MODELS OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
1. SAVIOR: The representative engineer is a savior who will redeem society from poverty, inefficiency, waste and the drudgery of manual labour. 2. GUARDIAN: Engineers know, the directions in which and pace at which, technology should develop. 3. BUREAUCRATIC SERVANT: The engineer as the loyal organization person uses special skills to solve problems. 4. SOCIAL SERVANT: Engineers, in co-operation with management, have the task of receiving society’s directives and satisfying society’s desires. 5. SOCIAL ENABLER AND CATALYST: Engineers play a vital role beyond mere compliance with orders. They help management and society understand their own needs and to make informed decisions. 6. GAME PLAYER: Engineers are neither servants nor masters of anyone. They play by the economic game rules that happen to be in effect at a given time.
MOTIVES FOR PROFESSIONALISM
• A desire for interesting and challenging work and the pleasure in the act of changing the world. • The joy of creative efforts. Where a scientist’s interest is in discovering new technology, engineers interest is derived from creatively solving practical problems. • The engineer shares the scientist’s job in understanding the laws and riddles of the universe. • The sheer magnitude of the nature – oceans, rivers, mountains and prairies – leads engineers to build engineering marvels like ships, bridges, tunnels, etc., which appeal to human passion. • The pleasure of being in the presence of machines generating a comforting and absorbing sense of a manageable, controlled and ordered world. • Strong sense of helping, of directing efforts towards easing the lot of one’s fellows. The main pleasure of the engineer will always be to contribute to the well-being of his fellow-men.
PROFESSIONS AND PROFESSIONALISM
Engineers normally imagine that they are servants to organizations rather than a public guardian. Responsibility to the public is essential for a professional. Who is a professional? • Obviously a member of a profession. What is a profession? ‘JOB’ or ‘OCCUPATION’ that meets the following criteria from which a person earns his living. • Knowledge – Exercise of skills, knowledge, judgment and discretion requiring extensive formal criteria. • Organization - special bodies by members of the profession to set standard codes of ethics, • Public good-The occupation serves some important public good indicated by a code of ethics. Who is a professional engineer? • Has a bachelor’s degree in engineering from an accredited school • Performs engineering work • Is a registered and licensed Professional Engineer • Acts in a morally responsible way while practicing engineering Differing views on Professionals “Only consulting engineers who are basically independent and have freedom from coercion can be called as professionals.” -Robert L.Whitelaw “Professionals have to meet the expectations of clients and employers. Professional restraints are to be imposed by only laws and government regulations and not by personal conscience.” - Samuel Florman “Engineers are professionals when they 1) attain standards of achievement in education, job performance or creativity in engineering and 2) accept the most basic moral responsibilities to the public as well as employers, clients, colleagues and subordinates.” - Mike Martin & Roland Schinzinger
CONSENSUS AND CONTROVERSY
CONTROVERSY: • All individuals will not arrive at same verdict during their exercising their moral autonomy. • Aristotle noted long ago that morality is not as precise and clear-cut as arithmetic. • Aim of teaching engg ethics is not to get unanimous conformity of outlook by indoctrination, authoritarian and dogmatic teaching, hypnotism or any other technique but to improve promotion of tolerance in the exercise of moral autonomy. CONSENSUS; The conductor of a music orchestra has authority over the musicians and his authority is respected by them by consensus as otherwise the music performance will suffer. Hence the authority and autonomy are compatible. On the other hand, tension arises between the needs for autonomy and the need for concerns about authority. The difference between the two should be discussed openly to resolve the issue to the common good.
HEINZ’S DILEMMA
The famous example used by Kohlberg was called “Heinz’s dilemma”. A woman living in Europe would die of cancer unless she was given an expensive drug. Her husband, Heinz, could not afford it. But the local pharmacist, who had invented the drug at only one tenth of the sale price refused to sell it to Heinz who could only raise half the required money from borrowings. Desperation drives Heinz to break into the pharmacy and steal the drug to save his wife. When respondents were asked whether and why Heinz should or should not steal a drug to save his wife from a life-threatening illness. The responses of the individuals were compared with a prototypical response of individuals at particular stages of moral reasoning. Kohlberg noted that irrespective of the level of the individual the response could be same, but the reasoning could be different. For example, if a child reasoning at a ‘preconventional’ level might say that it is not right to steal because it is against law and someone might see you. At a ‘conventional’ level, an individual might argue that it is not right to steal because it is against law and laws are necessary for society to function. At a ‘post conventional’ level, one may argue that stealing is wrong because is against law and it is immoral.
