MORAL FRAMEWORKS for Engineering

MORAL FRAMEWORKS

ETHICAL THEORY

An ethical theory is a comprehensive perspective on morality that clarifies, organizes, and guides moral reflection. If successful, it provides a framework for making moral choices and resolving moral dilemmas–not a simple formula, but rather a comprehensive way to identify, structure, and integrate moral reasons. Ethical theories also ground the requirements in engineering codes of ethics by reference to broader moral principles. In doing so, they illuminate connections between engineering codes of ethics and “ordinary” morality–that is, justified moral values that play a role in all areas of life.

There are five types of ethical theories:

1.      Utilitarianism

2.      Rights Ethics

3.      Duty Ethics

                                          4.      Virtue Ethics

                                          5.      Self-realization Ethics

1.                  UTILITARIANISM

It is the view that we ought always to produce the most good for the most people, giving equal consideration to everyone affected. The standard of right conduct is maximization of good consequences. “Utility” is sometimes used to refer to these consequences, and other times it is used to refer to the balance of good over bad consequences.

Utilitarianism seems a straightforward way to interpret the central principle in most engineering codes. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties. After all, “welfare” is a rough synonym for “overall good” (utility), and safety and health might be viewed as especially important aspects of that good.

Utilitarianism versus Cost-Benefit Analysis

There are different forms of utilitarianism covering various aspects. Before discussing these forms, let us compare utilitarianism with cost-benefit analysis familiar in engineering. A typical cost-benefit analysis identifies the good and bad consequences of some actions or policy, usually in terms of dollars. It weighs the total goods against the total bads, and then compares the results to similar tallies of the consequences of alternative actions or rules. This sounds just like utilitarianism, but often it is not. To see this, we need to look closely at whose good and bad is considered and promoted, as well as how good and bad are measured. Usually the answers center around the good of a corporation, rather than the good of everyone affected, considered impartially.

Case Study: Ford Corporation in the development of Pinto automobile.

Act-utilitarianism versus Rule-utilitarianism

Act-utilitarianism focuses on individual actions, rather than individual rules. A particular action is right if it is likely to produce the most good for the most people in a given situation. Every day maxims like “Keep your promises”, “Do not deceive”, and “Do not bribe” are only rough guide lines. According to John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) these examples are useful rules of thumb which maximize benefits to most people or maximize utility. But rules should be broken whenever doing so will produce the most good in a specific situation.

Theory of Goodness

The standard of right action is maximizing goodness. According to Mill, goodness is the result of actions which produces happiness. There are two types of goodness: Intrinsic good and instrumental good.

Intrinsic goods mean goods considered just by itself apart from its consequences, for example; intellectual inquiry, creative accomplishment, appreciation of beauty, friendship and love. Mill believes that happiness is the only intrinsic good, and hence he understands utilitarianism as the requirement to produce the greatest amount of happiness. Mill thinks of happiness as a life rich in pleasures, mixed with some inevitable pains. The happiest life is also rich in higher pleasures.

The internal good of engineering is the creation of useful and safe technological products while respecting the autonomy of clients and public.

Instrumental goods are the goods that provide means (instruments) for gaining happiness, for example; bodily pleasures derived from eating, sex, and exercise.

Mill contended that the pleasures derived through intellectual inquiry, creative accomplishment, appreciation of beauty, friendship, and love are inherently better than the bodily pleasures derived from eating, sex, and exercise.

According to utilitarianism, right actions are those required by rules that produce the most good for the most people. Individual actions are right when they are according to these rules. Thus we ought to keep promises and avoid bribes, even when those acts do not have the best consequences in a particular situation, because these practices produce the most overall good. Brandt calls these rules as moral codes. A moral code is justified when it is the optimal moral code that, if adopted and followed, would maximize the public good more than alternative codes would. The codes may be society wide standards or special codes for a profession like engineering.

The act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism differ from each other and do seem to lead to different conclusions in some situations. Rule-utilitarianism for example, openly rejects kickback schemes. Matz and Childs acted on a rule something like “Engage in secret payoffs when necessary for profitable business ventures”. If this rule is generally followed, it would cause a breakdown of trust between business people and their clients.

                                                             

2.         RIGHTS ETHICS

Rights ethics regards human rights as fundamental and familiar. Human rights ethicists assert that duties arise because people have rights. Because you have a right to live, I have a duty not to kill you.

Human Rights:

John Locke (1632-1704) argued that to be a person one has rights (human rights) to life, liberty, and property. His views had a great impact at the time of the French and American Revolution. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

The employers have rights to faithful service from employees, and employees have rights to reciprocal fair and respectful treatment from employers. Rights to life imply a right to a livable environment.

Rights Ethics gets more complex as we ask which rights exist. Thus, human rights might come in two forms: liberty rights and welfare rights.

Liberty Rights are rights to exercise one’s liberty, and they place duties on other people not to interfere with one’s freedom. (The “not” explains why they are also called negative rights).

Welfare Rights are rights to benefits needed for a decent human life, when one cannot earn those benefits and when the community has them available. These are sometime called positive rights.

The first version of rights ethics conceives of human rights as intimately related to communities of people.

The second version of rights ethics denies there are welfare human rights. Libertarians believe that only liberty rights exist; there are no welfare rights. John Locke, often called libertarian, believed that the three most basic human rights are to life, liberty and property. Jefferson simply changed property to the pursuit of happiness. Libertarians take a harsh view of taxes and government involvement beyond the bare minimum necessary for national defense and the preservation of free enterprise. They also oppose government regulation of business and the profession.

