Engineering Code of Ethics: Beneficial Restraint on Consequential Morality
Publication: Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
Volume 117, Issue 3
Abstract
The engineer acts both as a rational agent and as a moral agent in the execution of professional responsibilities. The moral view of most engineers tends toward utilitarianism. The utilitarian concept of moral action holds that the consequences of an action alone determine whether or not the action is right. The engineer will most likely resolve an ethical dilemma by acting in accordance with an assessment of the consequences of alternative actions. The professional engineering society, through its code of ethics, offers a set of moral guidelines intended to transcend particular circumstances or consequences. The ethical review board of the society will tend to approach enforcement decisions from a deontological point of view. This dichotomy of moral viewpoints within the professional engineering community is healthy. The code of ethics, and a conscientious commitment to its enforcement, provides a component of restraint upon the utilitarian morality of the typical engineering professional. Recommendations for improving awareness of the code of ethics and for strengthening its application are included.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Bachner, J. P. (1988). “Facing down the hired gun.” J. Perf. Constr. Fac., ASCE, 2(4), 190–198.
2.
Boisjoly, R. M. (1987). “Ethical decisions—Morton Thiokol and the space shuttle Challenger disaster,” presented at the Winter Annual Meeting, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Boston, Mass., December 13–18.
3.
Carper, K. L. (1990). “Ethical considerations for the forensic engineer serving as an expert witness,” Business and Prof. Ethics J., 9(1), 21–34.
4.
Dan‐Cohen, M. (1984). “Decision rules and conduct rules: On acoustic separation in criminal law.” Harvard Law Rev., 97(3), 625–677.
5.
Firmage, D. A. (1989). “Management/employee ethics in engineering offices.” J. Prof. Issues Engrg., ASCE, 115(1), 53–58.
6.
Kant, I. (1785). Foundations of the metaphysics of morals. Bobbs‐Merrill, Indianapolis, Ind.
7.
Nelson, C., and Peterson, S. R. (1982a). “The engineer as moral agent.” Engrg. Issues, ASCE, 108(1), 1–5.
8.
Nelson, C., and Peterson, S. R. (1982b). “If you're an engineer, you're probably a utilitarian.” Engrg. Issues, ASCE, 108(1), 13–18.
9.
Opinions of the board of ethical review: Volume VI. (1989). Nat. Society of Prof. Engrs. (NSPE), Alexandria, Va.
10.
Pletta, D. H. (1987). “Uninvolved' professionals and technical disasters.” J. Prof. Issues Engrg., ASCE, 113(1), 23–31.
11.
Rachels, J. (1986). The elements of moral philosophy. Random House, New York, N.Y.
12.
Ross, W. D. (1930). The right and the good. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
13.
Sawyier, F. H. (1984). “What should professional societies do about ethics?” J. Prof. Issues Engrg., ASCE, 110(2), 88–99.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 ASCE.
History
Published online: Jul 1, 1991
Published in print: Jul 1991
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.