Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 875–891 | Cite as

Just Sustainability? Sustainability and Social Justice in Professional Codes of Ethics for Engineers

Original Paper

Abstract

Should environmental, social, and economic sustainability be of primary concern to engineers? Should social justice be among these concerns? Although the deterioration of our natural environment and the increase in social injustices are among today’s most pressing and important issues, engineering codes of ethics and their paramountcy clause, which contains those values most important to engineering and to what it means to be an engineer, do not yet put either concept on a par with the safety, health, and welfare of the public. This paper addresses a recent proposal by Michelfelder and Jones (2011) to include sustainability in the paramountcy clause as a way of rectifying the current disregard for social justice issues in the engineering codes. That proposal builds on a certain notion of sustainability that includes social justice as one of its dimensions and claims that social justice is a necessary condition for sustainability, not vice versa. The relationship between these concepts is discussed, and the original proposal is rejected. Drawing on insights developed throughout the paper, some suggestions are made as to how one should address the different requirements that theory and practice demand of the value taxonomy of professional codes of ethics.

Keywords

Professional codes of ethics Engineering ethics Paramountcy clause Sustainability Social justice 

References

  1. American Society of Civil Engineers. (2010) [1914]. Code of ethics. Reston, Virginia, USA: ASCE Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barry, B. (1999) [1997]. Sustainability and Intergenerational Justice. In: A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity: Essays on environmental sustainability and social justice (pp. 93–117). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Catalano, G. (2006a). Engineering ethics: Peace, justice, and the earth. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar
  4. Catalano, G. (2006b). Engineering in a morally deep world: applications and reflections. In Paper presented at the 113th annual ASEE conference and exposition. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  5. Crawford, E. (1999). The women’s suffrage movement: A reference guide, 1866–1928. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, M. (2003). What can we learn by looking for the first code of professional ethics? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 25(5), 433–454.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, M. (2007). Eighteen rules for writing a code of professional ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(2), 171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fawcett, M. G. (1920). The women’s victory and after: Personal reminiscences 1911–1918. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Frankel, M. S. (1989). Professional codes: Why, how, and with what impact? Journal of Business Ethics, 8(2–3), 109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Howarth, R. B. (1995). Sustainability under uncertainty: A deontological approach. Land Economics, 71(4), 417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. McShane, K. (2007). Anthropocentrism vs. nonanthropocentrism: Why should we care? Environmental Values, 16, 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Michelfelder, D. & Jones, S. A. (2010). Sustaining engineering codes of ethics for the 21st Century [slides]. Presented at the inaugural 2010 forum on philosophy, engineering, and technology (fPET) conference at the colorado school of mines; golden, CO, USA. Retrieved from [http://www.slideshare.net/philengtech/sharon-jonesdianemichelfelderfpet-2010slideshare].
  14. Michelfelder, D. & Jones, S. A. (2011). Sustaining codes of ethics for the twenty-first century. Science and Engineering Ethics. published online September 23, 2011.Google Scholar
  15. Mihelcic, J., Crittenden, J., Small, M., et al. (2003). Sustainability science and engineering: Emergence of a new metadiscipline. Environmental Science and Technology, 37(23), 5314–5324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. Inquiry, 16, 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Norton, B. G. (1991). Toward unity among environmentalists. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Norton, B. G. (2003) [1984]. Environmental ethics and weak anthropocentrism. In A. Light & H. Rolston III (Eds.), Environmental ethics. An anthology. Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies (pp. 163–174). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Sandler, R. (2007). Character and environment: A virtue-oriented approach to environmental ethics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Singer, P. (1993). Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. United Nations. (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development: Our common future. General Assembly Resolution 42/187, December 11, 1987.Google Scholar
  22. United Nations. (2005). 2005 world summit outcome. General Assembly Resolution A/60/1, September 15, 2005.Google Scholar
  23. van de Poel, I., & Royakkers, L. M. M. (2010). Ethics and technology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. van Wensveen, L. (2000). Dirty virtues: The emergence of ecological virtue ethics. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  25. Weston, A. (2003) [1985]. Beyond Intrinsic value: Pragmatism in environmental ethics. In A. Light & H. Rolston III (Eds.), Environmental ethics. An anthology. Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies (pp. 307–318). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Ethics, School of Innovation Sciences; 3TU.Centre for Ethics and TechnologyEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations