An engineer with a firm specializing in electron- ics manufacturing is asked by management to design and develop a new generation of radar detectors for private consumption. The newest generation of stealth detectors is to alert drivers to the presence of police radar and laser traps while at the same time cloaking use of the detectors.
Now, let us suppose our engineer has misgiv- ings about developing such a device. His reas- oning is as follows: Radar detectors, as the name implies, are most often used by drivers to detect radar. Radar, of course, is any of a group of electronic devices used by the highway patrol to gauge the speed of traffic on the roadways. Drivers generally use such detectors to alert them to the use of radar. Because radar detectors are used by drivers primarily to exceed posted speed limits, which is an illegal act, some states have made their use illegal. Thus, in order to discover the use of illegal radar detectors, law enforcement officers employ electronic devices designed to detect the use of radar detectors. The device that our engineer is being asked to develop is one that will alert the user that such counter-measures are being used without it be- ing detected.
Now, imagine further that our engineer believes that speed limits are a reasonable limitation on personal freedom because they help secure the safety of other persons traveling on or nearby the roadways, such as pedestrians or the drivers and occupants of other vehicles. Let us also sup- pose our engineer believes that the device he is being asked to develop will be used almost ex- clusively to break what he considers to be just laws. Troubled, he expresses his concerns to management.
*By Dr. Leonard Ferenz, Center for Professional and Applied Ethics, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina
Management tells our engineer that there are significant profits in such a device and that he should get to work on the project or find another job. The dilemma for our engineer, then, is whether to serve his own and his employers' in- terests by doing what he is told and, thereby, keep his job or serve the public interest by refus- ing to participate in the development of a device that will help enable activities that are a threat to public safety.
Introduction
Similar dilemmas could face engineers being asked to cover-up, ignore, or under-report the existence of toxic wastes, structural defects, design flaws, or any other potential health or safety hazards. Under such circumstances, what is the right thing to do?
The solution in the above case may seem obvi- ous. But the reader may be assured that
whatever his or her opinion at the present time, there will be others with a different opinion about what to do in this case. Indeed various types of professionals, including engineers, of- ten express significant differences of opinion when faced with cases requiring an ethical solu- tion. The objective before us in this chapter, therefore, is to provide a framework for recon- ciling differences of opinion as we address the question, What is the right thing to do? in cir- cumstances involving ethical issues in the en- gineering profession.
There are many ways to consider the question, What is the right thing to do? From an economic perspective, the right thing to do is whatever is the most profitable. From a personal interest perspective, the right thing to do is whatever maximizes one's own well being. There may be religious perspectives, political perspectives, so- cial perspectives, etc. However, the perspective to be considered in this chapter is the moral, or ethical, perspective. We want to know what is the morally correct, or right, thing to do when faced with situations involving questions of right and wrong, good and evil, virtue and vice.
What we will not do in this chapter, however, is to lay out a particular set of moral rules or pro- mote a particular moral viewpoint. This chapter does not attempt to provide the right answers to specific moral problems. What we are con- cerned with here is a practical and workable method for dealing with moral problems in spe- cific cases. In medicine, moral decision-making involving specific persons in real-life circum- stances is called clinical ethics since it generally involves ethical decisions involving patients in a clinical setting. In this chapter, we will be devel- oping a method for solving ethical problems in specific cases that is the engineering equivalent of clinical ethics in medicine. We will refer to this simply as case ethics.
Our chapter begins with a short list of ethical terms and definitions. This list is designed to equip the reader with a decent understanding of ethical terms, not only for the benefit of this dis- cussion but also to facilitate meaningful moral deliberation and discussion with others. In this list I have tried to avoid much of the
Page 3 jargon that occurs in academia and have concen- trated on terms that the reader would most likely run across in the literature on professional ethics.
Next, we look at various options available to en- gineers to address ethical issues in their profes- sional practices. Foremost among these is the Code of Ethics for Engineers, developed by the National Society of Professional Engineers. There are a number of concerns that have been raised with regard to such professional codes of ethics in general and this one in particular. We will take a brief look at some of the more im- portant of these concerns.
Then, we will look at a problem-solving method for case analysis in ethics that has had tremend- ous success in various professional settings. It is a method that can be used by individuals alone or in consultation with others. Finally, we will look at the role of ethics committees in case consultation, policy formation, and review, and as a forum for ethical deliberation. The use of ethics committees as an approach to solving eth- ical problems arising in the professions has sev- eral important implications. We will take a brief look at these and then offer some concluding thoughts.
