Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

On “Bettering Humanity” in Science and Engineering Education

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

Abstract

Authors such as Krishnasamy Selvan argue that “all human endeavors including engineering and science” have a single primary objective: “bettering humanity.” They favor discussing “the history of science and measurement uncertainty.” This paper respectfully disagrees and argues that “human endeavors including engineering and science” should not pursue “bettering humanity” as their primary objective. Instead these efforts should first pursue individual betterment. One cannot better humanity without knowing what that means. However, there is no one unified theory of what is to the betterment of humanity. Simultaneously, there is no one field (neither science, nor engineering, nor philosophy) entitled to rule univocally. Perhaps if theorists tended their own gardens, the common weal would be tended thereby.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Notes

  1. There are some decisions in science and engineering that appear to be “nonethical” such as whether to use a test-tube or a beaker, whether to wear a white lab coat or a yellow one, and so on. These examples are purposely cooked to make no difference to practice. As a rule of thumb, however, if something makes no difference to practice, then it makes no difference to ethics; or, everything that makes a difference to practice makes a difference to ethics.

  2. PV = nRT (Pressure x Volume = Number of moles x Universal gas constant x Temperature). “An ideal gas is defined as one in which all collisions between atoms or molecules are perfectly eleastic [sic] and in which there are no intermolecular attractive forces. One can visualize it as a collection of perfectly hard spheres which collide but which otherwise do not interact with each other” (“Ideal Gas Law.” Georgia State U. 8 Mar. 2005 <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/idegas.html>).

References

  1. Smith, A. (2002). Benefits of the profit motive. In: T. Donaldson, P. Werhane, & M. Cording (Eds.), Ethical issues in business; a philosophial approach. 7th edition (pp. 155–159). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Selvan, K. T. (2004). An approach for harmonizing engineering and science education with humaneness. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 573–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mussolini, B. (1935). The Doctrine of Fascism. (p. 14). Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hitler, A. (1942). Hitler at Buckeburg, Oct 7, 1933. In: N. H. Baynes (Ed.), The Great Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922–39. Quoted by Peikoff, L. (1982) The Ominous Parallels. Mentor, New York, 13.

  5. McFarland, M. (1991). The public health, safety and welfare: an analysis of the social responsibilities of engineers. In: D. Johnson (Ed.), Ethical Issues in Engineering. (pp. 159–174). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Evan, W. M., & Manion, M. (2002). Minding the Machines. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gunn, A., & Vesilind, P. (2003). Hold Paramount; The Engineer’s Responsibility to Society. Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole—Thomson.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Linder, D. “The Trial of Gallileo: An Account.” University of Kansas-Missouri School of Law. 9 March, 2006. <http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html>.

  9. National Society of Professional Engineers. (1987). Code of ethics for engineers. In: D. Johnson (Ed.), Ethical Issues in Engineering. (pp. 98–104). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Firmage, D. A. (1991). The definition of a profession. In: D. Johnson (Ed.), Ethical Issues in Engineering. (pp. 63–66). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Aristotle (1985). The Nichomachean Ethics. Irwin T. trans. Hackett, Indianapolis, Indiana.

  12. Kant, I. (1929). Critique of Pure Reason. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to a few good reviewers from Science and Engineering Ethics including Stephanie Bird for pointing out the good in a long and unclear first draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of English and Philosophy, Drexel University, 3241 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    James A. Stieb

  2. 5319 Baltimore Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19143, USA

    James A. Stieb

Authors
  1. James A. Stieb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James A. Stieb.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stieb, J.A. On “Bettering Humanity” in Science and Engineering Education. SCI ENG ETHICS 13, 265–273 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9014-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9014-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation