Abstract
This chapter defends four propositions: (1) There are already global standards of engineering practice, standards that are (more or less) what is needed; therefore, there is no need to create such standards from scratch. (2) Engineers do not need global registration or licensing. Neither registration nor licensing would increase the “professionalism” of engineers. Professionalism is independent of both registration and licensing. (3) Engineers have and, therefore, do not need, a global code of engineering ethics (though there is room for improvement). (4) Engineers have (and therefore do not need) a global curriculum for engineering ethics. Rather than trying to “re-invent the wheel”, we should be proposing refinements to engineering’s standards of practice, codes of ethics, and curriculum.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
This use of “manners” is stipulated; it does not claim to cover all senses of “manners” (though I do think it catches the main sense of “mere manners”). If “manners” (in another sense) involves, say, harmful treatment of another, then it is not manners in my sense. We would need a new term (perhaps “custom” or “style”). I do not claim my description of culture is complete, only complete enough for my purposes here.
- 2.
Is technology a feature of every culture? Not every culture. We can imagine humans so primitive that they lack any artifacts at all yet have distinctive ways of singing, dancing, or doing other things.
- 3.
- 4.
This is, of course, true only generally or for the most part. Chicago’s failure to have one system of collecting fares for its three main forms of rail service (mentioned earlier) is proof enough that engineers do not always achieve universal standardization. Though there are historical reasons for this (for example, a failure to foresee the need to integrate the three systems until recently), engineers—though perhaps not everyone else—would seek to eliminate it.
- 5.
Licensing and registration (where they exist) seem to be forms of consumer protection or government oversight (just as dog licenses and vehicle registration are). In general, licensing settles who can legally do certain things (those with the appropriate license) and who cannot (those lacking the appropriate license). Registration, in contrast, generally creates a list of those who can claim a certain title (for example, “registered engineer”). Registration does not settle who may legally do certain things and who may not.
- 6.
Those standards that some engineers think immoral while others do not are a bit harder to deal with. They have the advantage of being in place—and a presumption in their favor because of that. We might require some time and a good deal of discussion before we could decide whether, supposing there are any such standards, engineers at their rational best would accept them (or reject them) or must instead recognize disagreement concerning them to be one of those disagreements reason alone cannot settle.
- 7.
The first association listed here was formerly known as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. For a large selection of engineering codes, see: http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/ethics-area/10 (accessed June 13, 2012). To be charitable, I am ignoring the Model Code adopted by the World Federation of Engineering Organizations in 1990, though it was meant to guide the writing of codes of engineering ethics in “all nations”. http://www.wfeo.net/about/code-of-ethics/ (accessed October 10, 2012). Thanks to Jun Fudano for reminding me of this document to me.
- 8.
Might there, despite the wording, still be an implicit limitation of ASCE’s code to civil engineers, of ASME’s code to mechanical engineers, and so on? Perhaps. But there are at least three reasons to doubt it. First, the codes are so similar that there is little point to such a limitation in practice. Second, engineers do not seem to regard distinctions between fields of engineering in the same way they regard the distinction between, say, chemistry and chemical engineering. They do not talk as if belonging to another field of engineering would excuse conduct their code declares unethical. Third, there does not seem to be any positive evidence of that implicit limitation. Absent evidence to the contrary, we should take the codes at their word.
- 9.
The unwritten code may be amended either by an informal shift of usage or by a formal decision of suitably important engineering associations.
- 10.
The only competitor to Harris’ proposal in the existing literature is in Luegenbiehl (2004, 2010). Of course, there is always the possibility of a set of standards I have overlooked or that someone will someday write. I cannot disprove the possibility that that one will overcome the objections made here. All I can claim is that I am entitled to my conclusion until that other standard is produced.
- 11.
Harris’ solution was to accept one relative but only one, assuming (I suppose) that saying yes once would make it easier to say no next time. Yet, my experience is that agreeing to dubious conduct once makes it harder, not easier, to refuse the next time. The first time means there is a precedent for doing it next time.
- 12.
See, for example, Harris (2004), p. 504; “there are important social and cultural differences in host countries that can affect the way an essentially U.S.-based code can be applied in host-country environments.”
- 13.
http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/node/5076 (accessed May 28, 2012).
References
Asian Declaration of Engineering Ethics (2004). http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/node/5076. Accessed 30 April 2015.
Davis, M. (1998). Thinking like an engineer: Essays in the Ethics of a profession. New York: Oxford University Press.
Davis, M. (2009). Is engineering a profession everywhere? Philosophia, 37, 211–225.
Harris, C. E. (2004). Internationalizing professional codes in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(10), 503–521.
Homer, Odyssey, Bk XII: 165–200, http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Greek/Odyssey12.htm#_Toc90268047. Accessed 9 July 2014.
Luegenbiehl, H. (2004). Ethical autonomy and engineering in a cross-cultural context. Techné, 8, 57–78.
Luegenbiehl, H. (2010). Ethical principles for engineering in a global environment. In I. van de Poel & G. David (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering. Dordrecht: Springer.
Van de Poel, I., & Royakkers, L. (2011). Ethics, technology, and engineering: An introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Walker, T. (2012). The ulysses contract in medicine. Law and Philosophy, 31, 77–98.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Davis, M. (2015). “Global Engineering Ethics”: Re-inventing the Wheel?. In: Murphy, C., Gardoni, P., Bashir, H., Harris, Jr., C., Masad, E. (eds) Engineering Ethics for a Globalized World. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 22. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18260-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18260-5_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18259-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-18260-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)