ENGINEERING ETHICS

Engineering ethics is the study of moral decisions that must be made by engineers in the course
of engineering practice. It is the study of related questions about the moral ideals, character,
policies and relationships of people and corporations involved in technological activity. The field
of ethics examines and sets the obligations by engineers to society, to their clients, and to the
profession.

It is important for engineering students to study ethics so that they will be prepared to respond
appropriately to ethical challenges during their careers. Often, the correct answer to an ethical
problem will not be obvious and will require some analysis using ethical theories. The types of
problems that we will encounter in studying engineering ethics are very similar to the design
problems that engineers work on every day. As in design, there will not be a single correct
answer. Rather, engineering ethics problems will have multiple correct solutions, with some
solutions being better than others.

Though in engineering ethics, our focus is engineers, but we should not forget that others
involved in engineering and technological enterprises are equally important like scientists,
managers, production personnel, sales staff, and government officials, elected representatives,
lawyers and the general public.

While Engineers have done very useful work for the welfare, health and raising the quality
of life and standards of living of the society, they also share responsibility for the damage to
human life, property, environment due to their bad engineering decisions and not meeting
their professional obligations to avert such losses.

On 28 January 1986, the space shuttle challenger blew off in less than one and a half minutes (67
seconds to be exact) into the flight killing all six astronauts and a lady school teacher. A seal in
the booster rocket failed along the hot gases to enter the massive fuel tanks and thus causing
explosion under the watchful eyes of millions of viewers on their TV screen round the globe. It
later came to the public knowledge that 14 engineers at Martin Thiokol, the manufacturer of the
Booster Rocket, had voiced opposition to the launch of the space craft, the engineers were
certain that the booster seals will fail under the low temperatures at the launch site. The lesson of
the engineers, themselves engineers, ignored the call and did not communicate the concerns to
NASA authorities.

This shows the decision which engineer makes or is prevented from making has far reaching
consequences. Engineering decisions have certainly moral dimensions. As engineering takes
place, mostly, in profit earning organizations, one has to see what is morally correct or incorrect
for engineers in carrying out their professional obligations. It is also important to understand how
corporations can be better structured to allow responsible engineers to act on their moral
convictions and moral judgments.

.
Various Meanings of Engineering Ethics

1. Engineering Ethics is the activity and discipline aimed at understanding the moral values
that ought to guide engineering practice, resolving moral issues in engineering and
justifying moral judgments concerning engineering.

2. Here we distinguish between moral and non-moral problems concerning engineering. We

make a contrast between moral questions and questions of a political, legal and artistic
nature. Engineering ethics in this sense refers to the set of specifically moral problems
and issues related to engineering.

3. Sometimes word “Ethics” is used to refer to a set of beliefs, attitude & habits that a
person or group displays concerning morality. So engineering ethics in this sense would
be currently accepted codes and standards of conduct endorsed by various groups of
engineers and engineering societies.

4. In this meaning word ethics and its grammatical variants can be used for something
morally correct. Peoples actions can be either ethical (right, good, permissible) or
unethical (immoral), and individuals can be evaluated as ethical (decent, having moral
integrity) and unethical (unscrupulous). In this usage, engineering ethics means a set of
justified moral principles of obligations, rights and ideals that ought to be endorsed by
those involved in engineering.

5. There is another line of demarcation between adjectives ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’. ‘Moral’ is
commonly used in describing sexually virtuous conduct and ‘ethical’ is stating a
professionally virtuous conduct. Some will say that ethical misdeeds are prosecuted in
civil courts and moral misdeeds are tried in criminal courts.

HOW DO MORAL ISSUES ARISE IN ENGINEERING?

A product or project goes through various stages of conception, design, and manufacture,
followed by testing, sales, and service. Engineers (civil, electrical, mechanical or chemical) carry
out or supervise the appropriate activities at different stages. As engineers carry out their tasks,
there will be times when their activities will ultimately lead to a product that is unsafe or less
than useful. This may happen intentionally, or under pressure, or in ignorance. A product may be
intentionally designed for early obsolescence; an inferior material may be substituted under
pressure of time or budget; a product’s ultimately harmful effects may not be foreseen.

