Reference Exercises

MORAL REASONING AND ETHICAL THEORIES


1. One of the following are tendencies, acquired through habit formation, to reach
  a proper balance between the extremes in conduct, emotion, attitude, and desire.
  Circle correct answer:

Moral virtues ( c answer)

2. Self esteem is a psychological concept; it means having a positive attitude
  toward oneself, even if the attitude is excessive or otherwise unwarranted.
  (Self respect), by contrast, is a moral concept; it refers to the virtue of
  valuing oneself in morally appropriate ways.

3. Define Utilitarianism.
 
     Utilitarianism is the view that we ought to produce the most good for the most
  people, giving equal consideration to everyone affected. The Standard of right
  conduct is maximization of goodness.

4. Right ethics says we have duties to other people because people have rights
  ought to be respected.

5. List three uses of ethical theories.

a. use in understanding moral dilemmas
b. use in relating ordinary and professional morality
c. use in justifying professional obligations and ideals

6. Virtue ethics is the oldest type of ethical theory.

7. Who was the most influential of all virtue ethicists?
 
  Aristotle (384-322 BC) was the most influential of all virtue ethicists. 

                    
8. Divine command ethics maintains that to say an act is right means it is
  commanded by God, and to say it is wrong means it is forbidden by God.

9. Moral relationalism is the view that moral judgments should be made in
  relation to factors that may vary from case to case.

10.Descriptive relativism the statement that beliefs about values differ from one  
  culture to another.

11. Essay Question:

   Case study 11: Expert Testimony Report and Redesign by Another Engineer-
   Case NO. 71-4
   
   Base on the Code of Ethics-Section 5 "The Engineer will express an opinion
   of an engineering subject only when founded on adequate knowledge and honest
   conviction", I think it would be ethical for Engineer B to offer expert
   testimony at the trial on a mixture of opinion on design philosophy and
   alleged factual errors in the design. However, it is not ethical for Engineer
   B to offer opinion on the design philosophy of Engineer A. In addition, base
   on the Code of Ethics-section 11 " The Engineer will not compete unfairly
   with another engineer by attempting to obtain employment or advancement or
   professional engagements by competitive bidding, by taking advantage of a
   salaried position, by criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or
   questionable methods", It was ethical for Engineer B to undertake a contract
   to redesign and be in charge of reconstruction of the project prior to his
   testimony at the trial since Engineer B did not obtain his assignment by
   criticizing Engineer A before being retained or by improper questionable
   methods. Moreover, the client is dissatisfied with the design work of an
   engineer to the extend of filling a lawsuit, it would be unreasonable to
   expect him to suspend the project until the lawsuit is settled, which might
   take for a long time. In my opinion, the client is entitled to obtain the
   services of Engineer B. However, the client should take some cautious steps
   before the reconstruction of the facility since it will destroy most of the
   actual physical evidence of the alleged defects.  They might call several
   witnesses, and take pictures of the facility before the remove or rebuild them.  
   To me, I strongly agree with the ruling of the NSPE Board of Ethical Review of
   the case. Engineer B should not offer opinion on the design philosophy of
   Engineer A merely because of a difference of opinions among qualified engineers.  
   However, Engineer B can offer expert testimony at the trial on the alleged
   factual errors in the design of Engineer A because these errors can affect
   the safety of the client.  


12. Four Study Questions:

I.  Question 2 (page 50)
 
   According to the definition of moral integrity " it is the unity of character
   on the basis of moral concern, and especially on the basis of honesty", I don't
   think that the engineers who work for tobacco companies betray their moral
   integrity. They can provide an adequate moral accounting for their work because
   they are engineers who work for the tobacco companies as the technical people,
   but not the people who make the decision to product the tobacco. There are the
   moral dilemmas involved in this matter. Base on the fact that "Cigarettes kill
   more than 400,000 Americans each year, which is more than the combined deaths
   caused by acohol and drug abuse, car accidents, homicide, suicide, and AIDS.
   However, Cigarette companies do much good by providing job for people. This  is
   a responsibility of people who sell or provide the tobacco to teenager under 18.
   The adults have their own choice in deciding whether to continue using
   cigarettes. The engineers who work for the tobacco companies; however, shold
   have the responsibility of obtainning and finding the new technology that can
   reduce the negative effect of tobacco.

II. Question 4 (page 51)

   This situation relates to "team-work virtue" because the engineer and his
   coworker are in a team. They are especially important in enabling professionals
   to work successfully with other people. Most important of all, the engineer
   should be loyal to their employers, that is, acting faithfully on behalf of the
   interests of their employers. Also, the engineer should have good attitude
   towards his coworker. Moreover, it relates to "self-direction  virtues" which
   are fundamental in exercising moral autonomy and responsibility. the engineer's
   friend should not violate the company policy. He should  be self-respect and
   make a good moral judgment to what he did wrong for several years. In my
   opinion, the engineer should tell his friend to stop doing that because it
   against the company policy. If his friend continues to violate the company
   policy after getting the advice from the engineer, the engineer should report
   to his employer. There are parallels that I see between this case and
   situations in which a student learns that her or his friend has cheated on
   the examination. If this is the case, students who witness the case should
   tell his friend to stop cheating because it violates school policy. It is not
   right to cheat on the examination because it violates the school policy and
   it is not a good moral judgment.

III.Question 3 (page 76)
 
   When the engineer visit a construction site where the structure is designed
   by him is being erected, he notifies some unsafe working conditions (poor
   scaffolding and the like), he should report them because of the safety of
   other people. Even though he has not been hired to supervise the construction,
   he is the one who designs the structure and therefore understand the most
   whether or not the working condition is safe. Base on his knowledge as an
   engineer, he should know that if there are some safety violations. He should
   not ignore this because it might cause injuries to workers and other people.
   He is morally right when his acts produce the most good for the most people.

