A practical Ethics Toolkit

LE CTURE 2
E N GI N E E RI NG ETH I CS
 Outline

This chapter provides several methods that go beyond codes of

practice, and are beneficial for analyzing and resolving moral issues

1. Dealing with problems that have a Moral Aspect (when Codes of

Practice are insufficient)
2. Categories of a Moral Problem(Diagnosis)
3. Resolving Techniques
4. Common Morality

2
1. PROBLEMS WITH A MORAL ASPECT :

Sometimes, we are faced with problems

that have a moral aspect, but cannot be
solved solely by codes of practice

Example: Using cadavers in car crashtests

Tests aimed at improving public

safety/welfare
Tests adhered to laws (approvals were
obtained)

Legal, but is it ethical ?

3
The Case
The Case
• In 1993, it was publicly revealed that Germany’s Heidelberg
University had in the past used more than 200 cadavers, including
those of 8 children, in automobile crash tests.
• This revelation drew immediate protests in Germany.
• Rudolph Hammerschmidt, spokesperson for the Roman Catholic Bishop s Conference,
objected: Even the dead possess human dignity. This research should be done with
mannequins, he said.
• ADAC, Germany s largest automobile club, issued a statement saying: In an age when
experiments on animals are being put into question, such tests must be carried out on
dummies and not on children’s cadavers.
• In reply, the university claimed that, in every case, relatives granted
permission, as required by German law.
• The rationale for using cadavers is that data from such crash tests are
vital for constructing more than 120 types of instrumented dummies,
ranging in size from infants to adults, that can simulate dozens of
human reactions in a crash. Such tests have been used to save many
lives, including those of children.
The Case
The Case(Cont’d)
• Similar testing has also been conducted in the United States at
Wayne State’s Bioengineering Center. Robert Wartner, a Wayne
State spokesperson, indicated that the testing has been done as a
part of a study by the federal government’s Centers for Disease
Control.
• However, he added, Cadavers are used only when alternative could not produce useful
safety research.
• Clarence Ditlow, head of the Center for Auto Safety, a Washington,
DC, public advocacy group, said that the center advocates three
criteria for using cadavers in crash testing:
• (1) assurance that the data sought by the tests cannot be gained from using dummies
• (2) prior consent by the deceased person
• (3) informed consent of the family
• This case illustrates how technology raises important moral and
social issues.
• It presents a conflict between the safety and well-being of the public, which
apparently can be enhanced by the use of cadavers, and concerns about
the dignity of the cadaver.
The Moral
The Case Issue
• This case is a good example of how referring to a professional
code is not always sufficient to resolve some issues in
engineering.
• According to the National Society of Professional Engineers
(NSPE) Code of Ethics, the first fundamental canon says:
• Engineers must hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
• But does this imply that it is ok to use cadavers for crash testing?
Or
• does the consideration of human dignity (rarely mentioned in engineering
codes) override considerations of health, welfare, and safety in this case?

• In addressing many issues in engineering ethics, we need

ethical resources or methods to supplement the codes.

• Just like tools in a toolbox where the appropriate tool is used for the task at
hand based on experience.
 2. CATEGORIES:

Problems with moral aspects can be divided to three categories:

• Determining the Facts
• Clarifying Concepts
• Applications of Concepts

 The solution to any moral problem starts by identifying these three

categories
 Judgement/Decision becomes easier when every category is
properly defined

7
 2. CATEGORIES: FACTS

Facts: What is relevant to the moral decision ?

(Known vs. Unknown Facts)

Concerning the use of cadavers:

• Is it true that beneficial data is only possible by testing on
cadavers ?
• Is there any other option to get this data?
• Did data from tests using cadavers help in reducing causalities
from accidents ? ( compared to other tools such as computer simulations or
testing with dummies)
• This may be difficult or even impossible to determine with certainty

Answers to these questions provide the “FACTS”

8
that will help in resolving the moral problem
2. CATEGORIES: CONCEPTS

Concepts: A clear understanding of key terms/concepts

Public health and safety, conflict of interest, bribery, extortion,

confidentiality, loyalty, human dignity…

Disagreement about the meaning of such terms can create complications

in resolving the moral problem even if there is agreement about all the
facts and moral assumptions.

Q: Regarding the use of cadavers, which

concept is relevant?
A: The “human dignity” concept

9
 2. CATEGORIES: APPLICATIONS

Applications: Even when we are clear about concepts & their

meaning, disagreement about their applications can also arise

Disagreements over application issues can result from:

• Disagreement overconcept(s) (conceptual issue)
• Disagreement over facts to which the concepts are applied (factual
issue)
• Disagreement over both

Ex: Disagreement over concept of “human dignity”

Is using cadavers for reducing car accident fatalities a suitable
application of the concept of “human dignity” ?

10
 2. CATEGORIES: Components of a Moral Problem

Factual Issues: Questions of fact relevant to the resolution of a moral problem.

Conceptual Issues: Questions about the meanings of terms relevant to the resolution of a moral
problem.

Application Issues: Questions about whether and how a term applies in a situation.

Moral Issues: Questions about how conflicting moral considerations relevant to the resolution of a
moral problem should be weighed or balanced.

Case Example: A factual issue is whether cadavers are necessary to obtain some types of information
relevant to auto safety. An application issue is the question whether using cadavers for testing can be
considered an example of respecting human dignity.

11
3. RESOLVING TECHNIQUES:

Two effective resolving techniques that aid in resolving application issues

can be used:

• Line Drawing
• Creative Middle Way Solutions

Example:

Victor is an engineer in a large construction firm. Although he will not make the final
decision, he has been assigned the task of recommending which welded steel studs should
be used for the construction of a large apartment building. After some research and testing,
he decides to recommend ACME steel studs for the job. On the day after Victor’s
recommendation was made, an ACME representative visits him and gives him a voucher for
an all expense paid trip to the annual ACME Technical Forum, which meets in Jamaica. The
trip will have considerable educational value, but will also include day trips to the beach and
other points of interest.

Moral Question: Is this a BRIBE ? 12

 3. RESOLVING TECHNIQUES (Cont’d):

Identify Paradigm Cases:

Suppose a vendor offers an engineer $10,000 to get the engineer to recommend the
vendor’s product to the engineer’s company.

Since all of the facts we need are not supplied in the narrative, we must make some
assumptions.

Filling in some facts not given in the narrative with reasonable assumptions, we can say
that several aspects of the situation (we shall call them features) are relevant in making
this situation a paradigmatic bribe:
• The gift is substantial;
• It is offered before the engineer’s decision on which product to recommend;
• the engineer has sole responsibility for the decision as to which studs to specify;
• the vendor’s product is the most expensive on the market; and it is of questionable
quality.
 Moral Question: Is this a BRIBE? Definitely 13
 3. RESOLVING TECHNIQUES (Cont’d):

A paradigmatic non-bribe case:

• The gift is small like a pen worth 2 dollars for example;

• It is offered after the engineer’s decision on which product to recommend has been
made;
• the engineer does not personally gain from the decision
• the engineer does not make the final decision on whether to buy the steel studs;
• the vendor’s product is the highest quality and lowest price on the market.

 Moral Question: Is this a BRIBE? No

14
 3. RESOLVING TECHNIQUES (Cont’d)

• Back to Victor’s case: It is a test case that must be evaluated by comparing it with
paradigm bribes and nonbribes.
• In the case of each feature, you can place an X on the continuum between the two bribe
or the paradigm nonbribe depending on your score or judgement.
• It is also useful to put circles around a few of the Xs to indicate features you think have
special importance in evaluating this test case. Then, you draw a line at the midway and
count the “X” marks on each side.

• As Box 2.3 suggests, the test case is by no means a paradigm bribe and probably should
not be considered a bribe. Nevertheless, it comes close enough to a paradigm bribe with
regard to several features especially gift size to raise some concern.
 3. RESOLVING TECHNIQUES (Cont’d)

• A second line drawing exercise would consider the following features to

help Victor decide whether he should accept the offer:

• Does accepting the offer conform to industry-wide practice?

• Does accepting the vendor’s offer conform to company policy?

• Will real useful information be offered at the technical forum?

• Will it be generally known that the offer of the trip was made after the decision to
purchase the vendor’s product?

• Will accepting the vendor’s offer influence Victor or others to make unethical
decisions in the future?
3. RESOLVING TECHNIQUES: (CONT’D)

Creative Middle Way Solutions

Devise creative alternatives that satisfy as many of the competing

factors as possible.

