Engineering Ethics Long Essay Example

Ethics in most professions today play the role of problem resolution as they outline the guidelines to what is recommended or what is illegitimate within a profession, assisting in decision making in regarding how individuals are supposed to handle themselves and resolve skirmish issues in certain professions. Further, the code of ethics outlines the freedom, the roles together with the responsibilities of the people in a given profession. The engineering profession as well has got its code of ethics and fundamental canons outlined by the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) which engineers use as a framework to provide a certain standard of professional character. This paper aims to evaluate some of the course's case studies from weeks 4-7 in relation to the first canon by NSPE which states that engineers, in the course of accomplishing their professional responsibilities shall hold supreme the welfare, health, and safety of the public.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Most of the time in the society, several things that people rely on to effect various operations are products of the special expertise of the people in the engineering profession. For instance, traveling by air, driving a car, crossing over a footbridge over a highway, or even using an elevator together with several other daily activities implies entrusting one's life with the professional skills of engineers. He further compares engineering to other cases where people act like threats subjecting others to danger and insists that engineers should not take part in projects that impose the public to risks of death.

For instance in case 1 where the mosquitoes are likely to cause a very dangerous disease to thousands of the community although a chemical spray that is likely to kill one person out of a thousand because of congenital sensitivity is an available remedy for the mosquitoes. In this case, no one has the mandate to kill another person to just uphold the lives of others. However, it is well if an individual is willing to sacrifice his/her life for the good of others. Similar to engineering, the fact that the society entrusts the people in the engineering profession with their lives implies that engineers should give the foremost priority to a commitment to the first canon of withholding significantly the welfare of the society.

In case no. 76-4, Engineer Doe withholds every ethical responsibility to file a report of his discoveries in writings the relevant authority upon following the hearing. Although the XYZ Corporation has terminated its contract with Doe following complete payment of the offered services, the engineer still has the mandate to file and submit a written report to because it is very vital in the hearing and following the first canon by NSPE, engineer Doe has no otherwise but to stick to his commitments to the society regarding its health, welfare, and safety.

In case no. 08-10, despite the fact that engineers are obliged to withhold significantly the safety, welfare and the security of the public like engineer A is trying to be concerned about the impact of the respirator to infants if the pressure valve is not reviewed, it however unethical for the engineers according to the board of ethical review to behave in a dishonoring manner. In this case for instance, it is unethical for Engineer A to tell the manager of that Meditech that if speedy precautions are not implemented to correct the design problem, then he will be obliged to file a report of the issue to suitable federal agency because he has not taken any preliminary actions to ascertain the statement made by the manager that internal measures are being implemented to correct the mess. The engineer is supposed to ensure the internal procedures being implemented if there is none then he has the obligation to report the matter to the relative federal agency.

In the case of Ford Pinto model by De George, the essence of the obligation of engineers to committing to the first canon of NSPE that implies engineers in administering their professional roles shall hold supreme the welfare, health, and safety of the public. Therefore, it is not necessary at times to shoot bullets of blame towards engineers like in cases where they are not answerable for a company's final decision. For instance in the case study of pinto by De George, engineers do not have the mandate to make alterations to the proposed design until there is approval by the management even if they have spotted a potential risk in the product like the engineers of Ford spotted a potential risk of tank rapture caused by rear-end collision at 20mph. in the case of ford, even though the engineers were loyal to the code of ethics and giving the supreme priority to the safety of the public, Ford regarded additional of the missing part of the design as a setback in the profitability of the car models, therefore, the engineers did not have a choice other than to abide by the will of the management.

In case 10-5, the concept of withholding paramount the safety, welfare and the health of the public is the obligation of engineer A. the role of an engineer in committing to the professional ethics is to report to the relevant authorities any unethical conduct in the engineering profession that may impose risk to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. In this case for instance, engineer A who has witnessed a fault in a nearby building from his workstation is supposed to commit the first canon of NSPE by reporting to the his immediate supervisor even though the building is within the jurisdiction of another consulting company which is not by far related to the ES consulting company from which engineer A works. Given the fact that the building is imposing a threat to the safety and welfare of the public which is paramount in the engineering profession, the immediate supervisor of engineer A is entitled to take recommended actions upon the unethical observations made by engineer A. however, if the ES consulting company does not implement any actions regarding the flaws of the building then engineer A is allowed to seek external superior authorities with a firm stand on the issue even if it may cost him his job.

In the case 97-12, even though the engineer A has taken a responsible step in ensuring that the safety of the public is held paramount, the step he has taken to handle the scenario is considered unethical because he is supposed to report to his local supervisor first after which if there are no actions taken when he is fit to reach out to the higher authorities like in this case calling the hotline. Despite the fact that the engineer's act of reporting is regarded as ethical even in a case where the product does not directly relate to the health and welfare of the public like in this scenario the licensing of the CAD products, engineer A lacks respects for protocol because if he had reached out to his superior first before contacting the hotline, there could have been the possibility of solving the problem without reaching out to higher authorities. Therefore, this act by engineer A, in this case, is regarded unethical and malicious because Hotline contacts only serve the purposes of emergency and not suitable for making rash decisions when there is ample time to discuss an issue at the baseline level.