These problems arise apart from the temptations of bribe and other forms of corruption.

Following are a few examples highlighting areas covered by Ethics:

Case – I

An inspector declared a consignment of vehicle engines to be used ones and not new as required
by the contract. The head of the office, an engineer himself, overruled the inspector’s opinion
and ordered to sign acceptance document, and threatened the inspector of disciplinary action in
case of refusal.

Case – II

A tannery disposed of its chemical wastes in a seasonal nullah where downstream children take a
swim, women wash their clothes and utensils, and sheep and buffaloes drink water. Knowing
these hazards, the engineers took no action for changing the disposal method.

Case – III

An electrical company was ready for production of its own version of a popular new item. The
product was not ready for sale and attractive advertisements appeared in the print and electronic
media making people believe that it was available off the shelf and were drawn away from
competing lines.

These examples show how ethical problems arise when there are differences of judgments and
expectations as to what is true state of affairs or a proper course of action. The engineer may be
faced with contrary opinions from within the firm, from the client, from other firms within the
industry, or from government as indicated in the figure, there are still other stakeholders ranging
from the engineers’ family to the engineering profession (society).

These cases raise a number of pertinent moral questions:

 To what extent should an employer’s or supervisor’s directives be the authoritative guide

to an engineer’s conduct?
 What does one do when there are differences of judgment?
 Is it fair to be expected to put one’s job on risk?
 Should one always follow the law to the letter and spirit?
 Is an engineer to do no more than what the specifications say, even if there are problems
more serious than those initially anticipated?
 How far does an engineer’s responsibility extend into the realm of anticipating and
influencing the social impact of the projects he or she participates in?

The conduct of the chemical plant falls into the category of ‘ethics cases’ involving violations of
common decency. Prescriptive codes of conduct for such violations can be established depending
upon the majority of cases in which action has been taken. This has led to formulate a set of
specific rules and regulations designed to ensure moral conduct.

THREE TYPES OF INQUIRIES

Engineering ethics like ethics in general, combines inquiries into values, meanings and facts;
normative inquiry, conceptual inquiry and factual inquiry.

1. Normative Inquiry
Normative inquiries seek to identify the values that should guide individuals and groups.
These are aimed at identifying and justifying the morally desirable norms and standards to guide
individuals or groups or meaning what ought to be done and what is good in moral terms. These
inquiries include:

1. How far an engineer can go in protecting public safety in a given situation?

2. When should engineers be expected to blow the whistle on dangerous practices of

employers for whom they work?

3. Whose values carry more weight in making judgments about acceptable risks in a design
for a public transport system – those of management, senior engineers, government,
voters, or some combination of these?

4. Which particular laws and organizational procedures affecting engineering practice are
morally warranted?

5. What are the moral rights of engineers to meet their professional obligations?

2. Conceptual Inquiry

Conceptual inquiries seek to clarify important concepts or ideas, whether the ideas are
expressed by single words or by statements and questions. These are directed toward clarifying
the meanings of concepts, principles and issues in engineering ethics. Normative and conceptual
inquiries are closely linked to each other when moral concepts are under consideration.

3. Factual Inquiry

Factual or descriptive inquiries seek to provide facts needed for understanding and
resolving value issues. These inquiries are aimed at gathering information bearing upon value
system. Proven scientific techniques are used for collecting this information about:

1. The history of the contemporary engineering practices

2. The history of the engineering profession
3. The effectiveness of professional societies in fostering moral conduct
4. The procedures used in making risk management
5. The psychological profiles of engineers
6. How have professional societies dealt whit moral issues

Case Study:

Let us take the example of leather factory where the engineer has expressed his concerns to his
immediate boss who brushes aside his concerns. In this example, the engineer will make three
inquiries as follows:
 Normative
1. Should the engineer be satisfied by reporting to the immediate boss or further ask for
detailed reasons for his boss for rejecting his concerns, or he should go to the higher
management, local government, media, etc. to express his concerns?
2. Would it be disloyalty to the organization to bypass the structure of authority?
3. Does he have right to ask his immediate boss for a detailed explanation?