Some alternatives for the previous case study:

• Nominate another employee for the trip, especially someone that has
not participated in the decision
• Accept trip, but split/share costs

17
 3. RESOLVING TECHNIQUES: (CONT’D)

Creative Middle Way Solutions

Example: Brad is in the second year of his first full-time job after graduating from
Engineering Tech. He enjoys design, but is becoming increasingly concerned that his work is
not being adequately checked by more experienced engineers. He has been assigned to
assist in the design of a number of projects that involve issues of public safety, such as
schools and overhead walkways between buildings. He has already spoken to his supervisor,
whose engineering competence he respects, and he has been told that more experienced
engineers check his work. Later, he discovers to his dismay that his work is often not
adequately checked. Instead, his drawings are stamped and passed on to the contractor.
Sometimes the smaller projects he designs are under construction within a few weeks after
his designs are completed. At this point, Brad calls one of his former professors at
Engineering Tech for advice. I m really worried that I m going to make a mistake that will kill
someone, Brad says. I try to overdesign, but the projects I m being assigned to are becoming
increasingly difficult. What should I do? Brad s professor tells him that he cannot ethically
continue on his present course because he is engaging in engineering work that surpasses
his qualifications and may endanger the public.
18
What should Brad do?
 3. RESOLVING TECHNIQUES: (CONT’D)

Creative Middle Way Solutions

• Brad’s case illustrates one of the most common conflicts faced by engineers, one
in which his obligation to his employer seems to conflict with his obligation to the
public.
• Both of these obligations are clearly mandated by the codes.
• The NSPE code requires engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and
welfare of the public (Canon 1)
• and also to act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful
agents or trustees (Canon 4).
• Brad also has a legitimate interest in preserving and promoting his own career
and protecting the interests of his family, if he has one.
• Because of the multiple conflicting values, Brad should attempt to find what we
call a creative middle way that would satisfy as many of these conflicting
obligations as possible.
19
 3. RESOLVING TECHNIQUES: (CONT’D)
Brad’s possible courses of action:

• Brad could go to his supervisor again and suggest in the most tactful way possible that he is uncomfortable
about the fact that his designs are not being properly checked, pointing out that it is not in the firm’s
interests to produce designs that may be flawed. Brad could thus honor his obligation to the safety of the
public, to his employer, and to himself and his career. This would be an ideal creative-middle-way solution.
• Brad might talk to others in the organization with whom he has a good working relationship and ask them to
help him persuade his supervisor that he (Brad) should be given more supervision. This solution is almost as
good, because it would resolve the problem, but it might tarnish the supervisor s reputation with his other
employees and perhaps with the public.
• Brad could find another job and then, after his own employment is secure, reveal the information to the
state registration board for engineers or to others who could stop the practice. While protecting his own
career and the public, this option does not promote his employer s interests
• Brad might tell his supervisor that he does not believe he can continue to engage in design work that is
beyond his abilities and experience and that he might have to consider changing jobs. This solution involves
a confrontation with his employer. This solution might not cause the employer to change his bad practices
and might harm Brad s career. It might also harm the reputation of the supervisor with his other employees.
• Brad could go to the press or his professional society and blow the whistle immediately. This would protect
the public, but possibly damage his career prospects and certainly severely damage the supervisor s
business. 20
4. COMMON MORALITY:

Common Morality

• Can be relied upon for resolving moral issues involving larger

social policies

• The basic pillars of common morality = Virtues

• In relation to Engineering, these virtues include:

 honesty (in your work)
 loyalty (to clients and employers)
 striving for excellence

21
4. COMMON MORALITY:(CONT’D)

Two Common MoralityModels:

• Utilitarian Model
The greatest good for the greatest number of people
• From a utilitarian standpoint, it might be justifiable to allow the emission of
pollutants from a plant that will severely harm a few, if the benefits from the plant
(good jobs, etc.) outweigh the harm to the few. Thus, utilitarianism can lead to
unjust distributions, suggesting that it has not adequately captured all of the
elements of common morality.

• Respect for Persons Model

Actions or rules are right if they regard each person as worthy of
respect as a moral agent
• From the RP standpoint, maximizing the welfare of the majority, as utilitarianism
suggests, must take second place to the goal of respecting the moral agency of all
individuals. People may not be killed, deceived, denied their freedom, or otherwise 22
4. Example of Utilitarian Approach