In contemporary literature, the term ethics often refers to reflective and theoretical perspectives of right and wrong, what dictionaries call moral philosophy. It also refers to the system or code of morals practiced by a particular person, group, or profession. The term morality refers generally to actual principles of conduct prac- ticed by individuals or groups of individuals or to ethics. Because of the obvious overlap in the meaning of these terms, we generally find both being used interchangeably in the literature. For this reason, the words morality and ethics will be treated as synonyms in this chapter.
In their broadest and most familiar meaning, morality and ethics are concerned with many forms of belief about good and bad, right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate human be- havior, rights, virtue, and vice. Morality and eth- ics are studies of what we ought to do and how we ought to behave from a moral viewpoint, as opposed to an economic, religious, political, or prudential viewpoint. From these perspectives, what we ought to do may be very different from what we ought to do from a moral perspective. For example, if I want to get to an important in- terview on time, it might be prudent for me to exceed the speed limits as I drive to my appoint- ment. I ought, in this case, to speed. However, if it's morally wrong to speed, then the moral thing to do is not speed. In this case, as is often the case, there is a difference between what I ought to do morally, the so-called moral ought, and what I ought to do to further some non-moral
goal (such as an economic goal), which is some- times referred to as the prudential ought.
The kinds of situations that are particularly chal- lenging in ethics are those that involve an ethic- al dilemma. An ethical dilemma exists whenever moral reasons or considerations can be offered to support two or more opposing courses of
action. For example, respect for individual self- determination could be offered as a moral reas- on to support a person's decision not to wear seatbelts while respect for the value of human life might be used to support, or justify, mandat- ory seatbelt laws.
An ethical dilemma is not the same as an ethical issue. An ethical issue is a general topic or prob- lem involving moral rules, principles, and norms. For example, physician-assisted suicide is an ethical issue in medicine; vendor/supplier policies, perks, and gifts are ethical issues in business; and weapons research is an ethical is- sue in engineering. The reason these topics are ethical issues, of course, is because of important differences of opinion and disagreement con- cerning what is morally correct.
Much of the discussion in ethics involves the use of some key concepts and principles. To il- lustrate, consider whether an individual should have the right to refuse life-saving medical treat- ments. Today, one could argue that patients do have a legal right to accept or refuse life-saving medical treatment, as recognized in such legisla- tion as the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 (1). But many would argue that what makes this legislation defensible from a moral point of view is the overriding importance of a moral principle, the so-called principle of autonomy. According to this principle, the ac- tions and decisions of autonomous persons ought to be respected. Thus, the reason patients have a right to accept or refuse medical treat- ment is because the principle of autonomy de- mands that we respect the actions and decisions of autonomous persons.
On the other hand, many would argue that we have moral obligations to promote the good of others and to preserve human life whenever pos- sible. The principle of beneficence demands that we promote the good of others. The good, as is often defined when discussing this principle, in- cludes the preservation of life.
Now, consider an ethical dilemma involving these two principles. Imagine that a practicing Jehovah's Witness is brought into the emergency room after sustaining injuries in an automobile accident. He is an adult, he is bleeding to death, and he refuses to accept a life-saving blood transfusion. Assuming the patient is clear- headed and capable of making an informed de- cision, what should the emergency room physi- cian do? Should the physician respect the patient's refusal, as demanded by the principle of autonomy, or transfuse the patient against his will, as demanded by the principle of benefi- cence? As you can see, this case poses an ethical dilemma because moral reasons or considera- tions can be offered to support two opposing courses of action. We can describe that dilemma as a conflict between the moral principles of autonomy and beneficence.
Notice, however, that being able to describe an ethical dilemma in terms of such principles as autonomy and beneficence does not solve the ethical dilemma. It is not obvious in this case, for example, whether respect for the autonomy of the Jehovah's Witness should override our ob- ligations of beneficence or vice versa. In
Page 5 fact, we often find that autonomy will override beneficence in one case but not in an- other depending upon the circumstances of the case. Because there is no apparent hier- archy or ranking of moral principles and their corresponding duties, they are generally considered to be prima facie; that is, at first sight each principle is binding at all times in all cases. It is the particular circumstances of the case that will cause one of these principles to override another.
While describing an ethical dilemma in terms of its competing moral principles will not solve the dilemma, it does help identify important moral values and interests that are at stake. To this end, the following list includes a brief description of the more commonly used moral principles and duties in contemporary discussions of ethics. Note that each of these principles, or action-guides, generates corresponding duties, listed immediately to the right of each principle. Also be aware that the order in which these principles occur in the following list should not be considered as an indication of moral rank or priority since each principle is prima facie.