Conceptual
Clarification about safety, public health, loyalty to organization, professional freedom and
autonomy

Factual
Additional facts like nature of pollutant, the cost of controlling them and whether the
engineer’s conviction is well founded

THE AIM OF STUDYING ENGINEERING ETHICS

The aim of study of engineering ethics is to make you aware of important ethical issues before
you have to confront them. The aim is not about preaching virtue and making the people act
upon a certain set of established values and beliefs. Also it is not to train you to do the right thing
when the ethical choice is obvious and you already know the right thing to do. Rather, you will
learn techniques to analyze and resolve ethical problems when they arise. It strengthens ability to
reason carefully about moral questions. In other words it increases moral autonomy, a term
widely used in ethics. Autonomy means ‘self-determining’ or ‘independent’. Moral autonomy
is the ability to think critically and independently about ethical issues and apply this moral
thinking to situations that arise in the course of professional engineering practice.

You will study important cases from the past so that you will know what situations other
engineers have faced and will know what to do when similar situations arise in your professional
career.

Why is it important for engineering students to study engineering ethics? Several notorious cases
that have received a great deal of media attention in the past few years have led engineers to gain
an increased sense of their professional responsibilities.

These cases have led to an awareness of the importance of ethics within the engineering
profession as engineers realize how their technical work has far-reaching impacts on society. The
work of engineers can affect public health and safety and can influence business practices and
even politics.

One result of this increase in awareness is that nearly every major corporation now has an ethics
office that has the responsibility to ensure that employees have the ability to express their
concerns about issues such as safety and corporate business practices in a way that will yield
results and will not be retaliation against the employees. Ethics offices also try to foster an
ethical culture that will help to head off ethical problems in a corporation before they start.

The question asked at the beginning of this section can also be asked in a slightly different way.
Why should a future engineer bother studying ethics at all?
After all, at this point in your life, you’re already either a good person or a bad person. Good
people already know the right thing to do, and bad people aren’t going to do the right thing no
matter how much ethical training they receive. The answer to this question lies in the nature of
the ethical problems that are often encountered by an engineer. In most situations, the correct
response to an ethical problem is very obvious.

Case Study
For example, it is clear that to knowingly equip the Pinto with wheel lugs made from
substandard, weak steel that is susceptible to breaking is unethical and wrong. This action could
lead to the loss of a wheel while driving and could cause numerous accidents and put many lives
at risk. Of course, such a design decision would also be a commercial disaster for Ford.

However, many times, the ethical problems encountered in engineering practice are very
complex and involve conflicting ethical principles. For example, the engineers working on the
Pinto were presented with a very clear dilemma. Tradeoffs were made so that the Pinto could be
successfully marketed at a reasonable price. One of these tradeoffs involved the placement of the
gas tank, which led to the accident in Indiana. So, for the Ford engineers and managers, the
question became the following: Where does an engineering team strike the balance between
safety and affordability and, simultaneously, between the ability of the company to sell the car
and make a profit?

A list of practical skills that will help produce autonomous thought about moral issues is given as
follows:

1. Moral awareness: Proficiency in recognizing moral problems and issues in engineering.

2. Cogent moral reasoning: Comprehending, clarifying, and assessing arguments on

opposing sides of moral issues.

3. Moral coherence: Forming consistent and comprehensive viewpoints based upon a

consideration of relevant facts.

4. Moral imagination: Discerning alternative responses to moral issues and receptivity to

creative solutions for practical difficulties.

5. Moral Communication: Precision in the use of a common ethical language, a skill

needed to express and support one’s moral views adequately to others.

These are the skills of the intellect based upon thinking clearly and cogently (convincingly). But
it is possible to have these skills and yet not act in morally responsible ways. So we should add
to our list the following skills that specify aspects of moral commitment and responsible conduct:

6. Moral reasonableness: The willingness and ability to be morally reasonable.

7. Respect for persons: Genuine concern for the well-being of others as well as oneself.
 8. Tolerance of diversity: Within a broad range, respect for ethnic and religious
differences, and acceptance of reasonable differences in moral perspectives.

