Comprehensive Study Notes — Week 1
"The engineer simply cannot deny that he did it. If his works do not work, he is damned forever." — Herbert Hoover (Terman, 1965)
This quote captures a defining feature of engineering: complete public accountability. Unlike doctors who can bury mistakes, or lawyers who can argue their way out, an engineer's work stands exposed for all to see and judge.
Engineers see themselves as creative problem-solvers who enjoy finding solutions to complex challenges.
Engineering provides public service and benefits people — it is an honourable profession with esprit de corps.
Engineering provides the most freedom of all professions (Florman, 1976).
The rational, systematic approach of engineers can alienate them from the public due to technicalities, creating a perception gap.
"Engineers shall at all times recognize that their primary obligation is to protect the safety, health, property, and welfare of the public. If their professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety, health, property, or welfare of the public are endangered, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate."
Engineering sits at the confluence of technology, social science, and business. Because engineering is done by people and for people, and because engineers' decisions impact all three of these domains, ethics is permanently embedded in practice.
Every engineering output is visible and judged by society — hiding errors is impossible.
The interest of affected groups must always prevail over personal profit motives.
Decisions ripple across products, companies, the environment, law, and the public.
The Therac-25 radiation therapy machine killed or seriously injured patients at multiple North American hospitals (1985–1987). A simple typographical error by an operator caused a filter to drop out of position, delivering a massive radiation overdose. The machine was poorly designed and inadequately tested — hardware-software integration was totally inadequate. The manufacturer, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., eventually went bankrupt.
Lesson: Inadequate testing and negligent management responses to known safety issues can have fatal consequences.
Governs how we treat others in day-to-day life. Many of these principles apply equally to engineering situations.
Involves choices at an organisational level — relationships between corporations, corporations and government, or corporations and groups of individuals. (Fleddermann, 2012)
The boundary between personal and professional ethics is not always clear. Professional ethics often operates at a larger scale with greater societal consequences.
(1) The study of the moral issues and decisions confronting individuals and organizations involved in engineering.
(2) The study of related questions about moral conduct, character, policies, and relationships of people and corporations involved in technological activity.
Engineering ethics concerns: what the standards should be and how to apply them to particular situations (Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins 1995).
An opinion that is supported by reasons → a Reasoned Judgment
An opinion given by someone with special training or experience → an Expert / Professional Opinion
An opinion that is neither supported by reasons nor given by a qualified judge → a "Mere" Opinion
Ethics should be based on reasoned judgments, not mere opinions.
Principles of right and wrong — the foundation of all ethical thought.
A set of moral principles guiding behaviour and action in specific contexts.
Binding codes of conduct that are formally recognized and enforced by the state.
These three domains overlap in important ways:
Company policies add a fourth layer — internal rules that may exceed legal minimums.
Four major ethical theories are studied in engineering ethics, each emphasising a different moral concept. You don't have to pick one — use all of them to analyse a problem from multiple angles.
You do NOT have to choose one theory. Use all four to analyse a problem from different angles. Often they lead to the same conclusion — as with the chemical plant groundwater example: rights ethics, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics all agree the pollution is unethical.
McCuen (1979) identified six stages of professional engineering morality, grouped into three levels:
| Stage | Level | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 1 | Pre-professional | Concern is for the gain of the individual — not the company, client, or profession. |
| Stage 2 | Pre-professional | Corporate loyalty, client confidence, and proper conduct pursued, but only for personal gain and advancement. ← Assignment favourite |
| Stage 3 | Professional | Loyalty to company is primary. Team-player behaviour precludes concern for society and environment. |
| Stage 4 | Professional | Loyalty to company is connected to loyalty to the profession. Good engineering is good for the profession, but societal concerns are not emphasised. |
| Stage 5 | Principled Professional | Service to human welfare is paramount. Societal rules, morals and values may trump professional standards and corporate loyalty. |
| Stage 6 | Principled Professional | Conduct guided solely by a sense of fairness and genuine concern for society, individuals, and the environment. Decisions based on well-established personal principles that may contradict professional codes and social rules. |
When "corporate loyalty, client confidence, proper conduct are pursued but only for personal gain and advancement" → this is Stage 2, McCuen's Ethical Dimension (Pre-professional level).
Professions require advanced study + mastery of specialised knowledge + promotion of others' well-being. Key attributes:
The worst abuse: using codes to restrict honest moral effort in order to preserve the profession's public image and protect the status quo. Preoccupation with a "shiny public image" can silence healthy dialogue and criticism.
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. Codes of ethics serve as a guide for resolving them.
One course of action is clearly obligatory — failing to do it is unethical. Codes specify: obey law, no bribes, speak truthfully, maintain confidentiality.
Two or more reasonable solutions exist, none mandatory. Solutions may be better or worse in some but not all respects — judgment required.
Location: Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland (U.S. Army weapons development & test center)
Accused: Carl Gepp (Plant Manager), William Dee (Chemical Weapons), Robert Lentz (Manufacturing Processes)
Period of Violations: 1983–1986 — inspections revealed serious safety hazards including carcinogenic substances in open containers, incompatible chemicals stored together, leaking toxic barrels, and 200 gallons of sulfuric acid that leaked into a local river.
Charged under: RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 1976) — banning dumping of solid hazardous wastes with criminal penalties.
Defense: They were unaware the practices were illegal; they followed accepted practices at the Pilot Plant.
Outcome (1989): All three convicted of illegally storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous wastes. Sentenced to 3 years' probation + 1,000 hours community service (relative leniency due to large court costs already incurred).
Key Ethical Lesson: As managers, they were ultimately responsible for how chemicals were stored and safety equipment maintained — even if they didn't physically handle the chemicals themselves.
A mechanical engineering graduate from University of Washington who volunteered in Nicaragua to build a small-scale hydroelectric plant for a rural community with no reliable electricity. He taught local people to build, operate, and maintain the plant.
Despite knowing his life was endangered by the contras, he continued his work. He was killed in 1987. In 1988, he was awarded the IEEE SSIT Award for Outstanding Service in the Public Interest for his courageous and altruistic efforts.
All 10 questions from your Week 1 assignment — with the concept tested and why the answer is correct.
1806–1873. Act Utilitarianism. Common moral rules are guidelines from centuries of human experience.
1724–1804. Duty Ethics. Moral duties are fundamental and express respect for persons as universal principles.
1632–1704. Rights Ethics. Humans have fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property.
2000. Virtue Ethics — "actions right if they support good character traits, wrong if they support bad ones."
Six stages of professional engineering morality across three levels: pre-professional, professional, principled.
1995/2000. Engineering ethics concerns what standards should be and how to apply them. Defined roles and responsibilities via codes.