IV. Question 5 (page 69)

   The problems may occur if a person has the strong view of religion on his
   work. He may acts based on his belief of what is right and wrong, but it
   might not applies to place where he works. By the same token, students,
   who have strong belief of their religion, might oppose other students'
   different religion view. He might act based on his belief and think that
   only his belief is right and other are not. If individuals ground their
   moral views in their religious convictions, professionalism does not imply
   being able to use distinctively moral concepts in discussing issues in
   professional ethics. Whether or not a person believe in God, there is at
   least an objection to mentioning God in an engineering code of ethics.
   According to the definition of Divine command ethics "It maintains that
   to say an act is right means it is commanded by God, and to say it is
   wrong means it is forbidden by God.". I don't think this applies to an
   engineering code of ethics.


GLOBAL ISSUES

1. In ethical relativism, actions are morally right within a particular society
  when  they are approved by (law, custom), or other conventions of that society.

2. If something displays a will to live it has inherent worth. Which  of the
  following does this define.

b) Biocentric Ethics

3. An issue in computer ethics is the concern of shifts in power relationships
  resulting from the new capacities of (computer).

4. List the two factors that make computers especially troublesome.

a) Their speed and geographic coverage which allow large numbers of people to be
  victimized.

b) The difficulty of tracing the underlying transactions to apprehend the thieves.

5. (Computer abuse) is unethical or illegal conduct in which computers play a
  central role.

6. (Descriptive relativism) is the idea that value beliefs and attitudes differ
  from culture to culture.

7. (Ethical pluralism) is the view that there is more than one justifiable moral
  position.

8. (Technology transfer) is the process of moving technology to a novel setting
  and implementing it there.

9. (Sentient animals) are those that feel pain and pleasure and have desires.

10. (Eccentric ethic) locates inherent value in ecological systems.

11.Essay question:
   
  Case Study 7: Gifts to Foreign Officials - Case No. 76-6

  Based on the Code of Ethics-Section 11b-that states " He will not pay, or offer
  to pay, either directly or indirectly, and commission, political contribution,
  or a gift, or other consideration in order to secure work, exclusive of securing
  salaried positions through employment agencies.", I strongly agree with the
  decision of the NSPE Board of Ethical Review that it would be unethical for Roe
  to accept the contract and to make the gifts as described. I think that an
  occasional free luncheon or dinner, or a Christmas or Birthday present when
  there is a personal relationship is acceptable practice, but cash payment or
  a very expensive gift to those in the position to influence decisions favorable
  or unfavorable to the giver are unethical. Therefore, Richard Roe should not
  make personal gifts to the governmental officials who are authorized to award
  the contract even if such practice is legal in that country because it is against
  our Codes of Ethics. Moreover, I think that engineers, who have learned the Codes
  of Ethics, should not apply this practice in business dealing. In addition,
  the Code of Ethics is the valuable moral rules for all engineers, scientists,
  professionals to follow; therefore, it should be applied to our engineers,
  scientists, and professionals all over the world when dealing the bussiness
  with other countries. We believe in our way of doing bussiness through our Code
  of Ethics, so we should not follow other countries in the way that they are
  doing their business. In short, Roe should not accept the contract and make the
  gifts to the governmental officials because it is unethical.

12. Study questions:

I) Question 1 (page 302)

  On December 3, 1984, the operators of Union Carbide's plant in Bhopal, India,
  became alarmed by a leak and overheating in the storage tank. The tank contained
  methyl isocyanine, a toxic ingredient used in pesticides. Within an hour the leak
  exploded in a gush that sent 40 tons of deadly gas into the atmosphere. The result
  was the worst industrial accident in history: 2500 deaths within a few days,
  10,000 permanently disabled, and 100,000 others injured. Ten years later the list
  of victims rose to 4,000 to 7,000 deaths, with claims of injuries amounting to
  600,000. There are several reasons that caused the disaster. First of all, the
  task storing the methyl isocyanine gas were overloaded. Second, a standby tank
  that was supposed to be kept empty for use as an emergency dump tank already
  contained a large amount of the chemical. Third, the tanks were supposed to be
  refrigerated to make the chemical less reactive if trouble should arise, but the
  refrigeration unit had been shut down five months before the accident as a cost
  cutting measure, making tank temperatures three to four times what they should
  have been. Finally and most important of all is the responsibility of Union
  Carbide. Due to financial pressure, Union Carbide relinquished its supervision of
  safety at the plant. In addition, Union Carbide did not transfer all the safety
  mechanism available such as computerized instruments to control the safety systems
  and detected leaks. As a result, Bhopal's safety controls were all manual and
  workers were asked to detect leaks with their eyes and noses. Also,  Union Carbide
  failed to train the new employees with safety rules properly. Moreover, Union
  Carbide also ignored the warning from a team of U.S. engineers who inspected the
  conditions of the Bhopal plant. Based on the above facts, Union Carbide should
  have responsibility for the disaster at Bhopal.  They  should not claim all the
  responsibility to the officials at its U.S. corporate headquarters. In conclusion,
  I don't think the ignorance would not free them of responsibility for all aspects
  of the disaster.

II) Question 5 (page 303)
   I strongly believe that Judge Ferguson's ruling is morally justified. Sex
   stereotype must not be used in formulating job qualifications, and customer
   preferences do not justify sex discrimination. I also agree with his argument
   that other countries cannot dictate sex discrimination for citizens of our
   country while our legal system cannot be used to force other countries to stop
   sex discrimination. In my opinion, although in some less developed countries
   women are still discouraged from entering business and the professions, some
   U.S. company should not refuse to promote women to positions of high authority
   in their international operations in Asia, the Middle East, and South America.
   In dealing business with those countries, we should not violate our sex
   discrimination law in order to satisfy our customers. We should eliminate sex
   discrimination in job qualification. In conclusion, I think it is unethical
   and against the law for for these U.S. companies to refuse to promote women
   to positions of high authority in their international operations in Asia, the
   Middle East, and South America.

III) Question 3 (page 331)
   I believe that his behavior was proper because he had informed his supervisor
   and then higher management, but all of them refused to do anything about the
   situation due to the anticipated expense required to correct it. To me, what he
   did was ethical because he just tried to protect the right of citizens to
   confidentiality regarding such information that was threatened by the system.
   In contrast, the supervisor and higher management did not act ethically. They
   should have been more responsible about the situation in order to prevent
   unauthorized people to access to the system. Also, I believe that his subsequent
   firing was justified at state legislator with the crucial evidence.