9. Moral hope: Enriched appreciation of the possibilities of using rational dialogue in

resolving moral conflicts.

10. Integrity: Maintaining moral integrity, and integrating one’s professional life and
personal convictions.

These comments on moral autonomy can be related to work in the psychology of moral
development set forth by Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan.

Kohlberg’s Theory
Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) suggested three levels of moral development. These levels are
distinguished by the reasoning and motivation of an individual in response to moral questions.

1. Pre-conventional Level: In this level the right conduct is one which directly benefits a
person. The motivation behind this conduct is self-benefit, avoidance of punishment or
submission to an authority and power. The example is conduct of young children and a
few adults.

2. Conventional Level: In this level, the yardstick for good conduct is the norms of the
family and society. Such norms are accepted without any critical examination. The
individuals at this level are out to please others and unconditionally submit to the societal
norms regardless of their own interests. According to Kohlberg some people do not go
beyond this level of moral development.

3. Post Conventional Level: This level is attained when an individual regards the standard
of right and wrong as a set of principles concerning rights and the general good without
consideration of self-interest or social conventions. Kohlberg calls these individuals
autonomous because they think for themselves and do not assume that customs are
always right. They believe in the Golden Rule ‘treat others as you would like to be
treated by them’. Their motivation is to do what is morally reasonable and which does not
affect their moral integrity and self- respect and the respect of rationally thinking
individual.

Kohlberg’s scheme requires development of rational thinking and moral reasoning without
undue influence of prevalent societal conventions. But this morally responsive attitude develops
out of the childhood influences of parental treatments, religious beliefs, the exposure to customs,
traditions, cinema, TV, literature in the development of morally autonomous individual. This
early childhood training makes the individuals grow beyond the first two levels of moral
development.

But Kohlberg’s theory has snags. It cannot prove that the moral development takes place
according to these stages as even Kohlberg admits that very few people, and not the majority,
qualify to the moral autonomy stage. At best Kohlberg assumes that moral development should
take place according to these levels. This led to the development of another moral development
theory i.e. (Carol) Gilligan’s Theory.

Gilligan’s Theory
Gilligan was a student and colleague of Kohlberg who strongly disagreed with Kohlberg’s
findings in following respects:

1. She says that Kohlberg’s studies are distorted by male bias. Not only he conducted his
studies primarily with male subjects, but also he approached his studies with a typically
male pre-occupation with general rules and rights.

2. She suggests that there is a tendency for men to be more interested in trying to solve
moral problems by putting more emphasis on most important moral rules which ignore
other moral rules relevant to the dilemma.

3. On the contrary women try harder to preserve personal relationships with all people
involved in a situation and put more emphasis on the context in which dilemma arises
rather than invoking general rules. Gilligan refers to this context-oriented approach on
maintaining personal relationships as the ‘Ethics of care’ rather than the ‘Ethics of rules
and rights’.

She used the example of Kohlberg of Heinz’s wife suffering from cancer and the Pharmacist
giving medicine at a very high price and not ready to offer it cheaper and on deferred payment.
To save the life of his wife he commits a theft in the pharmacy. Kohlberg ranked the subjects
according to kind of reasoning they gave about resolving the dilemma.

1. The subjects who said Heinz did a wrong thing by breaking the law is reasoning at
Conventional Level in which right conduct is regarded as simply obeying the law.
2. Those who said that Heinz did a right thing as according to their religious belief, human
life is sacred and should be saved are also at Conventional Level.
3. Those who said wife’s right to life is more important than the property rights of the
pharmacist are reasoning at the Post-conventional Level according to Kohlberg.
4. Women were in majority at the Conventional Level as they were hesitant to encourage
stealing and were in favour of alternate solutions of convincing pharmacist or raising
money. According to Kohlberg women were mostly reasoning at conventional level and
hesitant to apply the principle of ‘right to live’ for the woman.

