Safety is a matter of how people would find risks acceptable or unacceptable, if they knew the risks, and are basing their judgments on their most settled value perspective. So, to this extent, it is objective. Perspectives differ. To this extent, it is…
1. “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for” – John A. Shedd 2. ‘A thing is safe if its risks are judged to be acceptable’ - William W. Lawrence We buy an ill-designed Iron box in a sale-> Underestimating risk We judge fluoride in water can kill lots of people -> Overestimating risk We hire a taxi, without thinking about its safety -> Not estimating risk How does a judge pass a judgement on safety in these 3 cases? ….So, this definition won't do in real life. Then, what is acceptable also depends upon the individual or group’s value judgment. Hence…
Imagine you are a fresh graduate. You get a job as an engineer in a large atomic power plant. Would you take it or not? Under what conditions would you take it? Under what conditions would you not? Why? People as Consumers: Active Consumers: directly involve themselves e.g., mowing the lawn, washing clothes or toasting bread. Passive Consumers: have less choice and less control e.g., Water, Electricity, Petrol, Bystanders: e.g., exposed to Pollution from unknown sources .What is safe to Entrepreneurs, may not be so to Engineers. e.g., Pilots: "Indian Airports are not safe; Low Vision in Fog“ What is safe to Engineers, may not be so to Public. e.g., Top loading Washing Machine Typically several groups of people are involved in safety matters but have their own interests at stake. Each group may differ in what is safe and what is not.
1. The greatest problem of law in engg is of ‘minimal compliance’. Engineers and employers can search for loop holes in the law to barely keep to its letter while violating its spirit. Engineers will tend to refer to standard readymade specifications rather than come up with innovative ideas. Minimal compliance led to the tragedy of the ‘Titanic’. 2. Continually updating laws and regulations may be counter-productive and will make law always lag behind technology. This also overburdens the rules and regulators. 3. Many laws are ‘non-laws’ i.e. laws without enforceable sanctions. These merely serve as window dressing, frequently gives a false sense of security to the public. 4. The opponents of the law may burden it intentionally with many unreasonable provisions that a repeal will not be far off. 5. Highly powerful organizations, like the government can violate the laws when they think they can get away with it by inviting would be challengers, to face them in lengthy and costly court proceedings. This also creates frustration with the law.
1. Codes are restricted to general and vague wording. They cannot be straightaway applied to all situations. It is impossible to foresee the full range of moral problems that can arise in a complex profession like engg. 2. It is easy for different clauses of codes to come into conflict with each other. Usually codes provide no guidance as to which clause should have priority in those cases, creating moral dilemmas. 3. They cannot serve as the final moral authority for professional conduct. If the code of a professional society is taken as the last word, it means that we are getting into a particular set of conventions i.e. ethical conventionalism. 4. Andrew Oldenquist and Edward Slowter pointed out how the existence of separate codes for different professional societies can give members the feeling that ethical conduct is more relative than it is and that it can convey to the public the view that none is ‘really right’. The current codes are by no means perfect but are definitely steps in the right direction.
The perspective of engg as social experimentation clearly emphasizes the primary role ‘supportive function’ of the codes of ethics. This is so because, only this support enables engineers, speak out clearly and openly their views, to those affected by engg projects. The, ‘inspiration and guidance’ and ‘educative’ functions are also important in promoting mutual understanding and in motivating engineers to act with higher moral standards. The ‘disciplinary’ function in engg codes is of secondary importance. Those with unethical conduct when exposed are subject to law. Developing elaborate paralegal procedures within professional societies duplicates a function which can be done better by legal system. At best, codes should try to discipline engineers in areas which are not covered by law. The worst abuse of codes has been to restrict honest moral effort in the name of ‘preserving profession’s public mage’ and ‘protecting status quo’. The best way to increase trust is by encouraging and aiding engineers to speak freely and responsibly about public safety.
1. Inspiration and Guidance: Codes provide positive stimulus for ethical conduct and helpful guidance by using positive language. Codes should be brief to be effective and hence such codes offer only general guidance. Supplementary statements or guidelines to give specific directions are added by a number of societies or professional bodies. 2. Support: Codes give positive support to those seeking to act ethically. An engineer under pressure to act unethically can use one of the publicly proclaimed codes to get support for his stand on specific moral issues. Codes also serve as legal support for engineers. 3. Deterrence and discipline: Codes can be used as a basis for conducting investigations on unethical conduct. They also provide a deterrent for engineers to act immorally. Engineers who are punished by professional societies for proven unethical behaviour by revoking the rights to practice as engineers are also subjected to public ridicule and loss of respect from colleagues and local community. This helps to produce ethical conduct even though this can be viewed as a negative way of motivation. 4.…
Engineering Codes of Ethics have evolved over time EARLY CODES • Codes of personal behavior • Codes for honesty in business dealings and fair business practices • Employee/employer relations NEWER CODES • Emphasize commitments to safety, public health and environmental protection • Express the rights, duties and obligations of members of the Profession • Do not express new ethical principles, but coherently restate existing standards of responsible engineering practice • Create an environment within the Profession where ethical behavior is the norm • Not legally binding; an engineer cannot be arrested for violating an ethical code (but may be expelled from or censured by the engineering society) Are Engineering Codes Needed? NO: – Engineers are capable of fending for themselves…
