A Philosophical Analysis of the Nature of Engineering

Abstract

Philosophical analysis of the nature of engineering can be of great benefit in identifying the ethical opportunities and challenges that it offers. The overall nature of engineering will be explored using concepts provided by the work of two leading contemporary philosophers. First, the structure of engineering will be elucidated by considering it as a practice, of the type first proposed by Alasdair MacIntyre. This will lead to a description of engineering activities in terms of goals, internal goods, external goods, virtues, institutions and systematic extension. Secondly, Amartya Sen's concept of capabilities will be used to describe the role that engineering can have in promoting both the wellbeing and the agency of others. Consideration of agency is of great benefit in describing an essentially enabling activity such as engineering. Further building on Sen’s work, it will be proposed that the idea of an opportunity of professional capabilities can guide the development of the ethical aspects of the practice of engineering. It will be suggested that in certain dire circumstances this may become an obligation of professional capabilities. Finally, the work of Sidney Loeb, a pioneer of an innovative type of engineering, will be described to illustrate the application of the analysis of the practice of engineering and to provide an example of the fulfilment of an opportunity of professional capabilities.

Engineering, Technology and Science; Engineering, Medicine and Psychology

In Chap. 1, it was noted that it is important to be aware of the different natures of engineering and technology. It can be also be beneficial to be aware of the different natures of engineering and science. Although engineering, technology and science are most usually characterised on anthropological, epistemological or sociological grounds [21], the concept of a practice allows the suggestion of a philosophical distinction.

Thus, for the case of the engineer, it may be suggested that goals, internal goods and external goods are all important and distinct. For the case of the technologist, it may be suggested that goals and external goods tend to converge (for example, the creation of a technically ingenious device). For the case of the scientist, it may be suggested that goals and internal goods tend to converge (for example, the discovery that results in publication in a prestigious journal such as Nature). Such philosophical distinctions are not exact, but they may be considered to identify trends that help clarify confusions.

It may also be helpful to observe that the ethical practice of engineering is closer to the practice of medicine than to the practice of psychology. For example, although medical complicity in torture exists, physicians are reported to have had a more limited involvement than have psychologists in the ‘enhanced’ interrogations at the US prison at Guantanamo Bay.¹² Indeed, the chair of the American Medical Association (AMA) council on ethical and judicial affairs has advised, ‘Physicians must not conduct, directly participate in, or monitor an interrogation with an intent to intervene, because this undermines the physician’s role as a healer’. In contrast, the American Psychological Association (APA) has taken the view that such an interrogation is a psychological endeavour in which psychologists may have a special role to play, ‘Psychology is central to this process because an understanding of an individual’s belief systems, desires, motivations, culture and religion likely will be essential in assessing how best to form a connection and facilitate educing accurate, reliable and actionable intelligence’. Again, whereas the AMA campaigns against tobacco use due to the dire effects on health, the APA has taken the view that cigarettes are ‘one of a number of products considered to be hazardous’.

The ethical practice of engineering is committed to enhancing the ‘welfare, health and safety of all’, or otherwise expressed, to promoting the flourishing of persons in communities. As a consequence, engineers should be advised not to participate in the design, manufacture and use of equipment for torture or, as discussed in Chap. 1, to participate in the design, manufacture and use of cigarette manufacturing equipment. Such advice is consonant with that given to medical professionals.