“Engineering ethics: making the case.”

“Engineering ethics: making the case.”

In this chapter, Harris and colleagues engage in a critical examination of the topics surrounding engineering ethics such as code of ethics, engineering societies, and the potential conflict between professional and personal ethics. The authors explore these subjects in relation to the ultimate role of engineering to people’s lives and well-being and the consequent responsibilities of engineers. Generally, engineers have a role of promoting public safety, health, and well-being while preventing harm on humans and nonhumans and the environment in general. In their professional pursuits, engineers will constantly encounter challenging situations requiring critical ethical reflection as well as expertise, advice, and judicious decision-making.

On this note, the authors make important observations regarding the existing code of ethics in engineering. First, the ethical codes do not give adequate recognition to the key components of the role of engineers, which include promoting public safety, health and well-being. Second, the codes are associated with specific engineering societies, raising question on whether engineers who are not affiliated to any of these societies are bound by those codes. Third the codes focus on engineers’ responsibility and performance at the individual level while ignoring the fact that engineers usually work as a group. Lastly, the existing codes are mainly based on a prohibitive approach and seem to ignore the significance of aspirational approach to ethics in promoting engineering ethics (Harris et al. 11-12). Based on this, it is evident that the existing codes of ethics are not a panacea in maintaining ethical conduct in engineering, hence the need to focus on the aspirational face of engineering as it places emphasis on the more positive as well as welfare-promoting engineering aspects.

Considering the aforementioned limitations of the prohibitive and preventive approach to ethics, it can be inferred that the current engineering ethical codes may promote complacency among engineers. They encourage an attitude where individual engineers consider it good enough to simply do what is stipulated in the code. They reduce engineers’ commitment and inner motivation to go beyond individual responsibility and performance, which would help foster public welfare to a higher degree. Rather than being viewed as an end, ethical codes in engineering should be seen as the beginning in the pursuit of the ultimate purpose of engineering. While engineering codes of ethics express what might seem as the highest professional standards among engineers, it is clear that many engineers exemplify professional and ethical standards that are beyond what is shared by the majority. Therefore, emphasizing on the code of ethics restricts individual engineers from cultivating a level of commitment that goes beyond expectations.

Aspirational approach to ethics perceives the motivational aspect of doing good (beyond prohibitions and avoidance of wrongdoing) as the ultimate approach to promoting public welfare. It promotes discretionary efforts among engineers, which fosters the achievement of the highest goals of engineering. Aspiration ethics serves to foster a positive professional character that give rise to ideal engineers whose highest interest is to contribute positively to public welfare based on their social concern and awareness as well as environmental conscientiousness. This professional character cannot be achieved through a rule-based system of ethics. In other words, the intrinsic desire and motivation to benefit the society by going beyond expectations should serve as the ultimate ethical guide in engineering. Aspiration ethics are relevant regardless of whether engineers are working individually or as a group. Additionally, this approach to ethics transcends the perceived boundaries associated with affiliation to different engineering bodies. It also exemplifies the dynamic nature of the engineering challenges affecting the society. Therefore, this approach to ethics should be promoted across the field of engineering to ensure engineers adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct in the interest of promoting public safety, health and welfare.

 

“You should have say in your robot car’s code of ethics”

The burgeoning robotics industry continues to raise important ethical questions. The emergence of autonomous cars, for instance, has brought into perspective the prospect of programmable ethics button. Ideally, autonomous vehicles need to have buttons within them that aid in making ethical decisions. While this is considered an important development, it nonetheless raises a key ethical issue with regards to who should be responsible in making such complex fundamental questions; whether it should be the manufacturer, legislators, or users.

As Millar points out, it is necessary to critically examine the ethical issues related to the ethics button in autonomous cars. Making an ethical decision is a fundamental moral issue yet moral decisions are extremely personal in the sense that no one should make such decisions on behalf of another person. Millar uses the “tunnel problem” as an example of confounding moral issues. In such problems, individuals are confronted with situations that demand quick decisions yet all of the possible decisions lead to terrible outcomes. In the case of autonomous cars, users may be prompted to make life or death decisions, particularly in the event of an accident. Most people prefer that users and legislators, as opposed to designers and manufacturers, be at the forefront in making the complex moral or ethical decisions (Millar). Indeed, users should not be disenfranchised in making such important moral decisions since this would be a violation of their inalienable moral disposition.

The healthcare system offers a case study that is relevant for roboethics. In healthcare, physicians make certain critical decisions based on informed consent. Healthcare ethics acknowledge that patients are rightly justified to make important decisions regarding their bodies. If physicians fail to consider that fact, they may be liable for professional negligence. Originally, there was no informed consent in healthcare. Physicians made decisions based on their professional conviction and judgment without necessarily consulting with the patients on whether a decision is consistent with their interests (Millar). Informed consent has its own bottlenecks, but it has helped in making important and personal decisions in healthcare that corresponds with important moral issues. While informed consent is not meant to make things simple by any means, moral decisions are extremely personal issues that must be made based on one’s own moral understanding and character.

The introduction of programmable ethics button is likely to elicit serious legal issues as far as robot liability is concerned. To regulate robots more effectively, a complete legal rethinking is imperative. Integrating the concept of informed consent is an essential proposition that will help both users and manufacturers in addressing the weighty moral issues concerning product liability. In healthcare, physicians are held liable for making ethical decisions that concern patients without obtaining their informed consent (Millar). Likewise, manufacturers of autonomous cars should be held accountable for denying users the ability to exercise their moral disposition.

Overall, advanced technology continues to raise a lot of issues concerning ethics, and the robotics industry is no exception. The autonomous cars are designed to make decisions on behalf of the user, and there is a general agreement that some of these decisions inhibit the ability of users to apply their moral disposition in critical situations. Therefore, just like in healthcare, there is need for informed consent in the manufacture of robot cars. Essentially, manufacturers should design ethical buttons in a manner that corresponds with the moral preferences of the user. This will help solve the robot liability conundrum.

 

Works Cited

Harris, Charles, E., Pritchard, Michael S., Rabins, Michaels J., James, Ray, and Englehardt, Elaine. “Engineering ethics: making the case.” Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2013. (1-20).

Millar, Jason. “You should have say in your robot car’s code of ethics.”

 

Is this question part of your Assignment?

We can help

Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.

We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals

Header Button Label: Get Started NowGet Started Header Button Label: View writing samplesView writing samples