Gilligan drew different conclusions from Kohlberg’s observations. She saw importance of
context-oriented personal relationships in resolving moral dilemmas instead of following rigid
and abstract general/universal rules and rights.
Gilligan’s scheme of moral development is as under:

1. The Pre-Conventional Level: This is roughly the same as Kohlberg’s first level in that
the person is preoccupied with self-centered reasoning. Right conduct is viewed in a
selfish manner as solely what is good for oneself.
 2. Conventional Level: In this level, there is preoccupation of not hurting others and
sacrificing own interest for others. Women conventionally are ready to sacrifice their
own interests, comfort and rights in order to serve the needs of others.

3. Post-conventional Level: At this level individuals try to strike a reasoned balance

between caring others and looking after their own interests while exercising one’s
rights. The aim is to balance one’s own needs with the needs of others, while maintaining
relationships based on mutual caring. This is achieved through context-oriented reasoning
rather than strictly following the rules.

In our opinion both theories have their own merits. The context orientation and personal
relationships are as important as following the general principles and safeguarding the rights.

ETHICS AND THE LAW

Society’s attempts at regulation have indeed often failed, but good laws, effectively enforced,
have clearly produced benefits. They authoritatively establish reasonable minimal standards of
professional conduct and provide at least a self-interested motive for most people and
corporations to comply. Moreover, they serve as a powerful support and defense for those who
wish to act ethically in situations where ethical conduct might be less than welcome. By being
able to point to a pertinent law, one can feel free to act as a responsible engineer. We contend
that to view engineering as social experimentation can provide engineers with a proper
perspective on laws and regulations. And the rules that govern engineering practice should not be
devised or considered as rules of a game but as rules of responsible experimentation. Such a
view places great responsibility on the engineer, who is intimately connected with his
“experiment” and responsible for its safe conduct.

We should also mention the role of law in engineering ethics. The practice of engineering is
governed by many laws on the international, federal and provincial levels. Many of these laws
are based on ethical principles, although many are purely of a practical, rather than a
philosophical nature. There is also a distinction between what is legal and what is ethical. Many
things that are legal could be considered unethical. For example, designing a process that
releases a known toxic, but unregulated, substance into the environment is probably unethical,
although it is legal.

Conversely, just because something is illegal doesn’t mean that it is unethical. For example,
there might be substances that were once thought to be harmful, but have now been shown to be
safe, that you wish to incorporate into a product. If the law has not caught up with the latest
scientific findings, it might be illegal to release these substances into the environment, even
though there is no ethical problem in doing so.

As an engineer, you are always minimally safe if you follow the requirements of the applicable
laws. But in engineering ethics, we seek to go beyond the dictates of the law. Our interest is in
areas where ethical principles conflict and there is no legal guidance for how to resolve the
conflict.
ETHICAL DILEMMAS

A dilemma is a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more
alternatives that are equally undesirable”

Ethical dilemmas are situations in which moral reasons come into conflict, or in which the
applications of moral values are unclear, and it is not immediately obvious what should be done.
Ethical dilemmas arise in engineering because moral values are many and varied.

Complexities in Resolving Moral Dilemmas

There are three distinct complexities in resolving moral dilemmas:

a. Vagueness: The engineer is not clear which moral considerations or principles apply
to the current situation. For example, is it right to accept an expensive gift from a
supplier. Will it be like accepting bribe? Will it affect fairness of the contract? Will he be
obliged to give undue concessions to the supplier?

b. Conflicting Reasons: At that two perfectly accepted moral principles are in conflict
with each other. These are situations in which two or more obligations, duties, rights, or
ideals come into conflict with one another and not all of them can be fully respected.

Example: We make a promise to a friend, thereby creating an obligation to do what we

have promised. Then our parents become ill and staying home to help them prevents us
from keeping the promise. The dilemma, which consists of a conflict between the duty to
keep promises and an obligation to one’s parents, is usually resolved by an apologetic
phone call to the friend. Or again, we make one promise to our employer and another to a
colleague, and it turns out that we cannot keep both. An apology to the offended party
will often settle the matter.

c. Disagreements: Reasonable and responsible individuals and groups may disagree

about how to interpret, apply and balance moral reasons in particular situations.
This disagreement becomes even more complicated within an engineering corporation in
which individuals must work together within authority-structured relationships.

