MEM 604: Social, Legal and Ethical Considerations for Engineering Engineers and the Environmental Challenge

The Environmental Challenge One of the most exciting and controversial developments in recent moral thinking is environmental ethics. This is not just a topic of interest for philosophers. Increasingly professionals and business people have begun to seriously consider the implications of environmental concerns for their practices.

Engineers and the Environment These considerations are especially acute for engineers. Engineers are often pivotally involved in projects and technologies with potentially profound environmental impacts. Engineers are often in the best position to help resolve the problems caused by such projects and technologies.

Looking to the Codes As always, engineers who confront environmental challenges with moral concerns would do well to consider what the various engineering codes of ethics have to say about the matter. Given the relative newness of environmental ethics, it should not be surprising that not all professional codes speak to the issues. Nor should we be surprised that the message is a mixed bag.

Mixed Messages As the editors review in section 9.2, only 4 of the codes commonly referred to speak to the issue at all, and those that do speak with a variety of concerns. Two elements are common: the idea that human well being requires attention to environmental quality and that the best way to assure this quality is by adopting the principle of “sustainable development.”

Sustainable Development The clearest expression of this principle is to be found in the Code of the ASCE. See p. 193 There are two relevant features of the ASCE’s use of this principle. It reminds us that development is the overarching goal. Sustainability is a constraint functioning on that goal.

Conceptual Issues Before we can consider what the codes obligate professional engineers to with regards to the environment, some other conceptual distinctions must be made. Source of the Obligation: flowing from concerns for human health or from some non- health related concerns. Value of Nature: Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic

Obligations and the Environment Clearly, some of our concerns about the environment stem from the implications of the environment for human health. All codes would recognize this sort of obligation. In addition to these, there may be other reasons why we should be concerned about the environment. Non-human life; aesthetic concerns; property value; etc.

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value Some environmentalists are committed to a principle of intrinsic environmental value. They argue that the value of the environment not limited to human interests. Others would argue that the environment has only extrinsic value, defined by reference to human interest.

Applying the Codes For the most part, the force of the codes is limited to those concerns in which human health and welfare are directly affected. In this, they reflect both the primary, harm-related concerns of engineers and prevailing thinking in the business community. They also may reflect some conceptual uncertainty. Many of the operative concepts in environmental thinking are not susceptible to necessary and sufficient definition (ex., “clean”).

Looking to the Law As we’ve seen before, laws and regulations are another resource for engineers to consider when trying to determine the force and scope of their obligations to the environment. Here, too, there has been a recent surge in thinking and activity around the issue, though the overall implications are far from clear.

Federal Law Like the codes, federal regulation focuses primarily on relationship between the environment and human health. The past 30 years of regulation show a general trend toward increasing levels of concern and regulation, but with no clear standard of application or evaluation. This is particularly evident in connection to the use of cost-benefit analysis.

The Courts When laws and regulations are tested in the courts, costs are generally given more importance. Cost is still not the only operative consideration. See for example on p. 196.

The Law and Costs Though the law does not do all of the work necessary, its recognition of the challenge of balancing health and costs is helpful. It allows engineers to mora accurately specify the scope of difficult concepts like “clean.” See the “Degree-of-Harm Criterion” on p. 198.

Problem of Anthropocentrism Many environmentalists are critical of the sort of approach implicit in both the codes and the law. They argue that the limitation of obligation to the realm of human interests is unjustifiably anthropocentric. The question becomes, to what extent if any, should engineers be concerned about non- anthropocentric environmental obligations?

Pro and Con In favor of an expanded concern is the recognition that engineers often share blame-responsibility for environmental degradation and that they are often well-positioned to mitigate it. Against this expansion is the recognition that many elements of this concern fall outside of the realm of engineering expertise, the expansion could prove challenging to professional societies, and the expansion may pose problems of conscience for some.

Two (very) Modest Proposals The editors close the chapter with two proposals that attempt to advance the discussion of environmental obligations of professional engineers. See p From their perspective, the right to organizational disobedience is the most controversial of the two.