Engineering Ethics Essay

The need for sentry duty is relative to the danger of having an accident. Nothing is fool-proof, yet we essential try to minimize risks. If the public is unstrained to run or to take much(prenominal) risks, who argon conducts to ref workout? In my opinion, the preceding(prenominal) argument is very valid and it thusly reflects the position of technology as a address. The reason why I tide over this argument is because first of all in all told, the advancements the society has been commensurate to make be out-of-pocket to the milest sensations that pack been achieved by engineers. There will ceaselessly be a demand for aim so that life may blend what the society wants it to be smooth and businesslike (Davis, 1998).To design the strategys which ar able to set down about these comforts, we as engineers essential etymon our practise on the mathematical and sensible principles that corroborate been established through lastential research (Baura, 2006). An y measures to safeguard the preventive in the use of systems and devices designed by engineers argon constant and depend on certain constants and these constants are in incline dependent on external factors. When this strand of determinants fails to hold up, then risks will arise. Nevertheless, it is our captain responsibility as engineers to bring aim to the society.Due to unforeseen circumstances, design processes or the intersections of these processes may malfunction, causing danger to their users or former(a) third parties. But through exhibiting an affinity for these processes and products, the society is virtually sign an agreement to face the associated risks as a social function of choice and engineers dis saddlenot dissuade them (Davis, 1998). However, all engineers pick out a role of ensuring that the business is approached with patience so that the risks emanating from its processes are as low as rotter be possible (Davis, 1998).This is our certificate of i ndebtedness to the society, our sense of right and wrong and our employers and the job. That is what makes a holistic engineer practice. Relationship among risk and safety To understand the family between risk and safety it is master(prenominal) to first understand the meaning and deduction of the two terms. Risk in the technology context so-and-so be specify as the probability of an accident arising from an engineering excogitate or a product of an engineering project (Baura, 2006).Safety on its part can be define as the state of having a outlined degree of certainty that adverse effectuate or accidents will not outlet from a process or the use of a specific device or system. With the above definitions in mind, it can be concluded that risk and safety are oppositionly proportional entities. Applied to engineering worship, their implication is that we as engineers must strive, as a matter of being professed(prenominal)ly fitted, to minimize risks as much as can be possible so that safety can be increase (Baura, 2006).Risks catch mevery dimensions in that they can occur in any form of engineering, raging from design, implementation of the design and in the application of the product of the design (Davis, 1998). The very(prenominal) is translated to safety since the two are reciprocally interdependent, related by the rule of inverse proportionality the higher the risks associated with a system or a process, the lesser the safety of the people interacting with it. Determining whether an engineer is trustworthy for an accidentUnder the unfortunate contingence that an accident has occurred in an engineering project or in the use of a product or system designed through the engineering process, whether or not an engineer should be held accountable is a matter resolved by examining if he or she stuck by the pre-defined standards of professionalism and ethics (Baura, 2006). This is wizard of the main concerns of engineering ethics. It is a fi eld of honor in the study and practice of engineering that deals with the setting and unilateral enforcement of the standards that govern the practice of engineering as a profession.harmonize to these standards, an engineer is supposed to exhibit diligence, religion and high directs of engagement to the process (Rabins, Pritchard & Harris, 2008). When these attributes are not followed to the letter, safety may be compromised. In case an accident happens and the engineer in charge of the event or system that caused the accident is found to have diverged from recommended standards of competence, then he or she should be held responsible for the accident (Baura, 2006). As discussed above, all engineering processes always involve several(prenominal) risks no matter how minimal.An accident may occur not because of negligence on the part of the engineer in charge but because of other factors outside his or her control (Davis, 1998). Determining if an engineer is responsible for an acci dent therefore is a matter of evaluating the circumstances that led to the accident. If there is enough proof of negligence, then the engineer should be blasted but if all rise fork ups that the engineer stuck to the recommended standards of professionalism and ethical responsibility, then he or she should not be blamed (Davis, 1998). It is just part of the risks involved in the job.Standards of due diligence Moral, ethical and professional standards of diligence applying to the practice of engineering are defined for each specific train by societies comprised of controld engineers. These societies define an epicurean set of standards which an engineer needs to be familiar with and show competence in before he or she is accredited to practice. Among these is the National Institute of Engineering righteous philosophy (NIEE), the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), the ships company of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the American Society of windup(preno minal) Engineers (AMSE).In different countries, national societies exist which liaise with the international societies for easier implementation of these standards of due diligence (Rabins, Pritchard & Harris, 2008). Regulating and enforcing Standards Professional engineers who have garnered sufficient experience in the profession have the righteous and professional obligation of inducting graduating engineers to the practice. They, in collaboration with engineering societies and educational institutions should ensure that student engineers are taught engineering ethics as part of the weak curriculum.Upon graduating, engineering students should be made to harness competence courses and examinations so that the required standards of ethical and professional are ingrained into their conscience before they can be pass to operate as engineers (Davis, 1998). There should be levels so that an engineer graduates from one level to another depending on experience garnered experience whic h should be evaluated in terms of his or her level of competence. Practicing licenses should be suspended for engineers who show incompetence in their practice. Competence, Personality and godlinessGood (competent) engineers are those who apply the standards of diligence prescribed in the engineering principle of ethics. A bad ( amateurish) engineer is one who does not value the above standards (Rabins, Pritchard & Harris, 2008). The are parameters (or standards of due diligence) include being knowledgeable, having the skills or expertise needful for a give task and having the ethical stand to be able to take responsibility for the process itself incase of any unforeseen contingence (Baura, 2006). A beneficial engineer wholeheartedly dedicates his service to his clients, employer and to the society.When all or any of these virtues are missing, then we have a bad engineer. No matter how proficient an engineer may be, he or she can be branded incompetent if he does not inject e thics into his or her practice. There is a kind between being a well-grounded engineer and being a unafraid person since all ethics have a common foundation. virtuously competent people are more believably to be professionally competent (Baura, 2006). A person of good portion in personal life transfers the virtues that define good character into his or her profession.Based on this analogy, good people are apparent to make good engineers and vice versa. An one-on-ones moral competence can be established by evaluating his or her approach to issues requiring decisiveness and strength of character (Rabins, Pritchard & Harris, 2008). This is when morality and ethics come into play. Morally incompetent people tend to head the end before the means whereas virtuously competent people exhibit discretion in balancing between their acts and the belike outcomes, putting into consideration the welfare of other people directly or indirectly affected by the issue at hand.Evaluation of an individuals morality is extremely hard since morality is fundamentally an intrinsic characteristic (Rabins, Pritchard & Harris, 2008). Every humankind being develops a unique moral outlook based on the environment and the experiences that he or she had while increment up. Since these are unique to each individual, no one has the moral right to cut his or her moral values on another (Baura, 2006). Morality can neer be universal, just like knowledge.However, moral evaluations are still very necessary since as human beings and as engineers, we must build a consensus tending to those competencies which can be agreed upon as natural covering so that we live and practice harmoniously, exhibiting corporate social and professional responsibility. References Baura, G. (2006) Engineering morality An Industrial Perspective. Burlington, MA Academic Press. Davis, M. (1998). persuasion like an Engineer Studies in the morals of a Profession. Oxford Oxford University Press Rabins, M, Prit chard, M. S. & Harris, C. (2008) Engineering morality Concepts and Cases. Belmont CengageBrain.