Engineering: issues, challenges and opportunities for development ...

AN OVERVIEW OF ENGINEERING‘professional’ ethics) that is broad enough to encompass manytypes of ethical problems encountered at work by engineers,whether they are considered as ‘true’ professionals or not.Some American scholars consider that engineering ethics relyon the fact that the engineering community has adopted standardsdefining what is morally permissible, which are specific toits members and go beyond the requirement of law, marketand ordinary morality. They consider engineering ethics as akind of practical wisdom in the professional practice, whichcan and must be transmitted. This is an interesting approachbut it relies on the adoption of such standards, which is notthe case all over the world. Moreover, where codes of ethicsdo exist, these codes often suffer from a lack of legitimacy andreinforcement procedures.Following this approach, engineering ethics would not be somuch about promoting respect of professional obligations.The focal point of engineering ethics would not be a status (aprofession). Neither would it be knowledge (engineering sciences).Engineering ethics is not an ethical reflection on technicalobjects; it is the ‘ ethics of techniques’. Neither is the roleof engineering ethics to evaluate technical decisions (this hasbeen the aim of a field called ‘Technology Assessment’ sincethe 1980s). The focal point of engineering ethics is an activity.Moreover, in our engineered world, engineering ethics cannotbe a preoccupation reserved for engineers only, but for allcitizens concerned by the impact of engineering decisions. Theexpression ‘engineering ethic’ reminds us of the human originof the technologies. It explicitly refers to a type of work and toa human community more in charge of this work than others:the engineers.What is engineering?Until recently, human social sciences and philosophyshowed little interest for engineers and their practice. In theUnited States, the independence of the subject ‘the historyof technology’ from ‘the history of science’ is very recent.Even more recently, we can mention the effort of Gary LeeDowney and Juan Lucena to attempt to trace the outlines of aspecific field for engineering studies. Several characteristics ofengineering are described in academic literature. Some insiston the dual nature – scientific and economic – of engineering;engineers are scientists but also business people because thetesting of their work does not occur in laboratories but onthe market place. Others underline the social dimension ofthis practice, which is a combination of labour and capital.The knowledge of engineers has something to do withscientific knowledge, but it remains different. Mike Martinand Roland Schinzinger have defined engineering as ‘socialexperimentation’. Carl Mitcham insists on the fact that theproduct of engineering is not knowledge, but ‘an object whichtransforms the world’.What then are the main characteristics of engineering? Firstly,engineering takes place in a complex work environment. Theagents of technical acts are engineers, but also technicians, nontechnicalexecutives and sometimes administrative and politicaldecision-makers. Secondly, the act of engineering has the abilityto transform the real world and produce consequences, whichare sometimes irreversible and partially unknown. Engineeringis characterized by the potential power and the partial uncertaintyof its impacts, both present and future, on the naturaland human environment. Finally, engineering is characterizedby a central act: the act of designing. This act is a process bywhich objectives or functions take shape in the imagination ofand plans for the creation of an object, a system or a service,with an aim to achieve the goal or function.What about engineers‘ responsibility?The moral obligations of engineers arise from the dependenceof the whole of society on engineers, for certain things at least,such as the acts of technical design. Engineers have a greatresponsibility because if they fail to do their job with technicalcompetency and commitment to ethics, not only can anindividual be harmed or killed (as is the case if a doctor failsto do his/her job), but dozens, hundreds, even thousands ofindividuals may be affected.Although the principle of proportionate care obviously formsthe basis of the engineers’ moral responsibility, we must keep inmind one difficulty: the phenomenon of dilution of individualresponsibility in large corporations that may favor impunity. Onthe other hand, it may be unjust to have an individual agentbear the responsibility of the unwanted harm due to a structuralfailure of a collectivity. The line seems to be narrow betweenmaking the individual engineers excessively responsible and theabdication of any responsibility as a subterfuge for inaction.In the shift from the activity to the actors, from the ethicalchallenges of engineering to the moral responsibility of theengineers, three questions need to be addressed: What is themoral legitimacy of engineers when taking into account theethical issues of engineering in their decisions and actions?What is the specific knowledge that they have access to? Whatis their specific freedom of action within the organizations inwhich they are employed?LegitimacyFor some authors, the ethical questions raised by technicaldevelopment do not really concern the engineers because ofits highly political dimension. Some authors are very scepticalregarding the obligations of engineers in the American codesof ethics that seek to protect the public against the bad effectsof technical developments. Thus, engineers can express theirpoint of view, with a full legitimacy, in the debates about thetechnical choices at different levels: within their companies,with peers and other colleagues but also with staff representa-185