(

1
ENGINEERING ETHICS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Engineering - Applied science devoted to the design, construction of machinery, transportation

and communication networks which is divided into many disciplines/specialties/expertise e.g
electrical, mechanical, civil, chemical, Aeronautical etc. ·

Ethic - science of moral, moral principles or code, moral issues (right or wrong), code of
conduct etc. ·

Casuistry - deciding the right or wrong of an issue based on theoretical facts

Utilitarianism - political and moral theories to be present in order to achieve the objectives of
happy and conducive life of the people/society

2.0 ENGINEERS AND CODE OF ETHICS

Scientist - a person who gathers knowledge through research conducted in ·obtaining new
findings by observation, experiments and analysis

Engineer - a creative designer and problem solver that applies the scientific knowledge and
findings made by the scientist.

Engineering must be recognized by the public as a profession for: -

• Its skill in using technical knowledge and expertise for the enhancement of human
welfare '
• Its loyalty to the public, employers and clients
• Its honesty and impartiality in professional practice

Engineers' Code of Ethics - Code of conduct that must be followed by all professional
engineers in executing their professional field of practices which cover the following
characteristics:
• Professional in the same discipline-institutionalizes themselves into a professional
body with recognized. standards of academic and practice qualifications for
memberships
• The professional body has a Code of Ethics to govern the conduct of its members
and disciplinary procedures in event of breach of such code

The Code of Ethics lays down general guidelines for the conduct of members vis-a-vis his
relationship and transactions with the followings:
• The God
• The community-and to a certain extend the world
• The employer
• The clients
• The peers
• The environment
 2
e.g IEEE Code of Ethics:
• to accept responsibility in making engineering decision consistent with
safety, health and welfare of the public, and disclose promptly any danger
that might cause harm to the public or the environment
• to avoid real or perceived conflict of interest whenever possible, and to
disclose them to the effected parties when they do exist
• to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data,
and to credit properly the contributions of others;
• · to reject bribery in all its forms
• to seek, accept and offer honest criticism of technical knowledge and
correct errors, and credit properly the contribution of others
• to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and
to support them in following the Code of Ethics

3.0 METHOD OF ANALYZING AND RESOLVING CASES IN ENGINEERING

ETHICS

The methodology can be divided in two parts, namely:

• Analytical - providing the concepts useful in identifying the types of issues
that appear in a particular case covering factual, conceptual, application and
moral issues .
• Problem resolution - 'bottom-up' and 'top-down' methods

Analytical Issues cover the followings:

(a) Factual issues include:
i) A matter of fact is crucial in resolving the case
ii) A factual issue is to be distinguished from a fact, which is a matter of fact
that has already been settled and is uncontroversial

'• '
e.g we do not know how much a certain design modification in product design will
cost, or what the effects of a certain course of action will be, or how accurate a
give_n test is, or risks are involved in a certain new technology.

(b) Examples of Conceptual Issues are as follows:

• A d agreement over a definition of a concept which is crucial in resolving a
case due to conflict of interest between two or more engineers over a
product design e.g two engineers may differ over whether a particular
product design is safe because they have different definitions of criteria for
'safe'. They may also differ over whether a given action is a conflict of
interest because they may differ over how to define "conflict of interest', how
to distinguish between bribes from extortion and greasy payments.
 3
• Ali is a mechanical engineer employed by Proton to design automotive fuel
tank. According to government safety standards, the automobile must
survive a 'moderate impact' with no chance of the fuel tank catching fire. In
recent tests, cars that crashed at 60 km per hour had no fires, whereas
20% of cars that crashed at 70 km per hour had fire. Ali must first
determine how the government defines by 'moderate impact'. ·

(c)
Application Issues are related to a question o_f weather a concept applies to a
given situation. An application issue is a disagreement over the application of a
concept in a particular situation which is crucial in resolving the case.