3.         DUTY ETHICS

Duty Ethics regards duties of respect for liberty and autonomy of individuals as fundamental. Duty Ethics and Right Ethics are similar to each other in many ways. One writer suggests the following list of important duties:

Do not kill, do not cause pain, do not disable, do not deprive of freedom, do not deprive of pleasure, do not deceive, do not cheat, keep your promise, obey the law, do your duty.

How do we know that these are our duties? Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the most famous duty ethicist, argued that all such specific duties derive from one fundamental duty to respect persons. Persons deserve respect because they are moral agents capable of responding to moral duty. Autonomy (moral self-determination or self-governance) means having the capacity to govern one’s life in accordance with moral duties. Hence, respect for persons amounts to respect for their moral autonomy.

Immorality occurs when we treat persons as mere objects to gratify our needs. Violent acts such as murder, rape, and torture are obvious ways of treating people as mere objects serving our own purposes. We also fail to respect persons if we fail to provide support for them when they are in desperate need and we can help them at little inconvenience to ourselves.

We also have duties to ourselves, for we, too, are rational and autonomous beings. As example, Kant says, we have a duty not to commit suicide, which would bring an end to a valuable life, we have duties to develop our talents, as part of unfolding our rational natures, and we should avoid harmful drugs that undermine our ability to exercise our rationality.

Kant also emphasized that duties are universal: they apply equally to all rational beings including humans and supernatural beings. The idea of universal principles is often compared to the Golden Rule; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Kant insisted that moral duties are “categorical imperatives”. As imperatives they are commands that we impose on ourselves as well as other rational beings. “Be honest” says morality, not because doing so benefits us, but because honesty is our duty.

Prima Facie Duties

Principles of duty that have exceptions are called prima facie duties. The duty ethicists recognize that many moral dilemmas are resolvable only by making exceptions to simple principles of duty. Thus “Do not deceive” is a duty but it has exceptions when it conflicts with the moral principle “Protect innocent life”. One ought to deceive a kidnapper if that is the only way to keep a hostage alive until the police can intervene.

4.         VIRTUE ETHICS

Virtue ethics emphasizes character more than rights and rules. Character is the pattern of virtues (morally desirable features) and vices (morally undesirable features) in an individual. Virtues are desirable habits or tendencies in action, commitment, motive, attitude, emotion, ways of reasoning, and ways of relating to others. Vices are morally undesirable habits or tendencies. Words for specific virtues, however, remain familiar, both in engineering and in everyday life – for example, competence, honesty, courage, fairness, loyalty, and humility. Words for specific vices are also familiar; incompetence, dishonesty, cowardice, unfairness, disloyalty, and arrogance. Aristotle regarded wisdom and good judgment as the important virtue.

The internal good of engineering is the creation of useful and safe technological products while respecting the autonomy of clients and public. The most basic and comprehensive professional virtue is professional responsibility, that is, being morally responsible as an engineer. There are four categories of virtues: Public Spirited Virtues, Proficiency Virtues, Teamwork Virtues and Self-governance Virtues.

Public spirited virtues are focused on the good of clients and the wider public. Generosity which means going beyond the minimum requirements in helping others is shown by engineers who voluntarily give their time, talent, and money to their professional societies and local communities. The minimum virtue is non-maleficence, the tendency not to harm others intentionally. Engineering codes of professional conduct also call for beneficence which is preventing or removing harm to others and more positively promoting the public safety, health and welfare.

Proficiency virtues are the virtues of mastery of one’s profession, in particular mastery of the technical skills that indicate good engineering practice. The most general professional virtues include competence, diligence, and creativity.

Teamwork virtues are those that are especially important in enabling professionals to work successfully with other people. They include collegiality, cooperativeness, loyalty, respect for legitimate authority and ability to motivate others to meet valuable goals.

Self-governance virtues are those necessary in exercising moral responsibility. Some of them center on moral understanding and perception. Other self-governance virtues center on commitment and on putting understanding into action: for example, courage, self-discipline, perseverance, self-respect, integrity and honesty.

Florman:  Competence and Conscientiousness

Florman emphasizes on loyalty to employers, Aristotle emphasizes on loyalty to community whereas Alasdair MacIntyre applied Aristotle’s perspective to contemporary professions. Florman enjoys “existential pleasures” of engineering; the deeply rooted and elemental satisfactions in engineering that contribute to happiness. These pleasures have many sources. There is the desire to improve the world, which engages individuals’ sense of personal involvement and power. There is the challenge of practical and creative effort, including planning, designing, testing, producing, selling, constructing, and maintaining, all of which bring pride in achieving excellence in the technical aspects of one’s work.

In Florman’s view “the essence of engineering ethics” is best captured by the word conscientiousness. Engineers who do their job well are morally good engineers. Competence and loyalty are the two virtues Florman most emphasizes.

On the one hand, conscientious engineers are competent. Florman estimates that 98 percent of engineering failures are caused by incompetence. The other 2 percent involve greed, fraud, dishonesty, and other conventional understandings of wrongdoing, often in addition to carelessness. Competent means performing with requisite skill and experience. It implies exercising due care, persistence and diligence.

On the other hand, conscientious engineers are loyal to employers, within the boundaries of laws and democratic institutions.

It is true that engineers should be conscientious in meeting their responsibilities, but the question is which responsibilities take priority. According to Florman priority should be given to duties to employers, instead of professional codes that require engineers to hold “paramount” the safety, health, and welfare of the public. He tells us that professionals have the task of meeting the expectations of their clients and employers rather than “filtering their everyday work through a sieve of ethical sensitivity.”