ENGINEERING ETHICS Gene Moriarty CmpE Dept Week 04

We are currently looking at general ethical theories. Last week we considered Kantian Deontology, the ethics of duty. This week we consider another key ethical theory: Utilitarianism. We will have opportunities to apply codes and theories to a variety of cases. See the Hinman power point presentation ………..

 So we need to count up the positives and weigh them against the negatives.  Einstein: “Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.”  Both Kantian Deontology and Utilitarianism provide theories about how to do good. Ethical theories applied to cases consolidate into CODES of ETHICS and the conflux of theories, cases, and codes is guided by certain fundamental values. The CODE OF ETHICS we want to consider in this class is the IEEE Code. Here is the pre-amble and the ten tenets of that succinct CODE:

We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation to our profession, its members and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree: 1)to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment; 2)to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist; 3)to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;

4) to reject bribery in all its forms; 5) to improve the understanding of technology, its appropriate application, and potential consequences; 6)to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations; 7)to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others; 8)to treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race, religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin; 9)to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action; 10)to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics.

What about Sullivan and McFarland? Mcfarland looks at the nuclear industry and finds that all modes of recourse engineers have for responsible acting are INADEQUATE (this was 1986 and things have improved a little since then.) Avenues of recourse: control by technical elite / going public (whistle blowing) / organized opposition, e.g. UCS / professional societies, e.g. IEEE. All four of these are problematic. Solution: don’t act alone but foster collaboration within and outside the profession / form independent technology assessment teams / use consensus model of decision making / the conversation of the lifeworld…. e.g. interpret the charge engineers have to protect the HEALTH/SAFETY/WELFARE of the public…..what does that mean to the variety of people involved in this conversation?

 Sullivan’s essay on professionalism, which focuses on medical ethics, contrasts theoretical ethics with virtue ethics, providing a linkage in the EP text between Chpt 2 on process ethics and Chpt 5 on virtue ethics. Process ethics focuses on “the deductive conception of applied ethics in which regulatory principles and rules subsume particular cases as instances of a general norm.” Virtue ethics focuses on the settings, character, customs and practices – all of which are captured in the notion of ethos. Sullivan calls for a conversation of the lifeworld requiring an honest, open public discussion in order to maintain the integrity of the professions. This is the same thing McFarland suggests to bring engineers into the service of the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. The Sullivan essay is deep and deserves a second reading (perhaps around the time we begin Chapter 5 of the text.)

Case Study #4 This will be a dramatized case study video called “The Incident at Morales.” Analyze the ethical issues based on the IEEE Code of Ethics. Write a ½ pager in response.

Both Kantian Deontology and Utilitarianism provide theories about how to do good. Ethical theories applied to cases consolidate, as we saw, into CODES of ETHICS and the conflux of theories, cases, and codes is guided by certain fundamental values. The CODE OF ETHICS we consider in this class is the IEEE Code. Though Kant emphasized INTENTION ( a priori ) and Utilitarianism emphasized ( a posteriori ) CONSEQUENCES both can be seen as intellectual machinery or means which engineering (or actually any activity) can employ toward achieving positive ends or goals or values, all of which indicate some sense of THE GOOD.

How then, more specifically, do we determine the good, the positive or appropriate ends or goals, at which the engineering process ought to aim?

 McFarland in his essay, which we recently read, and the IEEE and ACM Codes of Ethics – as well as almost every code of professional ethics I have ever seen – charge engineers with having to protect the HEALTH/SAFETY/WEFARE of the public…..  So the mechanisms of Process Ethics, both Utilitarianism and Deontology, aim at “The Good” interpreted (hermenutically) as HEALTH/SAFETY/WELFARE of the public….. Further reflection on these values reveals what?