• Whether a computer's software is better classified as a work authorship or

an invention. This is an application issue, because the question is whether
. the concept of 'work of authorship' or 'invention' best applies to software.
However, the truth is that neither of these concepts applies particularly well,
and-this is characteristic of application issue in which we are having trouble
deciding whether a concept applies in a given situation.
• Argument over decision on whether attending a technical conference in
London sponsored by a vendor is a bribe
• Argument whether giving one client some general information about
another client's project is a breach of confidentiality.
1 • Application issues often a rise in the law e.g the US Constitution requires
that a citizen be given a 'speedy' trial. If the citizen is kept in jail for two
years without a trial, is this a denial of his right to a speedy trial?

(d) Moral Issues are usually in the form a conflict between two or more values or
obligations as shown by the following examples: ·
• Ali doesn't want to give the custom officer money, but he needs to get the
goods through customs to complete a project that is important for the local
economy as well as to prevent his firm from paying penalty due to late
delivery of the project.
• Aminah is not sure whether she should design slightly safer product which
will considerably more expensive for the customers. She faces a conflict
between her obligation· to produce safe products and her obligation to
produce inexpensive products.
• Ramasamy works for a large manufacturing firm in Shah Alam. The
company employs half of this city, which is in an otherwise economically
depressed part of the country. He discovers that the company is dumping
chemical wastes into one the local lakes that may pose a health hazard
since the lake is the city main source of drinking water. He is told that the
company dumps these chemical wastes into the lake because disposing
them in any other way will be so expensive that the plant would have to
close. Should Ramasamy report his company's practice to the local
authorities? In this case, he faces a conflict between his obligation to the
 4
health of the citizens of Shah Alam and his obligation to the economic
welfare of the citizens of Shah Alam.

4.0 APPLICATION OF BOTTOM-UP AND TOP-DOWN METHODS ON PROBLEM

RESOLUTION

Bottom-up methods is one of the techniques that can be used because they rely on moral ···
, intuitions instead of moral theories. These methods include the followings:
• Weighing/balancing Method .
• Casuistry - deciding the right or wrong of an issue based on theoretical facts (by Line
Drawing Method)
• Creative Middle Way - to determine the options/solutions to the problem

Another applicable methods, the 'top-down methods' appeal to some general moral theory and
are sometimes useful in applied e thics. The· two theories are the familiar ·ones in western
philosophy of utilitarianism and the ethics of respect for persons.

Moral conflict may remain even after all the factual, conceptual a nd application issues have be n
resolved so we should consider some methods for resolving moral conflicts. Bottom-up methods
are those that start on a fairly concrete level, close to the detail of the case, and work towards a·
solution. These methods are also characterized by the fact that they are employ generally
accepted and intuitively acceptable moral concepts that are a part of the moral thinking of the
most people in our society.

4.1 THE METHOD OF BALANCING/WEIGHING

The simplest of these methods is what we might call the method of balancing, where reasons for
alternative evaluations are considered and "weighed," and the alternative that has the most·
convincing reasons on its side is selected. We examine the reasons for and against universal
engineering registration and find one set of reasons which are more convincing and all relevant
1Ja·ctors taken into consideration. Perhaps, if we found that the reasons on both sides are equally
convincing in which case either option is morally permissible.

Example;

Engineer Jane owns a civil engineering design firm. She has a chance to bid on part of the design
work for a fertilizer plant in Country X. The plant will increase food production in a country where
many people do not have sufficient food. Unfortunately, the plant will have some bad
environmental effects, and correcting the problems will make the fertilizer more expensive, so
much so that the fertilizer will be too e pensive for farmers in Country X. Should she bid on the
design? She may decide to list considerations in favor of submitting a bid and considerations
against it. On the one hand, she will be contributing to the saving of many lives, the economic·
development of Country X, and the economic advancement of her firm. On the other hand, she
will be contributing to the environmental degradation of Country X, and her firm may receive some
negative publicity. She must attempt to balance these two sets of considerations and determine
which set has the greater moral "weight."
 5
The method of balancing does not provide any specific directions for comparing alternative
evaluations of courses of action, but sometimes such direction· is not necessary. The second
technique provides something more in the way of analytical technique.

