements of their moral agency by
others.
➢ Rights are asserted more positively as
requiring the provision of food, clothing and
education.
➢ In ethics, we focus on rights as requiring
only noninterference with another person,
not active support of that person’s interests.
➢ The problem of conflicting rights requires
that we prioritize rights, giving greater
importance to some than to others.
➢ As suggested by Alan Gewirth, there are
3-tiered hierarchy of rights, ranging from
more basic to less basic:
a. First Tier: includes the most basic
rights, the essential preconditions
of action: life, physical integrity,
and mental health.
b. Second Tier: includes rights to
maintain the level of purpose
fulfillment an individual has
already achieved. This category
includes such rights as the right not
to be deceived or cheated.
c. Third Tier: includes those rights
necessary to increase one’s level
of purpose fulfillment, including
the right to try to acquire property.
Set of steps that could be taken in the
framework of hierarchy of rights:
1. Identify the basic obligations, values, and
interests at stake, noting any conflicts.
2. Analyze the action or rule to determine
what options are available and what rights
are at stake.
3. Determine the audience of the action or
rule.
4. Evaluate the seriousness of the rights
infringements that would occur with each
option.
5. Make a choice that seems likely to
produce the least serious rights
infringements.
TOPIC 4: RESOLVING PROBLEMS
Resolving an ethical question:
- focus only on those facts that are
relevant to it.
- facts make the resolution seem
obvious.
Ethical criteria (common morality,
professional codes or personal morality)
guide the sorting out of relevant from
irrelevant facts.
Ethical guidelines for research that
makes use of human subjects, or
participants (e.g. The Belmont Report*)
3 Basic ethical principles established from
“The Belmont Report”
a. beneficence – trying to maximize
benefits and minimize harms to the
participants.
b. respect for persons – includes
respect for autonomy by requiring the
informed consent of participants in an
experiment.
c. justice – avoiding the use of
discrimination in the selection of research
participants.
The objective of these principles is to
provide an analytical framework that will
guide the resolution of ethical problems
arising from research involving human
subjects.
As it counsels both confidence and
modesty in addressing ethical issues in
research, the report provides a model for
deliberation in engineering ethics.
 There are no algorithms that can Line-Drawing Test of Concepts:
resolve ethical problems in engineering, but
there are ample resources available for
making good judgements.
Ethics and Design
• If the situation was handled well and
evaluating what was done, will help
❖ Line-Drawing has been applied to the
in deciding what to do. If not, that will
analysis of concepts. Itcan be helpful
serve as a lesson in the future.
in clarifying the meanings of
• With regards to deciding what is
concepts and their applications in
morally best to do, we should also find
particular circumstances.
the best method.
❖ Can be used to determine the
• Coming up with one that is quite
rightness or wrongness of a course of
good, although not necessarily the
action.
best imaginable, is a reasonable
❖ These features can then be
objective since there may be no
compared with the features of cases
“best” design.
that fall between the two ends of the
• “Design problems have better and
spectrum.
worse solutions but perhaps no best
❖ Cases that are uncontroversially
solutions.”
wrong are called negative paradigm
• As discussed previously (previous
cases, and cases that are
topics) think of considerations when
un controversially acceptable are
trying to frame the ethical dimensions
positive paradigm cases. We shall call
of problems that engineers faced
related, but controversial, cases that
(Utilitarian and respect for persons).
are in dispute (and that are clustered
• Special strategies that will assist in
near the middle of the spectrum)
sorting the better from the worse:
problematic cases.
a) line-drawing and;
b) seeking a creativemiddle way. Line-drawing techniques are often useful
however, there are complexities that might
Deciding line where to set the boundary
be involved. There are several general point
between two situations/ problems.
need to consider:
Example:
1. The more ambiguous the case,
a. Engineers shall not disclose the more we must know about its
confidential information concerning particular circumstances in order
previous employers to present employer. to determine whether it is morally
acceptable or morally wrong.
b. paradigm case of bribery:
2. Imposing a line of demarcation
between some of the cases
involves an element of
arbitrariness. It is erroneous to
conclude that there is no real
 difference between any of the
cases.
