Engineering Ethics: Responsibility, Codes, and the Challenger

Introduction: Bystander Research and the Engineer's Moral Responsibility

Lauren Slater's essay "In the Event of a Water Landing" is relevant for understanding engineering ethics in several important ways. The Darley and Latané experiments that tested why people help — or fail to help — others in distress were conducted in conditions where there was no directing authority for the group or individual. This mimics the environment in which an engineer works, where ethical decisions must be made independently despite the presence of others. What these experiments found is crucial for understanding the engineer's responsibility.

The concept of "diffusion of responsibility," whereby a crowd of bystanders inhibits action, is particularly significant. Slater writes: "The more people witnessing an event, the less responsible any one individual feels and, indeed, is, because responsibility is evenly distributed among the crowd."¹ This matters greatly for engineers, since they work in team environments where diffusion of responsibility is a constant risk. This diffusion effectively — and dangerously — relieves the individual of a sense of moral agency, and must be actively resisted.

Social Conformity and the Danger of Group Silence

Two practical implications follow. First, there is a powerful fear accompanied by indecision that can paralyze action. The engineer must therefore act quickly in reporting an error; delay increases the likelihood of inaction. Second, the engineer cannot afford to remain uninvolved when public safety is at stake. He or she must act decisively, setting aside whatever mental conflict prevents them from speaking up. It is always better to err on the side of caution.

Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster

A second important finding that Slater discusses is that social etiquette compounds the problem. People are often uncertain whether an emergency is real, and this uncertainty causes them to pause. She observes that "emergencies are not fact, but conscious construction, and this may be why we fail."² Social cues, Slater points out, are as influential in human decision-making as material evidence. People in group settings tend to look to others before acting, and would rather remain silent than appear impolite or disruptive.

This dynamic is critically important for engineers. It is better to act ethically — even at a personal social cost — than to defer to group opinion that may be wrong and harmful. Conforming through social mimicry can be hazardous and unethical, particularly when it comes to concealing faulty designs. Politeness is less important than the welfare of the public, and so engineers must be willing to speak up even when doing so means going against the prevailing sentiment.

Conclusion: Safety as the Engineer's Highest Duty

Boisjoly's speech indicates the sacrifice someone must endure in some circumstances to stand up for truth and safety. While extreme, the account demonstrates how tragedy occurs when safety information is ignored, and how tragedy can be averted if safety information is treated with moral responsibility. His concluding statement — that the engineer must leave with "conviction that you have a professional and moral responsibility to yourselves and to your fellow man to defend the truth and expose any questionable practice that may lead to an unsafe product" — is instructive.⁶