4.2 THE METHOD OF CASUISTRY OR LINE-DRAWING

The second technique. is the method of casuistry, or what is called line drawing Although the
method that has been developed for students is more formal than would ordinarily be used in real
world situations, in believing that its basic ideas are a part of what we might call moral common
sense. Certainly, the method has a long history in the moral tradition of the West. In more recent
times, the method has been revived for use in medical ethics. In the United States, the Congress
established the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical
Research in 1974. The deep religious and philosophical differences of the members of the
Commission made progress quite difficult until the members decided to begin talking about
specific examples of morally objectionable experiments (what we shall call "paradigm cases").
The members found that they could agree on the characteristics of thes8 experiments (what we
shall call "features") that made the experiments wrong. Some members of the Commission
recognized the method they were using ·as being the ancient method of casuistry. After this
experience, the method came to be used in medical ethics.

In casuistry, a decision is made about what to do· or believe in a problematic situation by.
comparing the problematic situation with one that is clear. The comparison- using reasoning by
analogy-is made by comparing the FEATURES of the TEST CASE with the features of a
POSITIVE PARADIGM and a NEGATIVE PARADIGM. A "feature" is a characteristic that can
be used to distinguish the two paradigms from the test case. The test case is a case or
situation which is the subject of the analysis. A negative paradigm is a clear or uncontroversial
example of an action that is wrong or morally impermissible and a positive paradigm is a
clear and uncontroversial example of an action that is right or morally permissible.

Casuistry or line drawing can be used to resolve two distinct kinds of questions. Firstly, it can be
used to resolve an application issue. For example, it can be used to determine whether a situation
reqlly is an instance of a bribe. Secondly, it can be used to resolve a moral issue. For example,
once we have determined that an offer really is (or is not) a bribe, we can ask the question
whether we should accept it, or offer it. Of course, in most circumstances, a bribe should not be
accepted, but there might be a few cases where it would be justifiable to accept or offer a bribe.
Using an earlier example, during World War II, if we could bribe a Nazi guard to get our loved
ones out of a concentration camp, we might believe that it is justifiable to do so.

Example:

Let us use the.following an example to illustrate the uses of casuistry to settle an application issue
and to settle a moral issue. Denise is an engineer at a large construction firm. It is her job to
specify rivets for 'the construction of a large apartment building. She has the power to make the
decision by herself. After some research_and.testing,_sbe_decide.s to.use_ACME rh:'.etsJorJb jo.b..._... -
because indeed they are the best product. On the day after she orders the rivets, an ACME
representative visits her and gives her a voucher for an all-expenses paid trip to the ACME
Technical Forum in Europe. The voucher is worth $25000.00. The four-day trip will include
eighteen hours of classroom instruction, time in the evening for sight-seeing, and a day-long tour
of the coastline. The time will be roughly equally divided between education and pleasure. Does
this trip fall under the category of bribery? A line-drawing analysis is as shown in Figure 1.
 6

Features Positive Paradigm Test Case Negative Paradigm

Gift Size $1.00 $25,000.00
------x--
Timing After Decision X-------- Before Decision
Reason Education ----x---- Pleasure
Power to Make
Decisions
Made With Others ------x-- Made Alone

Quality of Product Best x------- Worst

Figure 1: Line Drawing for an Application Issue

In a line-drawing analysis, one must not only decide where to place the "x" on the spectrum, but
also how much "weight" or importance to give each of the "x's." Some features may be more
important than others may. For example, one might decide that the fact that the offer of the trip
was made after the decision to buy ACME rivets means that the gift cannot be considered a
bribe. On the other hand, it can be a bribe to other engineers who will see that buying ACME
products results in their being offered some nice trips. However, if we are asking whether the
offer is a bribe to Denise, the answer should be that it is certainly not a paradigm bribe.