Differences between the TWO THEORIES
KOHLBERGGILLIGAN I. Ethics of rules and rightsEthics of careII. Studies based on well educated, white male’s only, tending male bias.Studies included females and colored peoplesIII. Application of abstract rules ranked in the order of importanceApplication of context-oriented reasoning.IV. Studies were hypothesized for both the genders even though the study was conducted mostly on malesStudy was conducted on both genders and it was found, men based their reasoning on‘justice’ and women based theirs on ‘care’
KOHLBERG’S THEORY
STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT • Pre-conventional Level Whatever benefits oneself or avoids punishment. This is the level of development of all young children. -Avoid punishment & Gain Reward • Conventional Level Uncritical acceptance of one’s family, group or society are accepted as final standard of morality. Most adults do not mature beyond this stage. -1.Gain Approval & Avoid Disapproval & 2. Duty & Guilt • Post-conventional Level Motivation to do what is morally reasonable for its own sake, rather than solely from ulterior motives, with also a desire to maintain their moral integrity, self-respect and the respect of other autonomous individuals. They are ‘Morally autonomous’ people. -1. Agreed upon rights & 2. Personal moral standards
GILLIGAN’S THEORY
• Pre-conventional Level This is the same as Kohlberg’s first level in that the person is preoccupied with self-centered reasoning, caring for the needs and desires of self. • Conventional level Here the thinking is opposite in that, one is preoccupied with not hurting others and a willingness to sacrifice one’s own interests in order to help or nurture others (or retain friendship). • Post-conventional Level Achieved through context-oriented reasoning, rather than by applying abstract rules ranked in a hierarchy of importance. Here the individual becomes able to strike a reasoned balance between caring about other people and pursuing one’s own self- interest while exercising one’s rights.
MORAL AUTONOMY
This is viewed as the skill and habit of thinking rationally about ethical issues on the basis of moral concerns independently or by self-determination. Autonomous individuals think for themselves and do not assume that customs are always right. They seek to reason and live by general principles. Their motivation is to do what is morally reasonable for its own sake, maintaining integrity, self-respect, and respect for others. “One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty… is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.” Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Letter from a Birmingham Jail, 1963. A person becomes morally autonomous by improving various practical skills listed below: i) Proficiency is recognizing moral problems and issues in engineering. ii) Skill in comprehending, clarifying and critically assessing arguments on opposing sides of moral issues. iii) The ability to form consistent and comprehensive viewpoints based upon consideration of relevant facts. iv) Awareness of alternate responses to issues and creative solutions for practical difficulties. v) Sensitivity to genuine difficulties and subtleties vi) Increased precision in the use of a common ethical language necessary to express and also defend one’s views adequately. vii) Appreciation of possibilities of using rational dialogue in resolving moral conflicts and the need for tolerance of differences in perspective among orally reasonable people. viii) A sense of importance of integrating one’s professional life and personal convictions i.e. maintaining one’s moral integrity.
MORAL DILEMMMA
There are three types of complexities. VAGUENESS: This complexity arises due to the fact that it is not clear to individuals as to which moral considerations or principles apply to their situation. CONFLICTING REASONS: Even when it is perfectly clear as to which moral principle is applicable to one’s situation, there could develop a situation where in two or more clearly applicable moral principles come into conflict. DISAGREEMENT: Individuals and groups may disagree how to interpret, apply and balance moral reasons in particular situations. Steps in confronting MORAL DILEMMAS: i) Identify the relevant moral factors and reasons. ii) Gather all available facts that are pertinent to the moral factors involved. iii) Rank the moral considerations in the order of their importance as they apply to the situation. iv) Consider alternative course of action, tracing the full implications of each, as ways of solving dilemma. v) Talk with colleagues, seeking the suggestions and perspectives of the dilemma. vi) Arrive at a carefully reasoned judgment by weighing all the relevant moral factors and reasons in light of facts. All the above steps are distinct, even though they are inter-related and can often be taken jointly
