Skip to main content
Log in

The social ascription of obligations to engineers

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Discovering obligations that are ascribed to them by others is potentially an important element in the development of the moral imagination of engineers. Moral imagination cannot reasonably be developed by contemplating oneself and one’s task alone: there must be some element of discovering the expectations of people one could put at risk. In practice it may be impossible to meet ascribed obligations if they are completely general and allow no exceptions — for example if they demand an unlimited duty to avoid harm. But they can still serve to modify engineers’ prior ethics, for example by limiting a purely utilitarian approach to deciding who should bear risk and how much risk they should bear. Ascribed obligations can also give engineers insight into the public reaction to risks that arise from engineered systems, and the consequent expectations that the public have about how much protection is desirable and where the responsibility for this protection lies. This article analyses the case for taking ascribed obligations seriously, and reviews some of the obligations that have been ascribed in the aftermath of recent engineering failures. It also proposes ways in which ascribed obligations could be used in engineers’ moral development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Grunwald, A. (2001) The application of ethics to engineering and the engineer’s moral responsibility: perspectives for a research agenda. Science and Engineering Ethics 7: 415–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Johnson, M. (1993) Moral Imagination. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Goldman, S.L. (1991) The social captivity of engineering. In Durbin, P. (ed.), Critical Perspectives on Nonacademic Science and Engineering, Lehigh University Press, Bethlehem, PA, pp. 121–45.

    Google Scholar 

  4. DeGeorge, R.T. (1991) Ethical responsibilities of engineers in large organizations: the Pinto case. In May, L. and Hoffman, S. (eds.), Collective Responsibility: Five decades of Debate in Theoretical & Applied Ethics, Rowman & Littlefield, Savage MD, 151–166.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Van de Poel, I. (2001) Investigating ethical issues in engineering design. Science and Engineering Ethics 7: 429–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Loui, M.C. (1998) The engineer’s responsibility for quality. Science and Engineering Ethics 4: 347–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vesilind, P.A. and Gunn, A.S. (1998) Engineering, Ethics and the Environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lloyd, P. and Busby, J.S. (2001) “Things that went well — no serious injuries or deaths.” Ethical reasoning in the design process. 13th International Conference on Engineering Design ICED01, Glasgow, 21–23 August.

  9. Davis, M. (1989) Explaining wrongdoing. Journal of Social Philosophy 20: 74–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Berk, R.A., Korenman, S.G. and Wenger, N.S. (2000) Measuring consensus about scientific research norms. Science and Engineering Ethics 6: 315–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Robinson S and Dixon R (1997) The professional engineer: virtues and learning. Science and Engineering Ethics 3: 339–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pritchard, M.S. (1998) Professional responsibility: focussing on the exemplary. Science and Engineering Ethics 4: 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Norman, R. (1983) The Moral Philosophers. Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 221.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Atkins, K. (2000) Autonomy and the subjective character of experience. Journal of Applied Philosophy 17: 71–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Reason, J. (1997) Managing the Risks of Organisational Accidents. Ashgate, Aldershot, p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S.L. and Keeney, R.L. (1981) Acceptable Risk, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mehalik, M.M. and Gorman, M.E. (2002) Technology, strategic security, and moral imagination. Conference of the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology, York 1–3 August.

  18. Spier, R. (2001) Ethics, Tools, and the Engineer. CRC Press, Boca Raton FL, p. 99.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Whitbeck, C. (1995) Teaching ethics to scientists and engineers: moral agents and moral problems. Science and Engineering Ethics 1: 299–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Martin, M.W. and Schinzinger, R. (1989) Ethics in Engineering. 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, p.56.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. S. Busby.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Busby, J.S., Coeckelbergh, M. The social ascription of obligations to engineers. SCI ENG ETHICS 9, 363–376 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-003-0033-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-003-0033-x

Keywords

Navigation