Line-drawing can also be used to determine whether Denise should decide to take the trip. Even
if she decides that the trip is not a bribe, she might still decide not to accept the offer. The
features important features in this analysis will not necessarily be the same as in the former
analysis, although there may be some overlap. Here, it will be important to consider such
features as the influence of the gift on future decisions that Denise and other engineers will
make, the company policy regarding accepting gifts, and the appearance of bribery that
accepting the gift might make. Some features, such as the educational value of the technical
forum, would be relevant here too. Figure 2 illustrates the line-drawing analysis of the moral
question whether Denise should accept the offer.

Features
Positive paradigm Test Case Negative Paradigm
Influence On Future
Decisions
None
------x-- Great

Company Policy May Accept -x------- May Not Accept

Appearance No Problem
------x-- Appearance of a
Bribe
Educational Value Great --x------ Minimal

Figure 2: tine Drawing for a Moral Issue

·-According to-the-analysis-given;-the-issue-is-not-clear:-'However;- the- problems ·associated with ·

accepting··the gift are great enough that Denise probably should not accept the gift under these
· conditions. In the next section, we shall suggest a set of conditions in which accepting the gift
would probably be morally permissible. Before doing this, let us make several concluding remarks
about the method of casuistry.
 7
Firstly, the more features used in an analysis, the better. For the sc.ke of simplicity, we have
used only four or five features, but it is usually better to use more. The more features used, the
more helpful and accurate the analysis-becomes.

Secondly, casuistry is an inherently conservative method. In arriving at paradigm cases to be

used for comparison with test cases we assume that our intuitive, common sense moral judgments
are correct This assumption is of course usually valid, but it may not always be so. This is
particularly true in areas where we morality is changing-as it does or where novel sorts of
experiences or cases occur. It might not be easy to set up noncontroversial paradigm cases with
respect to some issues in environmental ethics, for example.

Thirdly; in order for casuistry to work well in the context of a profession, the profession itself
must agree on paradigms of acceptable and unacceptable practice. There must be agreement
among engineers on paradigmatic examples of acceptable and unacceptable practice with
respect to conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and other issues. Students of medical ethics say
there is now widespread agreement over whether what was done in certain publicized cases
was right or wrong. These agreed-upon. bench marks can then be compared to other more
controversial cases. We are inclined to say that there has been less discussion of whether
there are such agreed-upon bench mark cases in engineering.

4.3 CREATIVE MIDDLE WAYS

A third method is finding what is called a creative middle way. Suppose that we have a conflict
between two or more legitimate moral obligations, where the two obligations appear to be at the
utmost important. Sometimes it is possible, by creative thinking, to come up with a course of
action that satisfies both obligations-, although perhaps not in the way that we had originally
supposed. .For example, a. plant might be emitting some dangerous pollutants that are
environmentally harmful, but completely eliminating them would be so expensive that the
plant would have to close, throwing many local inhabitants out of work. Assuming there is an
obligation both to preserve jobs and to protect the environment, a creative middle way might be
to eliminate the worst pollutants and forego a complete cleanup until more economical means
of doing so can be found. This alternative would be particularly attractive if the pollutants that
remain would not cause irreversible damage to the environment or humans. .

This solution, as well as most creative-middle-way solutions, involves compromise.

Environmentalists might not be completely satisfied with this solution, because all of the pollutants
will not be removed. Plant managers might not be completely satisfied, because the solution still
involves considerably greater expenditures for pollution control. On the other hand, the
environmentalists are getting something done, and the plant owners are able to stay in the town
and even garner considerable amount of public good will.

In the line-drawing case in the previous section, a creative middle way might also be found.
Suppose we take the two competing values to be the value of the trip for recreation and
instruction, on the one hand, and the need to avoid the appearance of bribery and to avoid, undue
influence on professional judgment on the other. Perhaps Denise's manager could suggest that
she may take the trip, but her company will pay travel and other expenses, and that other
engineers w ho were not involved in the decision must also be allowed to take the decision.
Furthermore, it must be understood that the firm's engineers will be allowed to attend the forum,
at the firm's expense, whether or not the firm buys ACME products. This arrangement would only
occur, of course, if the technical value of the forum was very great. It would, however, allow
 8
Denise to honor the competing obligations in a more creative way.