3. The method of line-drawing is
based on the identification of
analogies and disanalogies
between cases.
4. Line-drawing resembles a kind of
“common-law ethics” in which
what one decides in one case
serves as a precedent for similar
cases.
Conflicting Values: Creative Middle Way
Solutions
❖ However, it is best to look for a
creative middle way between
conflicting values, a resolution in
which all the conflicting demands are
partially met.
❖ All of the values make legitimate
claims so that the ideal resolution of
the conflict is to find some way to
honor each of the situations.
Suggested aid in resolving divergence
problems:
1. When unfairness to individual is
minimal, utilitarian considerations
may sometimes prevail.
2. In cases of divergence, employ
line-drawing or creative middle
way techniques.
3. When unfairness to individuals is
serious, respect for persons
considerations take on greater
weight.
TOPIC 5: THE SOCIAL & VALUE DIMENSIONS
OF TECHNOLOGY
How should technology be defined? . . .
❖ Definition 1 – technology is the
making and using of “tools”. Humans
are firmly in control of technology,
make tools to accomplish purposes
that was set.
❖ Definition 2 – technology is the
application of science to the solution
of practical problems (e.g. modern
technology). Tinkerers who found
solutions to problems by intuition and
trial and error.
❖ Definition 3 – technology is best
understood as a “system” composed
of physical objects and tools,
knowledge, inventors, operators,
repair people, managers,
government regulators, etc.
Technological Determinism – holds that
technological development has a life of its
own, that cannot be controlled by
individual humans or even the whole
society.
Technological optimism – view that the
effects of technology on human well-being
are almost altogether good.
Technological pessimism – takes a more
negative view of the effects of technology
on human life.
Technological Optimism: The Promise of
Technology
❖ It can be noted that technologies
have vastly improved the quality of
our lives. It is a gift to million human
beings whom it has liberated from
lives of bone-grinding toil, poverty,
starvation and early death.
Technology and Human Experience
❖ Technological pessimists warn
humans that technologies carries
risks.
❖ These risks include an excessive pride
in human power, a failure to
acknowledge dependence on
providence, a tendency to forsake
 the pursuit of personal excellence in make decisions about such issues as one’s
favor of enjoying the luxuries that political and religious beliefs and practices
technology brings and a tendency to or general lifestyle.
confuse the “unreal” world of
Proprietary privacy – ability to control the
material things with ultimate reality.
use of one’s name, likeness, or other
2 Themes by technological pessimists: aspects of one’s identity (e.g. identity theft).
1. Technology is associated with Privacy versus Social Utility
dominating, controlling frame of
❖ Interest in privacy … is related to the
mind, obsessed with achieving
concern over accessibility to others:
ever greater efficiency, that
the extent to which others have
harms the environment and
physical access to us, and the extent
obscures certain aspects of
to which we are the subject of other’s
human experience, especially
attention.
the spiritual aspects.
❖ Computers can take control of
2. Technology tends to fragment
information about anyone and give it
human experience and this
to other person (e.g. databases used
destroy the meaningfulness of
in marketing or business, National ID
much we do.
system).
Taking a Critical Attitude toward
Finding a Creative Middle Way
Technology
❖ The issue of computers and privacy
❖ The controversy between
presents a conflict of values. The
technological pessimists and optimist
abilities of computers to collect and
is not a controversy in which we have
match data can provide significant
to take sides, both positions have
benefits to the public.
some merits.
❖ Republic Act No. 10173 (Data Privacy
❖ We should be conscious of its
Act of 2012): An Act Protecting
important and enormously valuable
individual personal information in
place in human society while being
information and communications
aware that its effects may not be
system in the government and the
always and altogether good.
private sector creating for this
Privacy and Boundary-Crossing purpose a national privacy
commission, and for other purpose.