Principle Corresponding Duty
the principle of autonomy
respect the autonomy of others the principle of
nonmaleficence
the principle of beneficence
promote the good of others
the principle of justice give others what is due or owed to them; give others what they deserve
the principle of truth- telling
disclose all relevant information honestly and intelligibly; do not intentionally deceive
the principle of promise-keeping
be faithful to just agreements; honor contracts
The principle of autonomy requires that we respect the autonomy of others. It asserts a right of noninterference and correlatively an obligation not to constrain or interfere with the autonomous actions of others. It is based on the idea that persons possess autonomy; that is, that they are free, self-governing, and self-determining beings. An individual is autonomous in the absence of internal or external constraints that would compromise the ability to act voluntarily toward a chosen course of action or to fulfill a chosen life-plan.
The principle of nonmaleficence requires that persons do not intentionally, or deliber- ately, do harm to others. According to the nineteenth century philosopher John Stuart Mill, we can cause evil to others by both our actions and our inactions (2). General us- age of this principle refers only to harms caused through actions, that is, positive acts, or commissions, and not through our inactions, or omissions. For example, the duty of nonmaleficence requires that we forebear from inflicting harm or injury on others by stealing from them or assaulting them, but it does not require that we rescue a person who is drowning. Thus, the principle of
nonmaleficence is sometimes referred to as a negative injunction since it tells us what not to do.
The principle of beneficence is based upon the concept of beneficence, which involves produ- cing benefits and promoting the good for others. The principle of beneficence is a positive injunc- tion that imposes obligations both to provide be- nefits and to prevent and remove harms. Ac- cording to a primary text in medical ethics, the principle of beneficence asserts the duty to help others further their important and legitimate in- terests and, more specifically, it asserts the duty to confer benefits and actively to prevent and re- move harms (3). Philosopher William Frankena combines obligations of nonmaleficence with those of beneficence. According to Frankena (4), the principle of beneficence imposes four duties:
1. One ought not to inflict evil or harm (what is bad)
2. One ought to prevent evil or harm 3. One ought to remove evil
4. One ought to do or promote good
According to either interpretation, the principle of beneficence requires the prevention of evil through our inactions. Thus, we would be re- quired according to this principle to rescue someone who is drowning.
The principle of justice generally requires doing what is fair, or just. For example, according to the philosopher John Rawls, justice as fairness requires that we promote the good of the least well-off in society prior to the good of those who are better off until all enjoy equal shares of the good. According to Rawls, inequities in the distribution of goods are justifiable only to the extent that they further the interests of the least well-off in society (5). So, for example, if chil- dren suffering from life-threatening genetic dis- eases were considered the least well-off in soci- ety, they would have the prior claim on society's resources. Thus we would be justified in re- warding geneticists and biochemists dispropor- tionately to other professionals in society if their work was the most likely to improve the well being of these least well-off members of society.
Rawl's is just one version of a conception of justice called egalitarianism. Other competing conceptions of justice include various forms of utilitarianism (which focuses on securing the greatest good for the greatest number of persons in society), libertarianism (a kind of laissez faire approach to economic distributions), so- cialism, Marxism, and various equality of op- portunity models. While the social and econom- ic implications of each of these models differ significantly, they all involve what persons de- serve or can legitimately claim on the basis of certain morally relevant properties, such as age, merit, productivity, social status, economic status, etc.
The principle of honesty, or truth-telling, obvi- ously requires telling the truth when asked but it can also be interpreted more stringently. In which case, truth-telling also requires full and impartial disclosure of any information that could be considered legitimately important to others.
Page 7 The principle of fidelity, or promise-keeping, re- cognizes an obligation to honor just agreements and to keep promises freely entered into and de- liberately made.
Returning to the case at the beginning of this chapter, we can now use these principles to de- scribe the ethical dilemma that faces our engin- eer. On the one hand, our engineer will have ob- ligations of fidelity to honor the terms of his em- ployment contract, which may require that he accept assignments suited to his expertise. Ac- cording to the principle of beneficence, he also has obligations to promote the good of others, including his employers, the people he works with, and certainly his own family. If the good of these others is at risk if he should quit or if the financial security of his family is at risk if he loses his job, then beneficence would enjoin him or her to accept the assignment.
The principle of beneficence, however, asks us to consider the good of all others, not just fam- ily or employers. Considering the good of the public in general, our engineer may feel that the good of many others would be best served by re- fusing to work on a device whose sole purpose, he believes, would be to allow law-breakers to avoid detection when speeding. Moreover, the principle of autonomy might be invoked here to