• A plant discharges a pollutant into the local river, where it is ingested by fish. If
humans eat the fish, they experience significant health problems. Eliminating the
pollutant will be so expensive that the plant will become, at best, only marginally
profitable.
• Allowing the discharge to continue will save jobs and enhance the overall
economic viability of the community. The pollutant will adversely affect only a
relatively small proportion of the population—the most economically deprived
members of the community who fish in the river and then eat the fish.
• Under these conditions, allowing the plant to continue to discharge the pollutant
might seem justifiable from a utilitarian perspective, even though it would be
unjust to the poorer members of the community.
• Thus, there is a problem of justly distributing benefits and burdens. Many would
say that the utilitarian solution should be rejected for this reason.
• In such cases, utilitarian reasoning seems, to some, to lead to implausible moral
judgments, as measured by our understanding of common morality.
23
5. APPLICATION PROCEDURES:

Utilitarian Model

1. Cost-Benefit Approach (CBA)

Respect for Persons Model

1. The Golden Rule Approach

2. The Self Defeating Approach
3. The Rights Approach

24
 5. APPLICATIONPROCEDURES: (CONT’D)

Utilitarian Model
Applying the Cost-Benefit Test/Approach:
• Identify the available options that provide a solution to the
problem under consideration
• Assess the costs and benefits (measured in monetary terms)
of each option (They should be assessed for the entire
audience affected by the decision)
• Make the decision that is likely to result in the greatest benefit
relative to cost
• Assumes that economic measures of cost and benefit
override all other considerations:
• E.g., Cost–benefit analysis encourages the elimination of a pollutant only
when it can be done in an economically efficient manner. Yet it is not
necessarily irrational to hold that the pollutant should be eliminated, even if
the elimination is not justified by the analysis. 25
5. APPLICATIONPROCEDURES: (CONT’D)

Respect for Persons Model

1. The Golden Rule Approach:

• What if it was me, would I accept my actions/judgments ?
(Universalization principle)
• My judgment should not change because the roles are reversed.

Applying the Golden Rule Test:

• Identify the action tested
• Ask yourself whether you would be willing to have a similar action
done when you are the recipient of the action
• If you are willing to be the recipient of your contemplated action,
26
the action is morally permissible by the Golden Rule
5. APPLICATIONPROCEDURES: (CONT’D)

Respect for Persons Model

2. The Self-Defeating Approach/Test:

• To judge an action, universalize it. If it defeats its purpose,
then it would not have been a good action
• After identifying the action to be tested, ask yourself: “If
everyone else did what I am doing, would this undermine my
ability to do the same thing?” If YES then universalizing the
action becomes self-defeating (not permissible)

27
 5. APPLICATIONPROCEDURES: (CONT’D)

Respect for Persons Model

3. Rights Approach:
• Emphasizes prioritizing rights and right infringements

Applying the Rights Test:

• Identify the action to be evaluated
• Determine what options are available and what rights are at the
stake in each of the options
• Prioritize rights and right infringements
• Make a choice that produces the least serious right infringements
Example: Plant that discharges pollutants into a river
The right to life > the right to acquire wealth for one’s benefit
28
 GIFTS VS BRIBES

When is a gift a bribe ?

There is a fine line between a gift and a bribe.
• Gifts of nominal value such as mugs and simple things
that could be affordable by everyone are not considered
as bribe.
• Also, dining with a customer will make the relation between
the two parties better as long as each one of them pays his
own bill.
• When the gifts become unaffordable and with a very high
value, or the restaurant for example is expensive and not
everybody pays his own bill then the gift becomes a bribe.
29
 GIFTS VS BRIBE
EXAMPLES
• During a sales visit, a sales representative offers you a coffee
mug with his company’s name and logo on it. The value of the
mug is five dollars. Can you accept this item? Does the
answer to this question change if this item is a $350 crystal
bowl with the name of the company engraved on it? How about
if there is no engraving on it?

• Your meeting with a sales representative is running into the

lunch hour. She invites you to go out for lunch. You go to a fast-
food restaurant and pay for your own lunch. Is this
practice acceptable? Does the answer to this question
change if you go to an expensive French restaurant? If she
pays for lunch?

The facts will be obvious: who offered a gift, what its value was,
and what its purpose was.
30
 AVOIDING BRIBERY ISSUES

Look at the company policy : For example, some

companies say that employees are not allowed to accept
anything from a vendor and that any social interaction with
vendors or customers must be paid for by your company.
Any deviation from this rule requires approval from
appropriate supervisors.
The “New York Times Test”: Could your actions withstand
the scrutiny of a newspaper reporter? Could you stand to see
your name in the newspaper in an article about the gift you
received? If you couldn’t easily defend your action without
resorting to self-serving rationalizations, then you probably
shouldn’t do it.

31