IV) Question 4 (page 303)

   Based on the Code of Ethics-Section 11b-that states " He will not pay, or offer
   to pay, either directly or indirectly, and commission, political contribution,
   or a gift, or other consideration in order to secure work, exclusive of securing
   salaried positions through employment agencies.", I believe that damage to profits
   is not a sufficient justification for repealing the act. I also think that the
   Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which signed into law is necessary to prevent
   American corporations from accepting payments from or offering payments to foreign
   governments for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Secret payments
   when dealing business should not be allowed because some individuals or companies
   might gain some profit illegally. In conclusion, critics should not repeal the Act
   because business extortion is not right and unethical. Therefore, our American
   corporations should not violate the Act while dealing business with other countries.

SCOPE and AIMS of ENGINEERING ETHICS

1. What are three main levels of moral development according to Lawrence Kohlberg?
  What are their definitions?

a. The most primitive is the Preconventional Level, in which right conduct is
  regarded as whatever directly benefits oneself. Individuals are motivated
  primarily by the desire to avoid punishment, by unquestioning deference to power
  ,or by a desire to satisfy their own needs. This is the level of development of
  all young children and a few adults who never manage to go beyond it.

b. The second is the Conventional Level, in which the norms of one's family,
  group, or society are accepted as the final standard of morality. These norms
  or conventions are adopted uncritically as being correct because they represent
  authority. Individuals at this level are motivated by the desire to please
  others and to meet the expectations of the social unit, regardless of immediate
  effects on their-self interests.

c. Finally, the Postconventional Level is attained when an individual comes to
  regard the standard of right and wrong as a set of principles concerning rights
  and the general good that are not reducible to self interest or social convention.

2. What are the criteria for being an engineer or "professional engineer"?

a. Earning a bachelor's degree in engineering at a school approved by the
  Accreditation Board for Engineer and Technology.

b. Performing work commonly recognized as what engineers do.

c. Being officially registered and licensed as a professional Engineer. Becoming
  registered typically includes (1) passing the Engineer-in-Training Examination
  or Professional Engineer Associate Examination shortly before or after graduation
  from an engineer school, (2) working four to five years at responsible engineer,
  (3) passing a professional examination, and (4) being the requisite registration
  fees.

d. Acting in morally responsible ways while practicing engineering. The standards
  for responsible conduct might be those specified in engineering codes of ethics
  or an even fuller set of valid standards.

3. (Moral autonomy) can be viewed as the skill and habit of thinking rationally
  about ethical issues on the basis of moral concern.

4. List the three types of ethical inquiry and define each.

a. Normative inquires are most central, seek to identify the values that should guide
  individuals and groups.

b. Conceptual inquires seek to clarify important concepts or ideas, whether the ideas
  are expressed by single words or by statements and questions.

c. Factual, descriptive inquires seek to provide facts needed for understanding and
  resolving value issues.

5. Engineering ethics is also the study of related questions about the (moral) ideas,
  character, (policies), and relationships of people and corporations involved in
  technological activity.

6. Discuss the professional role of an Engineer as a Guardian.

  Engineers know best the directions in which, and pace at which, technology should
  develop. Accordingly, they should be given positions of high authority based on
  their skills and experience in determining what is the best interests of society.

7. Discuss the professional role of an Engineer as a Social Servant.
 
  The role of engineers lie exclusively in obedient service to others, but their
  true master is society. Society expresses its interests either directly, through
  purchasing patterns, or indirectly through government representatives and consumer
  groups. Engineers, in cooperation with management have task of receiving society's
  directives and satisfying society's desires.

8. What two general criteria are favored for professional engineers to meet?

a. Attaining standards of achievement in education, job performance, or creativity
  in engineering that distinguish engineers from the engineering technicians and the
  technologists.

b. Accepting as part of their professional obligations at least the most basic moral
  responsibilities to the public as well as to their employers, clients, colleagues,
  and subordinates.

9. What is moral Autonomy?
 
  Moral Autonomy is exercised on the basic of moral concern for other people and
  recognition of good moral reasons.

10. Name two steps in confronting moral dilemmas.

a.  First, there are problems of vagueness.

b.  Second, and more frequently, there are problems of conflicting reasons.

11. Essay question:
   
   Case study 10: Ethical Association with Other Engineers - Case No. 75-3

   According to Code of Ethics of Section 13 " The Engineer will not associate
   with or allow the use of his name by an enterprise of questionable character,
   nor will he become professionally associated with engineers who do not conform
   to ethical practices, or with persons not legally qualified to render the
   professional services for which the association is intended.". As I am reading
   through the case, I note the fact that the code is written in terms of "personal"
   conduct, whereas in the real world a large part of engineering practice is
   carried on by firms, which often comprised many hundreds of engineering as
   officers, partners, or employees. I don't believe that the framers of the code
   could have mean to ban association with an entire firm because one person has
   violated the code for one time. The effect of this will penalize other engineers
   who don't get involve to any such violation. In this case, although engineer A
   violated ethical codes, the firm still has other engineers who were unaware of
   such violations. Therefore, engineer B may ethically engage in a joint venture
   with the firm headed by engineer A, but is required to make sure that further
   unethical conduct will not develop during and with respect to the joint venture.
   The company should not be ban to associate with other firm due the fact that
   the president violated the ethical code at one time before. All of the employees
   in both firms need to work in order to support themselves and their family so they
   need the joint venture.  If nobody engaged in a joint venture with the firm
   because of the engineer A, this will be a " guilty by association " because this
   will affect all other engineers and employers who did not participate in such
   ethical violation. In my opinion,  I strongly agree with the NSBE Board of
   Ethical Review that the firm headed by Engineer B may ethically engage in a joint
   venture with the firm headed by Engineer A.