Steps in Confronting Ethical Dilemmas

1. Identify relevant moral factors and reasons. What are the conflicting responsibilities,
competing rights, and clashing ideals involved?
2. Gather all available facts that are pertinent to the moral factors involved.
3. If possible, rank the moral considerations in order of importance as they apply to the
situation.
4. Consider alternate courses of action as ways of resolving the dilemma, tracing the full
implications of each.
5. Talk with colleagues, seeking their suggestions and alternative perspectives on the
dilemma.
 6. Arrive at a carefully reasoned judgment by weighing all the moral factors and reasons
in the light of facts – this of course is a difficult step

The study of engineering ethics with case studies help strengthen skills in moral reasoning,
resolution of conflicts and reaching rational decisions in complex situations.
Steps in Resolving Ethical Dilemmas

Reasonable solutions to ethical dilemmas are clear, informed, and well-reasoned. ‘Clear’ refers
to moral clarity and conceptual clarity. ‘Informed’ means to know the implications of the
available facts that are morally relevant in light of the applicable moral values. In addition, it
means being aware of alternative courses of action and what they involve. ‘Well-reasoned’
means that good judgment is exercised in integrating the relevant moral values and facts to arrive
at a morally desirable solution.

1. Moral Clarity: Identify the relevant moral values.

The most basic step in confronting ethical dilemmas is to become aware of them. This
means identifying the moral values and reasons applicable in the situation, and bearing
them in mind as further investigations are made. These values and reasons might be
obligations, duties, rights, goods, ideals or other moral considerations.

2. Conceptual Clarity: Clarify key concepts.

Professionalism requires being a faithful agent of one’s employer, but does that mean
doing what one’s supervisor desires or doing what is good for the corporation in the long
run? The supervisor might be adopting a short-term view that could harm the long-term
interests of the corporation.

3. Informed about the facts: Obtain relevant information.

This means gathering information that is relevant in light of the applicable moral values.
Sometimes the primary difficulty in resolving moral dilemmas is uncertainty about the
facts rather than conflicting values.

4. Informed about the options: Consider all options.

It means being aware of alternative courses of action and what they involve. Initially,
ethical dilemmas seem to force us into a two-way choice. Do this or do that. Either
accept the supervisor’s orders or blow the whistle to the town authorities. A closer look
often reveals additional options. Unless an emergency develops, all the options should be
attempted before informing authorities outside the corporation.

5. Well-reasoned: Make a reasonable decision.

It means to arrive at a carefully reasoned judgment by weighing all the relevant moral
reasons and facts. It is a deliberation aimed at taking into account all the relevant reasons,
facts, and values in a morally reasonable manner. If there is no ideal solution, we seek at
least a satisfactory one, what Herbert Simon calls it “satisficing”.

Right-Wrong or Better-Worse
We might divide ethical dilemmas into two broad categories. On the one hand, many dilemmas
have solutions that are either right or wrong. “Right” means that one course of action is
obligatory, and failing to do that action is unethical (immoral). In most instances a code of ethics
specifies what is clearly required: obey the law and heed engineering standards, do not offer or
accept bribes, speak and write truthfully, maintain confidentiality, and so forth. On the other
hand, some dilemmas have two or more solutions, no one of which is compulsory but one of
which should be chosen. These solutions might be better or worse than others in some respects,
but not necessarily in all respects.