❖ Concept of privacy relates to a so-
❖ With creative middle way solution,
called “privacy fence”. A fence that
values should be honored as fully as
keeps others gaining information
possible. Which means that the
about others which may refer to as
solution should both protect personal
informational privacy.
privacy and promote the social
Physical privacy – involves the movement of goods to which computer databases
something physical across the line (e.g. can contribute.
property) or invasion of his physical space. ❖ This issue in privacy shows how
technology raises issues of social
Decisional privacy – freedom from
government or outside interference to
 policy that the larger society and its
legal system must resolve.
Should software be protected?
❖ Computer programs are often worth
a lot of money in the marketplace.
❖ Justifications for granting
discretionary power to the owner of
software:
1. It is utilitarian – that it promotes the
progress of technology.
2. Based on the ethics of respect for
persons – called the labor theory of
ownership. Owners have the right to
exclude others from the use of their
creations.
How software be protected?
❖ Two principal options have been
proposed for protecting intellectual
property: copyrights and patents.
Tests for a copyrightable works:
1. The expression must be original
(originated with the author)
2. The expression must be functional
in the sense of having some
usefulness.
3. The expression must be non-
obvious
4. Different ways of expressing the
idea.
❖ Copyright protection can be
expanded beyond its usual boundary
to cover software.
❖ Copyright does not cover algorithms,
which are often the most creative
parts of computer software.
❖ If we assume that the products of
creativity should be protected, then
there is reason to look at patents that
might cover the algorithm itself.
To obtain a patent for the program, the
author must show that the program is:
1. Useful
2. Novel
3. Nonobvious
4. The type of thing is generally
accorded patents.
What criteria should govern science and
technology policy?
Debates about public policy regarding
science and technology encounter a
dilemma, a democratic dilemma.
Democratic dilemma:
➢ The public has the prerogative of making
the final decisions about science and
technology.
➢This same public has difficulty in
understanding something as complex and
forbidding as science and technology.
What are the responsibilities of engineers
with regard to the democratic dilemma?
1. Alert – as the primary creators of
technology, engineers have a
special responsibility to alert the
public to issues raised by and the
potential dangers from
technology.
2. Inform – engineers have the
responsibility to inform the public
of the issues on both sides of a
debate. A new technology may
pose dangers, but it may also
have great potential benefits.
3. Advise – engineers should in some
instances offer advice and
guidance on an issue, especially
when there is some degree of
consensus in the engineering
community.
The social interaction of technology and projects, just make it possibly
society acceptable.
• Social forces are also influence the Designing for the Environment and for
direction of technological Human Community
development.
• Technologies can be designed that
• Two-way causal interaction between
stress sustainability, the use of
technology and society: technology
renewable resources, and minimal
influences society, but society also
pollution.
influences the development of
• Technologies can also serve to
technology.
promote human community rather
• This 2-way interactions gives us a
that fracture it.
picture of the social embeddedness
• The advancement of technology
of technology with its relationship to
does not destroy values, such as
society.
relationship to the natural world and
Science and Technology Studies: Opening human activities instead, change
the Black Box of Technology forms and contexts in which activities
take place.
• STS researchers follows the
development of products from Conclusion: Engineering as Social
design to production, observe in Experimentation
detail what goes on in laboratories
Analogies between engineering and
and how scientists and engineers
experimentation.
describe their activities in the
laboratories, study the rhetoric journal 1. Engineering works, whether
articles and public statements in consumer products, bridges, or
science and technology and in many buildings, have experimental
other ways subject every aspect of subjects, like scientific
the scientific and technological experiments. In engineering, the
enterprise to detailed investigation. subjects are the public who utilize
the products of engineering.
Ethical issues in Design
2. In engineering, as in any
• STS researchers have often focused experiment, there is always an
on design as a crucial stage of element of uncertainty about the
development in which value issues outcome. Engineers must assume
can arise where either decisions are responsibility about the possible
made that affect society the course consequences for their
of design. experiments, both good and bad.
• Design problems may raise significant
issues regarding safety, sustainability, - END -
the environment, animal/ human
welfare and health, labor conditions
and so forth.
• There may be a way in resolving
ethical problems raised by design
GOOD LUCK, ENGINEERS! <3