12. Four Study Questions:

I.  Question 2 (page 13):

a.  This is a normative issue involved.  Allan Kammerer shouldn't accept the offer
   since it violated one of the ethical codes for engineers about bribery.
 
b.  This is a normative issue.  Carl Houston should not describe the situation to
   some of the subcontractors of the project.  He should inform the problems to
   the head office to have a solution.

c.  This is the normative issue. The engineer had been charging his personal long
   distance phone call to a client for several months. Moreover, the supervisor
   ignored the situation because the engineer was one of the firm's most valuable
   employees, he also violated the ethical code because he knew that what his
   employee did is wrong but failed to prevent it from happening. The supervisor
   shouldn't ignored the case. Even though the engineer is regarded as the key to
   much of the hoped for success of the firm, he should not take the advantages
   of his job to do that to the client. He is ethically wrong.  

II. Question 4 (page 23):
   
   Heinz should not have stolen the drug in order to help his wife because he was
   against the law. Moreover, this is not a morally mature reasoning about the
   dilemma. It was not a good idea to steal the drug even though he did that for
   the purpose of helping his wife. His action is not acceptable in the society.
   Heinz violated the law and would be jailed for stealing the drug if he got
   caught. The Koglberg's theory is more illuminating as an account of morally
   mature reasoning about this situation because the law was issued to maintain
   the society in order. In my opinion, we as the people of the nation must obey
   the law. It is a standard for any one in any society. Heinz should find another
   way to help his wife. He could, for example, discuss the situation with the
   doctors or the hospital for a special program of making the payments.

III.Question 1 (page 23):

   Most of us agree that the dogmatic teaching of ethics can threaten the exercise
   moral autonomy. In my opinion, the college teachers should not withhold their own
   expression on moral issues because they work and experiences about engineering
   ethics as other engineers. Usually, most teachers show their expressions with proof.  
   On the other hand, students also have enough knowledge to distinguish whether it is  
   right or wrong in order to discuss with their teachers.

IV. Question 3 (page 23)
   
   In my opinion, I strongly agree with this argument. Students should master the
   standards of professional conducts specified in the major engineering codes of
   ethics. This is because the codes are formulated by the engineer societies
   which officially speak for the engineer professional on moral issues.  Engineering
   ethics is defined as the study of the moral issues and decisions of individuals and
   organizations involved in engineering and the study of related questions about moral
   conduct, character, ideas, and relationship of people and organizations involved in
   technological development.  The engineering codes of ethics help engineers know what
   is right and wrong from their daily activities. In addition, it also help the
   engineers to behave honestly and faithfully to their employers and clients.

RIGHTS of ENGINEERS

1. The right of (professional conscience) is the moral right to exercise
  responsible professional judgment in pursuing professional responsibilities.

2. The right of (conscience refusal) is the right to refuse to engage in unethical
  behavior, and to refuse to do so solely because one views it as unethical.

3. (Whistle-blowing) is alerting relevant persons to some moral or legal corruption,
  where "relevant persons" are those in a position to act in response, it only by
  registering protest.

4. The right  to pursue outside activities can be thought of as a right to personal
  (privacy) in the sense that it means the right to have a private life off the job.

5. (Discrimination) is morally unjustified treatment of people on arbitrary or
  irrelevant grounds.

6. (Sexual harassment) may involve physical and psychological attacks, coercion,
  abuse of authority, and a variety of unwanted provocations.

7. (Reverse preferential treatment) is giving an advantage to a member of a group
  that in the past was denied equal treatment, in particular, women and minorities.

8. (Divided loyalties) was the first book-length scholarly study of an instance of
  whistle-blowing.

9. The obvious way to remove the need for internal whistle-blowing is to allow
  greater freedom and openness of (communication) within the organization.

10.The (agent) is the person disclosing the information and is an employee or
  former employee.

11.Essay question:
   
  Case study 2: Advertising-Misstating Credentials-Case 92-2

  Based on the following Code of Ethics, Section I.3, engineer has a fundamental
  obligation to issue public statement in a objective and truthful manner, Section
  II.5, engineer should avoid deception acts in the solicitation of professional
  employment, I truly believe that Engineer A should raise the issue of the error
  with a principal in the firm and note the appropriate requirements under the
  state board's rules of professional conduct in writing. In my opinion, I think
  it is right for engineer A to alert the marketing director, also an engineer,
  to the error in the promotional literature. I also agree with NSPE to point out
  that engineer must always take all reasonable steps to avoid misleading and
  deceptive acts in the solicitation of professional employment. Moreover, I think
  it is unethical action for the firm to list Engineer A as an electrical engineer
  for the purpose of a marketing campaign.  This action could mislead people who
  do business with the firm, and it is not fair for other engineers who receive
  a degree in electrical engineer. Under these circumstances, Engineers have a
  basic ethical responsibility to take appropriate steps to ensure that such
  offers avoid language misleading, deceptive and untruthful language. Engineer A
  should have a response if the firm does not correct the error after six months
  as the marketing director promises.

12. Study question:

I) Question 5 (Page 246)

  As stated in The Right of Conscientios Refusal, one has the right to refuse to
  to engage in unethical behavior, and to refuse to do so solely because one views
  it as unethical, I strongly believe that Leonardo da Vinci would have a moral
  right to refuse to reveal the idea to his employer because his discover might
  harm and kill other people lives. Since the discover was the result of his
  knowledge, he had the right not to public or divulge it if he believed this
  publication would lead to the assassination at the bottom of the sea, by breaking
  the ships in their lowest parts and sinking them together with the crew who are
  in them. It seems clear enough that engineers and other professionals have a
  moral to refuse to participate in activities that are straightforwardly and
  uncontroversial unethical. If the employers force employees into acting by
  means of threats to their jobs, they would violate the right of their employees.
  In my opinion, I don't think that Leonardo da Vinci was disloyal to his employer
  based on the above discussion.

II) Question 1 (page 244)

  Yes, I strongly believe that Jay has a moral right to not do as he is directed
  because that is his right of conscience refusal. Based on this, he has the right
  to refuse to engage in unethical behavior,  and to refuse to do so solely because
  he views it as unethical. Moreover, what his boss directs him to work the math
  backwards and come up with phony data to substantiate the choice of Catalyst A
  could effect the public health and welfare. The results show that B is the
  preferred material, so Jay should not work the math backwards and come up with
  phony data since it is unethical to do so in this situation. To prevent this
  from happening, Jay should convince his boss to find the way to expand the
  project's time in order to repeat the series to obtain the good results. The
  phony data could bring the good result in project timing , but it could bring
  the bad result for other companies who cooperate with this company.

