Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 363–376 | Cite as

The social ascription of obligations to engineers

Article

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.

Keywords

ascribed ethics risk engineering moral imagination 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson, M. (1993) Moral Imagination. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  3. 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. 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. 5.
    Van de Poel, I. (2001) Investigating ethical issues in engineering design. Science and Engineering Ethics 7: 429–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Loui, M.C. (1998) The engineer’s responsibility for quality. Science and Engineering Ethics 4: 347–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vesilind, P.A. and Gunn, A.S. (1998) Engineering, Ethics and the Environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis, M. (1989) Explaining wrongdoing. Journal of Social Philosophy 20: 74–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Robinson S and Dixon R (1997) The professional engineer: virtues and learning. Science and Engineering Ethics 3: 339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pritchard, M.S. (1998) Professional responsibility: focussing on the exemplary. Science and Engineering Ethics 4: 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norman, R. (1983) The Moral Philosophers. Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 221.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Atkins, K. (2000) Autonomy and the subjective character of experience. Journal of Applied Philosophy 17: 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reason, J. (1997) Managing the Risks of Organisational Accidents. Ashgate, Aldershot, p. 6.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S.L. and Keeney, R.L. (1981) Acceptable Risk, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Spier, R. (2001) Ethics, Tools, and the Engineer. CRC Press, Boca Raton FL, p. 99.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Whitbeck, C. (1995) Teaching ethics to scientists and engineers: moral agents and moral problems. Science and Engineering Ethics 1: 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martin, M.W. and Schinzinger, R. (1989) Ethics in Engineering. 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, p.56.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and DesignUniversity of BathBathUK

Personalised recommendations