I couple HEALTH & SAFETY together as a single value. They are not the same thing but they do belong together. Health is health of the user, safety is safety of the used. Consider e.g. the Challenger Disaster: the health of the astronauts depended largely on the safety of the vehicle. All engineers work under the assumption that they need to minimize the unhealthy, dangerous, and risky aspects of their enterprise. Here is another example of where health and safety were compromised:

Safety problems and the Ford Pinto scandal The model became a focus of a major scandal when it was alleged that the car's design allowed its fuel tank to be easily damaged in a rear-end collision which sometimes resulted in deadly fires and explosions. Critics argued that the vehicle's lack of a true rear bumper as well as any reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the tank meant that in certain collisions, the tank would be thrust forward into the differential, which had a number of protruding bolts that could puncture the tank. This, and the fact that the doors could potentially jam during an accident (due to poor reinforcement) made the car less safe than its contemporaries. Ford allegedly was aware of this design flaw but refused to pay for a redesign. Instead, it was argued, Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths. Mother Jones Magazine obtained the cost-benefit analysis that it said Ford had used to compare the cost of an $11 repair against the monetary value of a human life, in what became known as the Ford Pinto Memo.

The characterization of Ford's design decision as gross disregard for human lives in favor of profits led to significant lawsuits. While Ford was acquitted of criminal charges, it lost several million dollars and gained a reputation for manufacturing "the barbecue that seats four.” The NHTSA put pressure on Ford to recall the Pinto, motivated by public outcry and pressure from groups such as Ralph Nader's Center for Auto Safety. Initially the NHTSA did not feel there was sufficient evidence to demand a recall due to incidents of fire. The 27 deaths attributed to Pinto fires is the same number of deaths attributed to a transmission problem in the Pinto, which resulted in 180 total deaths in all Ford vehicles, and in 1974 the NHTSA ruled that the Pinto had no "recallable" problem. Nevertheless, in 1978 Ford initiated a recall providing a dealer installable "safety kit" that installed plastic protective material over the offending sharp objects, negating the risk of tank puncture. [ [

In 1981, an automobile accident that killed Lilly Gray and badly burned 13- year old Richard Grimshaw resulted in the court case in which the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld compensatory damages of $2.5 million and punitive damages of $3.5 million against Ford, partially because Ford had been aware of the design defects before production but had decided against changing the design. Due to the alleged engineering, safety, and reliability problems, Time Magazine included the Pinto on its list of the fifty worst cars of all time.

 Compared to health & safety, WELFARE is a much more open ended value. How to interpret it? Without a healthy environment any kind of welfare would be essentially impossible. Without all people being assumed approximately equal (at least in terms of opportunities), any kind of welfare would be essentially impossible. Therefore I will assume the value of WELFARE can be broken into the values: ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY SOCIAL JUSTICE  There may be other things you want to add to your sense of welfare, but these two seem to be essential.

Social Justice can be widely interpreted. It refers to the right of all persons in society to have access to resources they need “to get a fair shake.” It entails freedom from oppression e.g. I.M.Young’s Five Faces of Oppression: 1)Exploitation 2)Marginalization 3)Powerlessness 4)Cultural Imperialism 5)Violence (freedom from these would be a good start)

Another take on Social Justice is to look at Human Rights (universal freedoms) proposed in the UN Human Development Report. Among these are freedom 1)from discrimination 2)from want 3)from fear 4)from exploitation 5)to develop one’s own potential 6)to participate in decision making

Question for Process Ethics: how do we do engineering that helps to realize these freedoms? At least follow the Hippocratic Oath and aim to DO NO HARM with the processes with which we are involved. [ Doing good will be the charge reserved for the focal engineer – later.] Another Question for Process Ethics: is seeking Social Justice at odds with Capitalism’s goal of maximizing profits only? That’s the goal of IDEAL capitalism which is really a fiction. Laissez-faire capitalism really does not exist and never existed. We do have e.g. the welfare state as a counter to pure capitalism …. “to prevent people from suffering or to prevent them from revolting.” --- Montesquieu

The topic of social justice is of course voluminous but some sense of it ought to be an aim of the process of the modern engineering enterprise.

 Now what about ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABLITY? It implies that we must act in concert with Nature such that the ability of future generations to do the same is not threatened. Global Warming is an example of de-valuing the value of ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY.

 A beautiful view of a sustainable natural world is presented in the letter that Chief Seattle, Chief of the Suquamish Indians, allegedly wrote to the American Government in the 1800's  CHIEF SEATTLE'S LETTER "The President in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. But how can you buy or sell the sky? the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?

Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are holy in the memory and experience of my people. We know the sap which courses through the trees as we know the blood that courses through our veins. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters. The bear, the deer, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the dew in the meadow, the body heat of the pony, and man all belong to the same family. The shining water that moves in the streams and rivers is not just water, but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you our land, you must remember that it is sacred. Each glossy reflection in the clear waters of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father.

The rivers are our brothers. They quench our thirst. They carry our canoes and feed our children. So you must give the rivers the kindness that you would give any brother. If we sell you our land, remember that the air is precious to us, that the air shares its spirit with all the life that it supports. The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also received his last sigh. The wind also gives our children the spirit of life. So if we sell our land, you must keep it apart and sacred, as a place where man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadow flowers. Will you teach your children what we have taught our children? That the earth is our mother? What befalls the earth befalls all the sons of the earth. This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. One thing we know: our God is also your God. The earth is precious to him and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its creator.

Your destiny is a mystery to us. What will happen when the buffalo are all slaughtered? The wild horses tamed? What will happen when the secret corners of the forest are heavy with the scent of many men and the view of the ripe hills is blotted with talking wires? Where will the thicket be? Gone! Where will the eagle be? Gone! And what is to say goodbye to the swift pony and then hunt? The end of living and the beginning of survival. When the last red man has vanished with this wilderness, and his memory is only the shadow of a cloud moving across the prairie, will these shores and forests still be here? Will there be any of the spirit of my people left?

We love this earth as a newborn loves its mother's heartbeat. So, if we sell you our land, love it as we have loved it. Care for it, as we have cared for it. Hold in your mind the memory of the land as it is when you receive it. Preserve the land for all children, and love it, as God loves us. As we are part of the land, you too are part of the land. This earth is precious to us. It is also precious to you. One thing we know - there is only one God. No man, be he Red man or White man, can be apart. We ARE all brothers after all."

 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY and SOCIAL JUSTICE are intertwined and complement each other within Environmental Justice as seen in the work of David Harvey. But there is another assessment that combines these with ECONOMICS considerations (illustrated in a paper by Scott Campbell “Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities.”)  Campbell who is a City Planner – and the same applies to engineers – has at least three conflicting interests:  to “grow” the economy  to distribute this growth fairly  to not degrade the eco-system

To talk about this we can set up an Assessment Triangle with vertices Equity/Economy/Ecology

Property Conflict --- competing claims on the use of property / like when middle class professionals move in and drive out long term residents / gentrification / private interest vs. public good Resource Conflict --- forest cut down for timber / how much to take so we remain sustainable Developmental Conflict --- poor suffer because they cannot afford resources but the wealthy can / sometimes this becomes environmental racism

So the flow of these ideas can be summarized. From the expression “Health, Safety, Welfare” we combined Health and Safety into H&S. Then we broke out Welfare into ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABLITY and SOCIAL JUSTICE. Then ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABLITY and SOCIAL JUSTICE were merged into ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. Now we factor ECONOMY into the equation. Finally we might coalesce all this back into just WELFARE

One last thing in Chapter 2 to consider: THE ETHICS ENGINE. Let the three J terms (J 1, J 2, J 3 ) represent the three values of Process Ethics. And we can write J =  1 J 1 +  2 J 2 +  3 J 3 with  1 +  2 +  3 = 1.0 where the  i terms are weighting factors whose values are to be determined by consensus. Initially assume all three value functions are equally weighted, so all  i terms will be set to 1/3. Assume all three value functions can range from -3 to +3. A minus number indicates that, say, social justice is not achieved. A positive number indicates that, say, health and safety are well provided for. A zero value implies neutrality.

Time permitting, we will have an in- class group exercise on a video entitled “ The Story of Stuff.” The focus of the exercise will be on where the values of environmental sustainability, health & safety, and social justice show up in the video.

Home work for week 4: read the essays “Technology, Sustainability, and Deveforlopment,” Arnd Jurgensen, Bulletin of STS (2000) and also “Sustainability: A Practitioner’s Reflection,” Albert F. Appleton, Technology in Society (2006) / in a one- pager answer the question posed in 2 nd essay: “Is the wave of interest and activity that sustainability has spurred a false dawn that will peter out as it runs against real choices?”