III) Question 4 (Page 245)

  I was surprised when reading this case, Mcintire, who had worked for Du Pont
  during the past seventeen years, was fired because he wrote the novel that
  expressed his engineer professional rights by describing the tactics management
  used to cheat employees out of bonuses, to show unjustified favoritism , to
  take unfair advantage of employees in employment contracts, and to coerce
  professionals into going along with management's views on safety and health
  hazards.  To me, I believe that McIntire had a moral right not to be
  fired for writing the novel. Since engineers have their institutional Recognition
  of moral rights, McIntire should have the rights to write the novel to express
  his feeling about the management system and to recommend other engineers from
  a national federation to seek laws protecting and favoring engineers working as
  employees. Based on this, the courts should have recognized the legal right
  of McIntire and reconsider the book in order to protect the rights for engineers.  
  In addition, Du Pont should change their management system that will allow the
  engineers to have a better working environment.

IV) Question 1 (Page 272)

  In my opinion, this proposal should not have been approved because it violated
  the right of employees.  The employees have the right to choose the car they
  want to drive, and they should have the right to use the parking space. Upon
  approving this proposal, it creates discrimination between employees inside the
  company. Moreover, if there are more employees who own American-made car than
  to those who own non-American-made car, the majority vote on these issues would
  be unfair. Therefore, these issues should not be decided by a majority vote among
  employees. In conclusion, theses issues should not be approved because they
  violated the right of employees.

ENGINEERING as SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION

1. (Social experimentation) is a constant awareness of the experimental nature
  of any project, imaginative forecasting of its possible side effects, and a
  reasonable effort to monitor them.

2. (Accountable) is a willingness to present morally cogent reasons for one's
  conduct when called upon to do so in appropriate circumstances.

3. Informed consent is understood as including what two main elements?

a) Knowledge
b) Voluntariness

4. Where can engineers go for help on moral issues?
 
  Engineers are compelled to look to their professional societies and other
  outside organizations for moral support.

5. Why did Challenger fly after the engineers advised NASA not to ?

  The Challenger flied after the engineers advised NASA not to because the
  engineer's judgment was not considered sufficiently weighty. Secondly, a
  safety measure was rejected as too expensive because of a accompanying
  reduction in payload. Another area of concern was NASA's unwillingness to
  wait out risky weather. Finally, included, surely, is the arrogance of
  those who reversed NASA's.

6. (Minimal compliance) can find its expression when companies or individuals
  search for loopholes in the low that will barely keep to its letter even
  while violating its spirit.

7. What is the purpose of safety and reliability standards?
 
  Prevention of injury, death, and loss of income or property.

8. What is the purpose of quality of product standards?
 
  Fair value for price

9. What was Hammurabi's Code?
 
  It was Babylon's building code. Hammurabi, as king of Babylon, was concerned
  with strict order of his realm, and he decided that the builders of his time
  should also be governed by his law. The code ruled that " a builder who built
  a house for a man and has not made his work sound, and the house which he
  has built has fallen down and so caused the death of the householder, had to
  put to death. If that causes the death of the householder's son, they shall
  put that builder's son to death..." . In short, the builder had to be
  responsible for his work. If he caused any damage for householder, he had to
  pay back an equivalent value.

10. List two roles of the codes.
   
   Inspiration and Guidance.
   Deterrence and Discipline.

11. Essay Question:

   Case Study : Participation in Professional and Technical Societies
   Ethical Duty of Employer and Employee - Case No. 82-7

   These two questions are best answered by reference to four Code sections.
   Section I.4. requires engineers to act professionally and faithfully in
   dealing with their employer. Section III.1.f. cautions engineer to avoid
   any act tending to promote their own interests at the expense of the
   profession. Section III.11a and b admonish engineers to encourage their
   engineer employees to improve their knowledge through education and in
   particular through attendance and participation in professional and
   technical society meetings. Based on these codes, I think that it was
   ethical for Engineer A to discuss attendance and participation in
   technical and professional societies with the CEO without first notifying
   his superior, and It was unethical for Engineer B to hinder Engineer A's
   efforts to obtain excused leave in order to attend technical and
   professional society meetings. Even though it may have been more appropriate
   for Engineer A to meet with his supervisor, Engineer B, first to inform
   him that he was going to seek the CEO's permission to attend and participate
   in technical and professional organization's activities, I still don't
   believe that his action to do so tended to promote his own self-interest
   at the expense of the profession. Also, it was the general policy of the
   employer to encourage Engineer A's participation in the activities of
   technical and professional activities. In fact, Engineer A acted
   professionally and faithfully to his employer. In my opinion, it is his
   integrity and obligation to expand his knowledge and capabilities. I think
   that participating in the committee work of the professional society allows
   the practicing engineer the opportunity to gain a greater understanding of
   the new trends and advances in his profession and provides him with with a
   better perspective as to the role of the engineer in society. In contrast,
   Engineer B has refused to permit written communications from Engineer A
   asking for administrative leave to attend professional society meeting to
   go through Engineer B to higher leave personnel. It is not ethical for
   Engineer B to do so based on Sections III.11.a. and b. of the Code. In
   conclusion, I absolutely agree with the decision of NSPE Board of Ethical
   Review.  


12. Study question:

I)  Question 2 (page 87)
   
   The farm mechanization should be continued because it  reduces the need
   for farm labor and raises farm productivity. It is definitely benefits
   the growers and all society. Even though the growers need to pay the
   costs to retrain farm workers for other jobs and the loss of small farms,
   this technology will provide to society alot of benefits. The farm workers
   should understand that the new technology will help them work less and
   produce more. In fact, the retrained farm workers will benefit more from
   their new high paying jobs than their old farming jobs.

II) Question 4 (page 105)
 
   The astronauts who operate and work in spaceship must contribute more
   actively in the roles of shuttle safety. They should be more responsible
   to cooperate with the safety designer in looking for safety defects. They
   should work with engineers to find out the best safety conditions in
   operating and launching the spaceship. Not only their role to give their
   experiments from the trips to engineers who are responsible for the design
   of the safety system of the shuttle, but also  they must involve themselves
   more actively in looking for safety defects in both design and operation
   since they operate the shuttle and understand how the safety system works.  
   
III) Question 1 (page 95)
 
    I think it is not a legitimate excuse for engaging in projects because
    engineers should be responsible for their work and conduct. It is applied
    to engineering projects conceived as social experiments. They should have
    conscientiousness, relevant information, moral autonomy, and accountability.

IV) Question 2 (page 95)

    I strongly don't agree with this phrase . The phrase "I only work here"
    shows that the engineer is unconscientiously.  He restricts his area of
    responsibility within tight bounds as defined by those rules. To me, the
    people who only think of themselves are not moral people. Even though they
    are not working in that area, they should be more willing to help other in
    the company when being asked for help. They will never be willing to develop
    their skills and give more effort needed to get the best responds for other
    responsibilities.  Engineers should not use this phrase because their
    co-workers will feel miserable about their attitude.

ENGINEERING'S RESPONSIBILITY for SAFETY


1. (A risk) is acceptable when those affected are generally no longer apprehensive
  about it. (William Rowe).

2. What three ways can a future risk be dismissed through rationalization?

a) Knowledge of risk
b) Uncertainties in Design
c) Testing for safety

3. What problems do engineers have with the public conception of safety?

  Engineer face two problems with public conception of safety. There is the overly
  optimistic attitude that things that are familiar, that have not hurt us before,
  and over which we have some control, present no real risk. On the other hand is
  the dread people feel when an accident kills or maims in large numbers, or harm
  those we know, even though statistically speaking such accidents might occur
  infrequently.

4. Give a definition of safety.

  A thing is safe if its risks are judge to be acceptable.

5. Is Absolute Safety which satisfies all individuals' conditions attainable?
 
  Absolute safety, in the sense of a degree of safety that satisfies all
  individuals or groups under all conditions, is neither attainable nor affordable.

6. Providing for (safe exit) is an integral part of experimental procedure.

7. (Strict liability) means it is sufficient for a product as sold to have been
  defective for the manufacturer to be held liable for any harm that results to
  users.

8. (Minimal Compliance) is (only) adhering to accepted practices and observing
  standards.

9. (Scenario analysis) is when one starts form a given, then studies the different
  consequences that might evolve from it.

10. (Fault tree analysis) method in which one proposes a system failure and then
   traces the events back to possible causes at the component level.

11. Essay question:
   
   Case Study: Credit for Engineering work - Design competition
   Case 92-1

   It is best to judge this case based on the following Code of Ethics. Sections
   I.3 states that issues public statements only in an objective and truthful
   manner. Code of Ethics Section III.10.a states that engineers shall, whenever
   possible, name the person or persons who may be individually responsible for
   the design, inventions, writings, or other accomplishments. Providing credit
   for engineer work to those to whom credit is due is fundamental to that
   responsibility. Under this circumstances and based on the Code of Ethics, I
   think that it was unethical for Engineer A to fail to give credit to Engineer
   B for his part in the design. In my opinion, since Engineer B design the
   Bridge's three curved welded plate girder spans which were critical elements
   of the bridge design, Engineer A should credit Engineer B for his work. In
   conclusion, I strongly agree with the NSPE's Board Ethical Review on ruling
   that Engineer A was unethical to fail to give credit to Engineer B for his
   part in the design.
   
12. Study questions:

I) Question 6 (page 166)

  To me, I deeply feel sorry for what happened to those women who worked in the
  manufacturing washing machines. If these happen every year, we should consider
  the safety of people who work at the manufacturing washing machines. If I had
  been in he business of manufacturing washing machines , I would spent more
  money to buy the new washing machines with high technology that could reduce
  the risk for the women who work there. Moreover, I will send those women who
  work at the manufacturing washing machine to training classes and apply new
  technology that could reduce the accidence. With the high technology today,
  new equipment and safety method are easy to obtained in order to reduce the
  risk for employee.

II) Question 1 (page 138)
 
  If I was a commuter traveling to work on that street, I will slow down the
  speed of my car and carefully cross the zone for the safety of pedestrian
  crossings that street.
 
  If I waste parent of a child, or relative of an older person who has to
  cross that street on occasion, I will request for a stop sign, a warning light,
  or a speed limited sign so that I can help my children or my relative crossing
  the street.
 
  If I was a police officer assigned to keep the traffic moving on that street,
  I would organize and control the flow of the traffic carefully. Moreover, I
  would request the city for a traffic light at the busiest street.
 
  If I was the town's traffic engineer working under a tight budget, I would find
  the solution in order to solve the problem. These solutions consists of stop sign,
  red light, and cross way for pedestrian passing the street.

III) Question 2 (page 139)

  To me, It is not moral for dumping of unsafe or ineffective drugs on the
  Third World by pharmaceutical companies from highly industrialized countries
  , and in the past , for transferring of asbestos processing from the United
  States to Mexico because of their negative effects on human being. Those
  companies just think of the profits of their businesses but not the safety
  of people who suffer from the negative affect of the drug. They do not care
  what may happen to people of the countries where the higher risks are tolerated.
  It could cause the illnesses and death for people.  People who live in the
  third world should be protected because they are poor and lack of technology.
  The unsafe products or ineffective drugs must be destroyed in the safe way.

IV) Question 3 (page 139)
 
   First of all, Bakalopoulos and Salomon were not careful and caution with the
   safety working condition. Even though the Suffolk County Water Authority's
   contract for the painting job specified that workmen wear "air hoods", mask
   connected to air compressors, they did not wear them. It is a main reason
   that caused the death for both of them. Also, Peter Koustas, the safety man,
   rushed into the tank with no oxygen mask, and he, too, was overcome by the
   fumes and lost consciousness. As the result, Bakalopoulos died because of
   heavy paint fumes after falling down the feed fine. Peter Koutas died because
   of suffering from hypothermia and heart failure.  The accident is a result of
   not following the safety rules. We could learn from this accident that it is
   very important and necessary to follow the safety rules.

RESPONSIBILITIES to EMPLOYERS

1. (Respect) is valuing one's peers for their (professional) (expertise) and their
  devotion to the social goods promoted by the profession.

2. (Paramount) holds that the interest of society and of the client (or employer)
  are paramount.

3. Which of the following protect specific products from being manufactured and
  sold by competitors without the express permission:

d) patents

4. Select the ordinary moral consideration that justify confidentiality.

d) all the above

5. Occupational crime is sometimes called (white collar crime).

6. What is insider information?
 
  Insider information is gaining an advantage or set up a business opportunity for
  oneself, one's family, or one's friends. The information might concern one's own
  company or another company with which one does business.

7. Prearranged payments made by contractors to companies or their representatives
  in exchange for contracts actually granted are called (kickbacks).

8. (Conflict of interest) are situations where professionals have an interest which
  if pursued might keep them from meeting the obligations to the employers and
  clients.

9. (Rule Utilitarians) will view rules governing confidentiality as justified to the
  extent that such rules produce the most good for the most amount of people.

10.(Paternt) legally protect specific products from being manufactured and sold by
  competitors with out the express permission of the patent holder.

11. Essay question:
   
   Case study 13: Whistleblowing - Case No. 82-5.

   Section II.11.a states that Engineers shall all times recognize that their
   primary obligation is to protect the safety, health, property, and welfare of the
   public. If their professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the
   safety, health, property, or welfare of the public are endangered, they shall
   notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.
   Under this circumstances and based on the Code of Ethics, I strongly believe with
   the conclusion of the NSPE Board of Ethical Review, that Engineer A does not have
   an ethical obligation to continue his effort to secure a change in the policy of
   his employer under these circumstances, or to report his concerns to proper
   authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.  
   In this case, the issue does not endanger public health, and safety. However, it
   is only a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public
   funds. Therefore, in my opinion, I think that the ethical duty or right of
   Engineer A becomes a matter of personal conscience. Since the code does not apply
   to a claim not involving public health and safety, this is just a matter of
   personal conscience.
       
12. Study questions:

I) Question 1 (page 195)

   This situation relates to "team-work virtue" because the engineer and his
   coworker are in a team. They are especially important in enabling professionals
   to work successfully with other people. Most important of all, the engineer
   should be loyal to their employers, that is, acting faithfully on behalf of the
   interests of their employers. Also, the engineer should have good attitude towards
   his coworker. Moreover, it relates to "self-direction  virtues" which are
   fundamental in exercising moral autonomy and responsibility. the engineer's friend
   should not violate the company policy. He should  be self-respect and make a
   good moral judgment to what he did wrong for several years. In my opinion, the
   engineer should tell his friend to stop doing that because it against the company
   policy. If his friend continues to violate the company policy after getting the
   advice from the engineer, the engineer should report to his employer. There are
   parallels that I see between this case and situations in which a student learns
   that her or his friend has cheated on the examination. If this is the case,
   students who witness the case should tell his friend to stop cheating because it
   violates school policy. It is not right to cheat on the examination because it
   violates the school policy and it is not a good moral judgment.

II) Question 2 (page 223)

   According to the fundamental canons of ethics of the ABET: "Engineers shall not
   solicit nor accept gratuities, directly or in directly from contractors, their
   agents, or other parties dealing with their clients or employers in connection
   with work for which they are responsible". (Sec 4-e), Henry should not accept
   an expensive briefcase because that gift could be considered a bribe. Bribes are
   illegal or immoral because they are substantial enough to threaten fairness.
   Clearly, when sending this expensive give to Henry, the purpose of the salesman is
   to have further business with Henry that could bring more benefit for the salesman.  
   Since Henry is in a position to influence the selection of suppliers for the large
   volume of equipment that his firm purchase each year, he should be more careful
   about the gifts given to him each year during the Christmas time. If those gifts
   are inexpensive, he could accept it as thank gift from salesmen. However, in this
   case, he should explain to the salesman why he could not get that gift. In
   addition, he should make the decision on whether or not he should get gifts from
   the salesman in order to protect the fairness in business.

III) Question 4 (page 195)

   According to the two senses of loyalty, Agency-loyalty, that is to act to
   fulfill one's contractual duties to an employer, and, Identification-loyalty,
   that has as much to do with attitudes, emotions, and a sense of personal identity
   as it does with actions, in my opinion, the authority of the executives at
   Phillip did not morally justify the call for loyalty of this sort since he
   explained that in his view loyalty means buying Phillips's products rather than
   those of competitors, voting in local, state, and national elections in favor
   of policies that would benefit Phillips, and staying to work for Phillip unless
   moving became unavoidable. Moreover, it seems to me that the Phillips executive
   seemed to have in mind the second sense of the loyalty (Identification-loyalty)
   in his mind.


IV) Question 3 (page 195)
 
   In my opinion, I think the person in this case failed to act loyally to company
   Y because he changed from company X to company Y, and after several months
   working for company Y, he then applied at Company X for re-employment . First,
   He did not act to fulfill his contractual duties to company Y (Agency-loyalty.)
   Secondly, he is also disloyal to his employer through his attitude, emotion, and
   sense of personal identify (Identification-loyalty). In both senses, loyalty can
   be a desirable character attribute. Either sense may be meant when codes of ethics
   assert that engineers ought to be loyal to employers, or that they should act as
   their employer's or client's "faithful agents or trustees." In conclusion, a
   person who often tends to switch job might bring some secret technologies of
   one company to another. As a result, he would fail to be loyal to his employer.
ENGINEERS as MANAGER, CONSULTANTS, and LEADERS

1. (Managers) tend to emphasize corporate efficiency and productivity.

2. A manager's task is to create climates in which conflicts are (addressed )
  (constructively).

3. (Consulting engineers) are compensated by the fees for the services they render,
  not by the salaries received from employers.

4. (Ego) biases occur when engineers become influenced by identifying with their
  "own" side of a dispute.

5. An (Analyst) is one who is impartial when stating and assessing facts.

6. (Competitive bidding) is competing for jobs on the basis of submitting priced
  proposals.

