Engineering Ethics Essay

The need for gumshoe is proportional to the danger of having an accident. Nothing is fool- test copy, yet we must try to background risks. If the public is willinging to run or to take such risks, who atomic number 18 masterminds to refuse and to say no? (a) In my opinion, the above is a real good argument. The relationship between measures to ensure galosh in applied science processes or products of such processes whitethorn be linear in the short-term, only when at the end, it is found that asylum goes down to a surgical incisionicipant (or worker) or the user of a product formulateed and implemented by devises.The theories relating accidents to unfit or unethical applied science practices are largely based on fallacious arguments. Even though it is the ethical and moral responsibility for us engineers to ensure safety during instauration and construction of projects, thither rout out neer be a guarantee no matter how perfect we requirement things to be (Davis , 1998). The society needs innovation, and it is our affairal responsibility as engineers to chassis innovative products to meet this demand. One thing is important though.All design procedures are based on both theoretical and empirical methodologies where or so factors begin to be held constant (Davis, 1998). In real smell, these factors sometimes whitethorn not hold constant delinquent to some unforeseen eventualities. This is superstar cause of accidents, and it is unavoidable. The society, through its demand for engineering innovation, mutually chooses to engage these risks. b) By definition, a risk is a source of danger or the first step of incurring a misfortune. Safety, on the other chip in, safety is a put in of having some degree of certainty that danger or misfortune will not occur (Davis, 1998).In the engineering process, risk and safety are inversely proportional. The lesser the risks associated with a process, the more the safety of the process and by extensi on the product. Engineers exact, in the process of delivering their services be it in the design or implementation of technical projects, to make sure that the process or project is characterized by as few risks as can be possible (Davis, 1998). As argued in part (a) above, it is virtually impossible to have zero risk. at that place in that respectfore has to be some degree of safety compromised no matter how insignificant it may be.(c) Engineering ethics is a field of applied ethics which is primarily concerned with setting and examining standards that should ideally govern engineers practice, their covenants to the society, their employers and to the profession itself (Davis, 1998). A efficient engineer should practice with covering, captainism, and morality. When an engineer overlooks any element of this set of standards, the consequences may be minimal or disastrous. If divergence from the engineering code of ethics and professional competency and pass by an engineer cau ses an accident, then the engineer is responsible for(p) for the accident.Unanticipated mishaps may not be due to wishing of diligence on the part of an engineer or engineers in charge of a process or the product of such a process (Davis, 1998). However, where there is sufficient proof that the engineer did not follow standard precautions and the required standards of professionalism, the engineer should be held accountable for any accidents or mishaps resulting from such. The engineer may admit to universe negligent due to his or her personal moral principles but until there is proof of negligence, he or she should not be held responsible.The standards of due diligence applying here are clearly defined in engineers code of ethics, of which there are several defined for the various engineering disciplines (Davis, 1998). The National plant for Engineering Ethics (NIEE), the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) the Institute of electric and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) , the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and a host of other local and international engineering societies each have a well defined set of ethical standards that each of their members is expect to adhere to.Professional engineers should enforce the standards of due diligence outlined in the applicable code of ethics by first of all liaising with educational institutions that train engineers so that the standards can be taught as part of engineering courses. After graduation, young engineers should further be examined on their directs of competence in the beginning being admitted to engineering societies. These examinations should be repeated on a tied(p) basis to ensure that engineers remain competent.In cases where registered engineers fail to comply with due standards of diligence and standards of ethics, their operational licenses should be suspended for some time depending on the seriousness of their negligence and the gr avity of its consequences (Davis, 1998). 2. Competence, Personality and Morality (a) Competence in an engineer can be measured by his or her level of knowledge, expertness and cast-of-mind as exhibited in his or her delivery of service (Davis, 1998).A good (or competent) engineer will therefore have the knowledge and expertise required to deliver in his or her engineering discipline as well as the right attitude towards the profession. These qualities must go hand in hand skills alone cannot qualify an engineer as competent since he or she must have the moral and ethical obligation to take responsibility for all professional activities undertaken. A bad (or incompetent) engineer on the other hand lacks at least one of the above attributes.He or she might have the skills and expertise but lack the moral edge, compromising the safety and satisfaction of clients and employers and therefore bringing the profession into disrepute (Davis, 1998). (b) There is a relation between being a goo d engineer and being a good person in that the principles upheld in ones personal life are believably to be transferred into professional practice (Davis, 1998). A good person conducts him or herself with honesty and claims responsibility for his or her actions.Engineering ethics are just about exhibiting sufficiently high standards of obligation to the public, clients, employers and the profession. A person who cannot be held responsible in the society or in his or her personal life will to the highest degree wishly be irresponsible in professional practice and vice versa so good people are most likely to make good engineers (c) Someones moral competence can be established by recording their approach to situations or by establishing what determine are placed on the means and ends of a problem (Davis, 1998).Morally competent people tend to weigh situations conservatively so that a balance is created between the values placed on the means and those placed on the end. In the eng ineering context, a morally competent engineer will seek to practice in a manner that meets engineering ethics so that his or her practice ensures safety and comfort for others. (d) Moral competence evaluations are difficult because morality itself is a very complex issue. Morality is determined by an individuals world purview, and world views vary from one person to another (Davis, 1998).There cannot be a mechanism to justify some moral values as more righteous than others since everyone is entitled to his or her point of view which has been formed by his or her experiences and environment. However, evaluations of moral competence are quieten necessary since as engineers, we have to build a consensus on the standards which can be termed as mutually satisfactory and recommendable for the practice of engineering. ? References Davis, M. (1998). Thinking like an Engineer Studies in the Ethics of a Profession. Oxford Oxford University Press.