Two limitations of the creative-middle-way approach come to mind. Firstly, sometimes a creative
middle way is not possible, even if it is desirable. In the example cited above, all of the pollutants
may be so damaging to the environment that no half-way measures will work. Furthermore, there
might not be any way to do the cleanup more economically. The plant might just have to close. In
the line-drawing example, ACME might not be able to pay Denise's expenses. A second
limitation is that sometimes creative middle ways are just not morally appropriate. Sometimes
one of the two possible options is so morally unacceptable that we must choose the other one.
Still, creative middle ways are often the best solution to practical moral problems.

5.0 TOP-DOWN METHODS OF RESOLUTION

For some purposes, the appeal to moral common sense may not be sufficient, and it may be
useful to appeal to more fundamental moral ideas, such as those found in moral theories. From
the standpoint of applied or practical ethics, we see the moral theorist as attempting to find
fundamental moral ideas which will generate or explain all or most of our common-sense moral
ideas. we take it that this goal has been only partially achieved, because there are at least two
prevalent moral theories at the present time, not one, and neither one, taken alone, has been
able to explain the fundamental ideas in common morality in a completely satisfactory way. These
two theories are, of course, utilitarianism, usually associated with such names of Jeremy
Bentham and J. S. Mill, and the ethics of respect for persons, usually associated with the name
of Immanuel Kent. The chief idea of utilitarianism is maximizing overall human well-being and the
chief idea of the ethics of respect for person is respecting the rights and moral agency of
individuals.

While the existence of two theories rather than one may be an embarrassment to the theorist, the
practical ethicist can take a more positive attitude towards this situation, because the conflict
between the ideas represented by the two theories often appears in actual moral controversy.
Common morality, at least in the West, may not be a seamless web, but in fact composed of two
strands, represented by the two theories just mentioned. That is, many moral problems reveal a
conflict between considerations having to do with utility or the well-being of the greatest number
of people, and. considerations having to do with justice and the rights of individuals.

We can discern several functions which some knowledge of moral theory could serve in practical
ethics. Firstly, the perspectives represented by the two theories are often useful in identifying and
sorting out different types of arguments, and in appreciating that different types of arguments may
have deep moral roots. In discussing arguments for and against strict protections for intellectual
property. for example, it is useful to know that some of the arguments are utilitarian. From the
utilitarian perspective, arguments are often made that protecting intellectual property promotes
the flourishing of technology and thereby the good of society. Utilitarian arguments can also be
made that strong protection of intellectual property limits the sharing of new ideas in technology
and is thereby detrimental to the general good. From the respect-for-persons perspective,
arguments are often made that people have a right to the control of and the profits from the fruits of
their own labor, regardless of the impact on the larger society.

Secondly, knowing something about these fundamental yet divergent moral perspectives often
enables the ethicist to anticipate moral arguments. In the above example, just thinking about the
two theories and the kinds of arguments they would support could have led one to see that some
 9
arguments regarding intellectual property would probably take the utilitarian approach and others
would take the approach based on rights of ownership. ·

Thirdly, familiarity with these two perspectives can sometimes help in determining whether there
has been closure on a moral issue. If arguments from both perspectives produce the same
conclusions, we can be pretty confident that we have arrived at the right answer If the arguments
from the two perspectives produce different conclusions, the argument. will probably continue.
When different conclusions are produced, there is no algorithm, unfortunately, for deciding which
moral perspective should prevail. In general, however, in the West, with its emphasis on individual
rights, respect for persons has priority, unless the harm to individuals is slight and the utility
produced by the other option is very great indeed. With these considerations in mind, let us look
at the two moral theories.

