Abstract
Need for establishing authority arises in circumstances where unrestrained individual discretion in decision-making conflicts with a desired degree of social organization and order. Accordingly, submitting to authority typically involves a willingness to accept some policies and directives that on their own merits one may find inadequate. Even to submit to the authority of a basketball referee requires playing by occasionally bad or even outrageous rulings. Similarly, an employee who regards the employer as having legitimate authority over him or her acknowledges the necessity to adhere to at least some of the employer’s orders and the company’s regulations whose rationale may be found wanting. Doing so voluntarily is part of being a faithful agent and trustee of the employer. Presumably this holds true for the many areas of business operations that affect the safety, health, and welfare of the general public. Many employees, however, are also members of a profession. As such, they are generally regarded as obligated to exercise their independent skilled judgment in a manner they calculate will avoid harm and promote the good of the public.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior, 3rd Edition (New York: Free Press, 1976), pp. 126–127.
Ibid., p. 228.
Ibid., p. 129.
Ibid., p.151; p. 11.
Ibid., pp. 134–138.
Printed in Ethical Problems in Engineering, 2nd Edition, Vol. 1, Albert Flores, ed., (Troy: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Press, 1980), pp. 65–69.
Robert L. Whitelaw, “The Professional Status of the American Engineer: A Bill of Rights,” Professional Engineer (August, 1975), pp. 37–41. Reprinted in Flores, op. cit., pp. 68–70.
“Moral Blueprints,” Harper’s 257 (October, 1978), p. 32. Cf. Chapter 3 of Florman’s earlier book The Existential Pleasures of Engineering (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1976).
Ibid.
For this general distinction see John Rawls, “Two Concepts of Rules,” Philosophical Review, 64 (1955).
Cf. Leo Cass and William Curran, “Rights of Privacy in Medical Practice,” reprinted in Moral Problems in Medicine, Samuel Gorovitz et al., eds. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1976), pp. 82–85.
Cf. William Lowrance, Of Acceptable Risk (Los Altos: Kaufman, 1976), Chapter 3.
Robert Baum, “The Limits of Professional Responsibility,” in Flores, op. cit., pp. 48–53.
Paul Eddy et al., Destination Disaster (New York: Quadrangle, 1976).
K. Vandivier, “Engineers, Ethics and Economics,” Conference on Engineering Ethics (New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1975), pp. 20–24.
“Carl W. Houston and Stone and Webster,” Whistleblowing, Ralph Nader et al. (New York: Grossman Publishers, 1972), pp. 148–151.
For an analysis of the concept of “organizational disobedience” see James Otten, “Organizational Disobedience,” in Flores, op. cit., pp. 182–186.
For an attempted defense of the latter denial with respect to state authority, see Robert Paul Wolff, In Defense of Anarchism (New York: Harper and Row, 1976).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1983 The Humana Press Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Martin, M.W. (1983). Professional Autonomy and Employers’ Authority. In: Robison, W.L., Pritchard, M.S., Ellin, J. (eds) Profits and Professions. Contemporary Issues in Biomedicine, Ethics, and Society. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5625-0_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5625-0_17
Publisher Name: Humana Press
Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-5627-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-5625-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive