summary and analysis of article engineering

Summary

In “Engineering Ethics Beyond Engineers’ Ethics,” Basart & Serra (2013) apply a systems approach to the field of engineering to encourage greater collective responsibility. According to the authors, engineers cannot simply rely on individual ethical decisions to promote global ethical values. Individualism needs to give way to collectivism: the knowledge that engineering never occurs in a vacuum, and that engineering processes and decisions are interrelated with issues like politics, public policy, ecological ethics, and human rights. Engineers are far more than their daily work, and need to reposition and reframe their roles as part of the global community. The organizations that employ engineers are likewise complex systems with diverse stakeholders and mutable boundaries between internal and external variables. When promoting goals like corporate sustainability or social responsibility, organizations need to consider more than just laws and regulations, but work quality, supplier-side ethical values, and a collection of additional factors that influence the overall impact of the engineer’s work.

Semantically speaking, the authors differentiate between engineering ethics and engineers’ ethics. This distinction is important because engineers do have a high degree of autonomy in their work. When individual engineers’ ethics take precedence over a more global engineering ethics, problems of accountability and personal responsibility can preclude honesty, integrity, and ethical outcomes. When failures or accidents happen, blame can too easily be distributed in a world where individualism and autonomy prevail over collective responsibility to an engineering ethic. The authors propose two courses of action: revising the definition of responsibility, and the development of a so-called “heroic” engineer who possesses exemplary character (Basart & Serra, 2013, p. 181). The latter is important but far less realistic in the cultivation of a meaningful vision of applied engineering ethics.

Strength and Validity

A key strength of this article is that it is highly relevant and meaningful. As corporate social responsibility becomes embedded in organizational practices, in law and public policy, and even quantified to promote marketing and financial objectives, engineers do have a large part to play in how ethical goals are achieved. Second, the authors clearly explain their principles, goals, and terms, differentiating clearly between ethical responsibility within the engineering professional codes and the mythical hero. While whistleblowers and other engineering heroes will always be important, collective responsibility within the engineering profession is a far more pragmatic outcome. Third, the authors explain the differences between deontological ethics that derive from rule-based sources like religion and the rights-based ethical codes that inform law and public policy. Corporate social responsibility, as the authors point out, is both post-rights and post-ethics in the sense that there is a lack of relativism, and a recognition of diverse stakeholder goals. Urging for a broader concept of responsibility, the authors encourage open-mindedness, a respect for ecological systems theory and the butterfly effect, and for cultivating deep respect for how one’s work reverberates throughout the world—the non-human and human worlds alike.

Because the article lacks empirical grounding and is not experimental in design, it lacks the type of validity that might be expected in evidence-based practice environments. However, the philosophical framework that undergirds this article remains highly effective for influencing organizational policies, public policy, and the professional guidelines that govern engineering practices. The authors cover all types of practical concerns, too, and do not remain caught up in questions related to abstract ethical concepts. For example, they address issues like personal and public safety as well as empathy and trust.

Recommendations

Based on this article, professional engineering organizations can revise their ethical principles and professional codes. Engineering schools and training programs can likewise adopt a more ethics-driven framework, encouraging the evolution of an engineering ethics that replaces the individualistic tone of prior generations. As the authors point out, engineering schools already focus on a few case studies, but need to expand the potential of their curriculum to cover historical evolutions in the field, illustrating how each and every decision and action has direct impacts on human and non-human lives. Courses can be taught differently, showing how all decisions impact human lives. Most importantly, all organizations that hire or work with engineers can also strengthen their programs of corporate social responsibility and sustainability. Ironically, though, a collective concept of engineering ethics does still require the personal commitment of each individual.