5.1 THE ETHICS OF UTILITARIANISM

Utilitarianism holds that the right action is the one that produces the best consequences, and the
best consequences are those that produce the greatest total amount of happiness or well-being of
all of those who are affected by the action. Consider the following case. Kevin is the engineering
manager for the county road commission. He must decide what to do about Forest Drive, a local,
narrow, two-lane road. Fore ach oft he past 7 years, at I east one person has s uttered a fatal
automobile accident by crashing into trees, which grow close to the road. Many other accidents
. have also occurred, causing serious injuries, wrecked cars, and damaged trees. Kevin is
considering widening the road. Thirty trees will have to be cut down for him to do this. Kevin is
already receiving protests from local citizens who want to protect the beauty and ecological
integrity of the area. Should Kevin widen the road?

In this case, the conflicting values are public health and safety on the one hand and the beauty
and ecological integrity of the area on the other. Let us suppose that widening the road will save
o.ne life and prevent two serious injuries and five minor injuries each year. Not widening the road
will preserve the beauty and ecological integrity of the area. Even though the preservation will
increase the happiness of many more people, the deaths and injuries are far more serious
negative utilities for those who experience them. Therefore, the greatest total amount of utility is
pr o bably produced by widening the road.

Cost/benefit analysis is a form of utilitarianism and we sometimes refer to it as "utilitarianism with

the numbers." Instead of maximizing the total amount of happiness, the focus is on balancing
costs and benefits, both measured in money, and -selecting that option which produces the
greatest net benefit, again measured in money. Consider an earlier case. ACME manufacturing
has a plant in the small town of Springfield that employs about 10% of the community. As a
consequence of some of its manufacturing procedures, the ACME plant- releases bad-smelling
fumes that annoy its neighbors, hurt the local tourism trade, and have been linked to a r ise in
asthma in the area. The town of Springfield is considering issuing an ultimatum to ACME: "Clean
up your plant or we will levy a million-dollar fine." ACME responds that it will close the plant if they
have to pay the fine. What should Springfield do?
 10
A cost/benefit analysis might determine that the costs of not levying the fine could be calculated
in the following way:

Costs:
Health expenses $1 million
Nuisance odor $50,000
Housing value decline $1 million
Decline in tourism $50,000
Benefits:
Wages $10 million
Taxes $2 million
Total
+$9.9 million (positive cost benefit)

It might calculate the costs of levying the fine in the following way:

Costs:
Loss of wages $10 million
Loss of tax revenue $2 million
Housing value decline $2 million
Benefits:
Fine $1 million
Increase in tourism $50,000
Health savings $900,000
Total
-$12,050,000 (negative cost benefit)

Since the consequences of fining ACME are much higher than the consequences of not fining
ACME, the fine should not be levied. So Springfield ought not to levy the fine against ACME.

There two major problems with utilitarianism. One is that an accurate utilitarian analysis requires
a lot of factual knowledge. This is especially evident in the cost/benefit analysis given above.
One must know what numerical amounts to assign to the various costs and benefits. Even
in a
. 4,1filitarian analysis that is not done in the cost/benefit way, one must know the consequences of
various courses of action in order to know which course of action produces the greatest overall
utility. A second problem with utilitarianism is that it can sometimes justify consequences that are
· unjust. For example, in the above example, deciding not to force the plant to stop polluting will
result in some people's getting sick, even though overall utility will be maximized. These defects
suggest that a complete analysis of a case should involve the approach embodied in the ethics of
respect for persons.

5.2 THE ETHICS OF RESPECT FOR PERSONS

-
With utilitarianism, any harm to one person can be justified by a bigger benefit to someone else.
In the ethics of respect for persons, there are some things you may not do to a person, even if it ·
will benefit others. The fundamental idea in the ethics of respect for persons-is—that you must
respect each person as a free and equal moral agent-that is, as a person who has goals and
values of his or her own and who has a right to pursue those values as long as he or she does not
violate similar rights of others.
 . ..
. . .