MAKING MORAL CHOICES

Moral dilemmas comprise the most difficult occasions for moral reasoning. Nevertheless, they
constitute a relatively small percentage of moral choices, that is, decisions involving moral
values. Most moral choices are routine and straightforward. The following examples illustrate
how choices involving moral values enter into routine decisions during technological
development, punctuated by periodic moral dilemmas:

1. Designing Aluminum Cans

About 100 billion aluminum cans are produced in the United States each year. The first
aluminum can was designed in 1958 by Kaiser Aluminum in attempt to improve upon heavier
and more expensive tin cans. Aluminum being lightweight, flexible material allowed
manufacturing of the bottom and sides of the can from a single sheet, the top being fixed after
the can was filled.
The first aluminum cans, like the tin cans before them, were opened with a separate opener
incurring additional costs for customers. So a small lever was designed to be attached to the can.
It was removed as the can opened. The idea proved workable and was quickly accepted by
manufacturers. But ethical dilemma arose when billions of discarded pull tabs became a cause
for pollution, foot injuries, and injuries to fish and infants who ingested them. The dilemma was
what to do in order to balance usefulness to consumers with protection of the environment.
In 1976, a simple and stay-attached opener was invented which is still in use these days with
minor improvements. This is how an engineer learns from design failures of the past which cause
risks and problems.
It may be noted how moral values were embedded in the design process at all stages as well as in
the ethical dilemmas concerning the environment. If the moral choices are broadly as decisions
involving moral values, then the development of aluminum cans can be understood as a series of
routine moral choices mixed with occasional moral dilemmas.
Though, the decisions taken by the engineers and their managers were purely technical and
economic, yet moral values entered implicitly (indirectly) into their decision making. The
technical and economic decisions had moral dimensions in four directions: safety, environmental
protection, consumer usefulness and economic benefits.
1. Human safety is obviously a moral value, rooted directly in the moral worth of human
beings.
2. Environment: Protection of environment also involves moral value. Billions of detached
can openers raised the level of hazards to people walking with bare feet. The broader
problem of environmental pollution from aluminum cans and their openers required
community action in developing the technologies for recycling.
 3. Some moral values are hidden in terms like “useful” and “convenient” products.
Drinking liquids is a basic need, and convenient access to pleasant tasting liquids
contributes to human well-being.
4. The economic benefits to stakeholders in the corporation have moral implications.
Money matters and it matters morally. Jobs provide the livelihood for workers and their
families.

2. Design Analogy: Witbeck

John Dewey (1859-1952) used engineering as an analogy for thinking about ethics in general, in
order to accent the practical nature of moral reasoning.
Caroline Whitbeck suggests that engineering design is in many respects a model for “designing”
courses of action in many moral situations, in engineering and elsewhere. Moral judgments and
criticisms are involved in making moral choices, considering many different aspects rather than
as simple “right versus wrong” verdicts about another person’s choice.

Whitbeck gave one assignment to mechanical engineering students. The assignment was to
design a child seat that fits on top of standard suitcases with wheels. The constraints were
regarding size, use and safety limits. The students arrived at different designs which were
reasonable solutions to the design problem. No design was ideal in every regard, as each had
strengths and weaknesses. Whitbeck identifies several aspects of engineering decisions that
highlight important aspects of moral decisions in general.

First, usually there are alternative solutions to design problems, more than one of which is
satisfactory. Moral issues, too, frequently have more than one satisfactory solution.
Second, multiple moral factors are involved. Among the satisfactory solutions for design
problems, one solution is typically better in some respects and less satisfactory in other respects
when compared with alternative solutions. That is, even if two options are equally satisfactory
overall, there might be genuine strengths and weaknesses among the many specific features.
Third, some design solutions are clearly unacceptable. In general, there are many ‘background
constraints’ that limit the range of reasonable options. Based upon moral choices, some solutions
are ruled out right away, for example, by minimum standards of justice and decency.
Fourth, engineering design often involves uncertainties and ambiguities, not only about what is
possible and how to achieve it, but also about the specific problems that will arise as solutions
are developed. Obviously, this aspect of engineering highlights a familiar feature of moral
decisions in general.
Finally, design problems are dynamic. Usually there is not just one problem to be solved, but
instead a number of problems that arise over time. Finding one part of the overall solution often
generates new problems, means and goals. Moral choices, too, are often dynamic and involve
many choices, rather than one final choice.

Whitbeck argues that the analogies between engineering design and ethical decision making
apply to moral dilemmas as well as to routine decision making.

Avert: prevent, avoid