7. (Forensic engineering) is the application of engineering skills within the
  justice system.

8. (Advisers in Planning) is the formation of projects that affect communities.

9. (Diligence) refers to carrying out tasks carefully and promptly.

10. (Loyalty) is serving the interest of clients.

11.Essay question:
   
  Case Study 15: Supplanting Another Engineer-Employee Participation-Registration
  Case No. 72-4
 
  It is best to answer these questions based on the following Code of Ethics.
  Section 7a states that while in the employ of others, an engineer will not enter
  promotional efforts or negotiations for work or make arrangements for other
  employments as a principal or to practice in connection with a specific project
  for which he has gained particular and specialized knowledge without the consent
  of all interested parties. Section 8 states that the engineer will endeavor to
  avoid a conflict of interest with his employer or client, but when avoidable, the
  engineer shall fully disclose the circumstances to his employer or client. Under
  this circumstances and based on the above Code of Ethics, I strongly agree with
  the NSPE Board of Ethical Review that Edwards was unethical in transferring his
  services from Adams to Barton under the circumstances stated, insofar as the
  transfer of his services was to improperly shift the work on the project from
  Adams to Barton. It is clear that Edwards violated the Code of Ethics when he
  voluntarily terminated his employment with Adams in order to cooperate with
  Barton. He and Barton had conspired to have the work transferred form Adams to
  Barton by utilizing his intimate knowledge of the project based on his connection
  with and work during the preliminary design. Therefore, he is in violation of the
  Code of Ethics in that his action was an attempt to advance his respective interests
  by taking advantage of a salaried position, and his conduct generated a conflict
  of interest with his employer, John Adams.

  Based on the Code of Ethics, section 11, "The engineers will not compete unfairly
  with another engineer by attempting to obtain employment or advancement or
  professional engagements by competitive bidding, by taking advantage of salaried
  position, by criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable
  methods.", and section 11a, "The engineer will not attempt to supplant another
  engineer in a particular employment after becoming aware that definite steps have
  been taken toward the other's employment, I also agree with the conclusion of the
  NSPE Board of Ethical Review that Barton was unethical in conspiring with Edwards
  to supplant Adams. In addition, Barton's action for participating in the arrangement
  to transfer the work to his firm was clearly unethical. In my opinion, he should
  refuse to cooperate with Edwards because it is in violation of the Code of Ethics,
  and it is unethical for him to compete unfairly or to conspire with others in order
  to supplant another engineer.

  Based on the following Code of Ethics, section 12, "The engineer will no attempt
  to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional
  reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of another engineer, nor will he
  indiscriminately criticize another engineer's work in public. If he believes that
  another engineer is guilty of unethical or illegal practice, he shall present such
  information to the proper authority for action", I think that it would be ethical
  for an engineer to withhold his recommendation that Edwards be registered and to
  submit unfavorable comments on Edwards' character to the state registration board.
  Since Edwards' conduct was unethical, an engineer having knowledge of the facts
  must disclose them to the state registration board. It is not good for him to
  become a professional engineer because his character and behavior might threaten
  and harm other people in our society.

12. Study questions:

I) Question 3: (page 358)
 
  I believe that it is unethical and irresponsible to send the project to the navy
  as scheduled since not all the glitches have been worked out. In my opinion, the
  project that develops a testing mechanism for use on an experimental laser was
  contracted for by the Navy, but which potentially also has a civilian market as
  well. Therefore, it will cause the damage to the public and the defense of our
  country if some of the glitches haven't been worked out. Moreover, my conscience
  as a professional engineer doesn't allow me to do that. The best step to resolve
  the disagreement is that I will discuss with my supervisor about the damage to
  the public health and welfare. Also, I will explain to the navy about the
  situation and the complexity of the project, and ask them more time to complete
  the project with the right solution.

II) Question 3 (page 365)
 
  according to the fact that the engineer resigns his employment and establishes
  his own firm and then actively solicits the industrial client of his former
  employer without any prior indication of interest by the client, I strongly believe
  that the conduct of the employee in this case is wrong and unethical. Also, his
  action violates the code of ethics since he fails to act in professional matters
  for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and avoid conflicts of
  interest. In conclusion, as an engineer in today's society, he shouldn't solicit the
  industrial client of his former employer without any prior indication of interest
  by the client.  

III) Question 2 (page 365)
 
a) I strongly agree with the NSPE that bold face listings in the classified section
  of local telephone directories are not consistent with the Code of Ethics because
  the Code of Ethics does not allow using "sensational language format" in advertising
  of professional services.

b) I agree with the NSPE that bold face listings in the regular section of local
  telephone directories are consistent with the Code of Ethics. In this case, it
  does not violate the Code of Ethics in advertising.

c) I agree with the NSPE that professional card-type listings (set off by lines or
  blank space) in the classified section of the local telephone directories are not
  consistent with the Code of Ethics because It violates with the Code of Ethics in
  advertising.

d) According to the fact that  Mr. Zebra changes the name of his firm in order to
  gain a more advantageous position in the yellow pages and in other directories,
  I strongly believe that his action is unethical since he violates the code of the
  National Society of Professional Engineers about advertising. Moreover, it is
  wrong and unprofessional for him to change his company's name to Antelope and Zebra
  in the directory's classified listing of engineers because Antelope is a purely
  fictitious partner.

IV) Question 2 (page 374)
 
  Expert witnesses are morally and legally obligated not to lie, and hence not to
  withhold information requested under cross-examination from opposing attorneys.
  Yet expert witnesses are not legally required in all situations to volunteer
  information and opinions that damage the case of the attorney who hired them.
  Based on this, I believe that it is ethical for the forensic engineer to serve
  as an expert witness on the other side and provide the fact of an impartial study
  to the court when being asked by the opposing counsel. He should not withhold any
  information requested under cross-examination from the opposing attorney even though
  his impartial study turns out not to support his attorney's case. However, he should
  not volunteer information and opinions that damage the case of the attorney who
  hired him.

Notice:

These exercises are free to copy and modify in your own judgments.  If anyone having any supplementary references, you can help other students to practice.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1