11
As this formulation suggests, the ethics of. respect for persons emp:1asizes the. rights of
individuals. These rights are formulated, among other places, in various United Nations
documents. The rights include the rights to life, to security of the person, no.t to be held in slavery,
to freedom of thought and expression, and so fourth. The problem with this formulation is that it
does not give any clear indication of which rights are most important--and rights can often
conflict. In cases of conflict, it is important to know which rights are most important. One
philosopher, Alan Gewirth, has suggested three levels of rights. Level I, the category of the most
important rights, includes the rights to life, to bodily integrity, to mental integrity and right to free
and informed consent to actions that may affects oneself. Level II rights includes the right not to
be deceived, cheated, stolen from, defamed, and have ones promises broken. It also includes the
fight to free speech. ,Level Ill, includes the right to acquire property the right pf non-
discrimination. For Gewirtfi, the first level of rights is the level of fundamental rights necessary for
effective moral agency. The second level includes the rights necessary to preserve one's moral
agency, and the third level includes the rights necessary to increase one's level of effective moral
agency. Whether or not one accepts this arrangement, most of us would probably recognize that
some rights are more important than others.

Example:

Consider the following case. Karen has been working as a design engineer under Andy. She has
learned that Andy is about to be offered a job as head safety inspector for all the oil rigs the
company owns in the region. Karen worries that Andy's drinking may affect Andy's ability to
perform his new job and thereby endanger workers on the oil rigs. She asks Andy to turn down
the new assignment, but Andy refuses. Should Karen take her concern:-:s to management? In this
case, the right of Andy to advance his career (by trying to acquire property), which is a Level Ill
right, conflicts with the rights to life and bodily integrity of the workers on the rig, which are Level I
rights. In this conflict, the rights of the workers are the more important rights, and Karen should
take her concern to management. ·

In arbitrating conflicts of rights; two further issues should be kept in mind. Firstly, there is a
distinction between violating and infringing a right. A right is violated if it is denied entirely. X
violates Y's right to life if X kill Y. A right is infringed if it is limited or diminished in some way. A
plant infringes on my right to life if it emits a pollutant that increases human health hazard.
Secondly, rights can be forfeited by violating or perhaps infringing the rights of others. I may forfeit
my right to life if I kill someone else. I may forfeit some right (perhaps the right to free movement)
if I steal from others and thus infringe or violate their right not to be stolen from.

Finally, the Golden Rule is also a principle that can be associated with the ethics of respect for
persons. There are versions of the Golden Rule in most cultures. The Christian version requires
us to treat others as we would have them treat us. The Islamic version says that no man is a true
believer unless he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. The reason this
principle is a part of the ethics of respect for persons is that, if we consider ourselves to be moral
agents, then the Golden Rule requires us to treat others as moral agents as well.

There are two primary ·problems with the ethics of respect for persons:- first the Rights test and ·
the Golden Rule are sometimes difficult to apply. With rights, we must determine, when there is a
conflict of rights, which rights are most important and whether the rights have been violated or
merely infringed. With the Golden Rule, we must assume that others have the same values we
do. If they do not, treating them as we would wish to be treated may be unfair. Secondly,
sometimes it may be justifiable to allow considerations of utility to override considerations derived
 12 ',I

from the ethics of respect for persons. This is especially true if the infringements of rights are
relatively minor and the benefit to the general welfare is great.

6.0 CONCLUSION

A number of tools have been presented for both analyzing and resolving ethical problems. The
important thing to keep in mind, however, is that the tools cannot be used in-a mechanical way.
They are not algorithms. One must decide when there is a factual issue or a conceptual issue, for
example. In some cases, there may be no such issues. Similarly, one must decide when it is
appropriate to use the line-drawing method or to find a creative middle way, or when an issue is
best seen as a conflict between general human welfare (utility) and the rights of individuals (the
ethics of respect for persons). When there is such a conflict, again, there is no mechanical way to
determine which perspective should be considered most important. In the West, individual rights
have great importance. But even here, this is not always the·case. I believe these techniques and
methods are helpful in thinking about ethical issues, but they are no substitute for moral insight
and moral wisdom.

EXAMPLE OF ASSIGNMENT

Can utilitarianism provide a moral justification for engineers who work for tobacco
companies, for example, in designing cigarette-making machine? In your answer
take account of the following facts (and others you may aware of) Cigarettes kill
more than 400,000 Americans each year, which is more than the combined
deaths caused by alcohol and drug abuse, car accidents, homicide, suicide and
AIDS. Cigarette companies do much good by providing jobs e.g Philip Morris
employs more than150,000 people worldwide. Through taxes, over USD 4.0
billion paid by Philip Morris in a typical year and through philanthropy. Most new
_users of cigarettes in the United States are teenagers below 18 years old. There t
is disagreement over just how addictive cigarettes are, but adults have some
choice in deciding whether to continue using cigarette, and they may choose to
continue using for reasons beyond the addictive potential of nicotine.
 SOLUTION TO ASSIGNMENT 1

Utilitarianism is a political and moral theory to achieve the objective of happy and
conducive life ··

Morality concerns obligations and rights, ideals of character, and minimizing harm
to humans, animals, and the environment. Ethical theories provide detailed
characterization.

Engineering ethics is the·study of the decisions, and values that are morally desirable in
engineering practice and research.

Ethical dilemmas or moral dilemma - situations in which moral reasons come Into
conflict, or which the application of moral values is problematic, and it is not immediately
obvious what should be done.

Professions - those forms of work involving advanced expertise, independent judgment,

self regulation, and concerted services to the public good as usually formulated in a
code of ethics (code of conduct)

Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties in compliance to-the code of

ethics, shall: ·
• Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public
• Perform services only in areas of their competence or expertise
• Issue public statements only in objective and truthful manner
• Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees
, • Avoid deceptive acts
·• Conduct themselves honourably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to
enhance the honour1 reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

The engineers are not contravening the engineering ethics or code of conduct in
executing their work in the tobacco company. Thus, we can safely conclude that the
engineers who work for the tobacco companies are only performing their professional
duties and practice with regards to their profession and the issues pertaining to ethical
dilemmas do not exist and utilitarianism do exist in this case.
 Actual situation of the problems can be tabulated as
follows:
Features Positive Paradigm Test Case Negative Paradigm
Cigarette kills more None More than the
than 400,000 lives
each year
-----X-- combination death
caused by alcohol &
drugs, accident,
homicide, suicide &
.·• AIDS

Providing job
opportunities
Employs more than
150,000 people -- X ----- None

worldwide worldwide
Taxes collected and
charity fund
Over USD4 billion
annually -- X ----- None

Adults addiction to
cigarette
None -----x-- Adults having a choice
on whether to smoke
or not
New cigarette user None
-----X-- Increase in cigarette
teenage smokers
below 18 years old

Suggestions to improve the negative paradigms through creative middle ways/line

drawing method are tabulated as follows:
,
Features Positive Paradiam · TestCUe Neaative paradlam
Reduce nicotine
content in cigarette
Minimise effect of
health due to cigarette - X ----- None

- smokina
Increase tax on
cigarette
Reduce cigarette
smoking with tax - X ----- None

increase
Increase price of Reduce cigarette
cigarette smoking with price
increase - X ----- None

Create 'Non- Reduce cigarette

smoking Zone' . smoking and
consumption - X ----- None

Impose law on Reduce/eliminate

- X -----
banning cigarette cigarette smoking and None
buying and consumption below 18
smoking below 18 years old
years old
Campaign on 'No
Smoking Day'
May reduce cigarette
smoking
-- x ---- Additional fund
required
Labeling of May reduce cigarette-
cigarette with
warning on
smoking --x ----- None

cigarette smoking
Introduce
alternative way to
May reduce cigarette
smoking
--x ----- May create litter and
-- . cleanliness · -
·-·
cigarette smoking problems
e.a chewing cum
Establish health
clinics for smokers
May reduce cigarette
smoking
---x---- Additional fund
reauired