stieb understanding engineering professionalism(autosaved)

8/11/2019 Stieb Understanding Engineering Professionalism(Autosaved)

1/22

O R I G I N A L P A P E R

Understanding Engineering Professionalism:

A Reflection on the Rights of Engineers

James A. Stieb

Received: 9 August 2009 / Accepted: 1 September 2009 / Published online: 10 October 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract Engineering societies such as the National Society of Professional Engineers

(NSPE) and associated entities have defined engineering and professionalism in such a

way as to require the benefit of humanity (NSPE 2009a, Engineering Education

Resource Document. NSPE Position Statements. Governmental Relations). This

requirement has been an unnecessary and unfortunate add-on. The trend of the

profession to favor the idea ofrequiring the benefit of humanity for professionalism

violates an engineers rights. It applies political pressure that dissuades from inquiry,approaches to new knowledge and technologies, and the presentation, publication, and

use of designs and research findings. Moreover, a more politically neutral definition of

engineering and/or professionalism devoid of required service or benefit to mankind

does not violate adherence to strong ethical standards.

Keywords Altruism Codes of ethics NSPE Professionalism Rights

Introduction

By most accounts, William LeMessurier is a professional. LeMessurier built the

Citicorp tower at 53rd and Lexington that stands over a church, braces on its sides to

keep the building from falling over. An apocryphal story is told how a student in one

of LeMessuriers classes asked whether the buildings unique construction could

withstand quartering winds (winds coming at an angle in addition to those coming

J. A. Stieb (&

)Department of English and Philosophy, Drexel University, MacAlister Hall, Room 5055,

Philadelphia, PA, USA

Sci Eng Ethics (2011) 17:149169

DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9166-x
http://-/?-http://-/?-


2/22

directly) (Schinzinger and Martin1996, p. 388). Sources at MIT have the story from

LeMessurier himself. Apparently, unknown to LeMessurier, the Citicorp contractors

in New York decided, based on the cost of welding, to put the braces together

using less expensive bolted joints (Whitbeck 2006). The change from welds to

bolts saved money and met all of the requirements of a building code that onlyconsidered perpendicular winds. A potential contractor for a job in Pittsburgh

pointed the substitution of bolts for welds out to LeMessurier, who, after verifying a

potential danger to the public safety health and welfare, spent his own time and

money to weld the bolts. Working at night while the buildings tenants were away,

LeMessuriers team pulled up the walls and floor, exposing each bolt so that it could

be deep welded. They placed a wooden housing over each exposed bolt during the

day to prevent the tenants from suspecting anything was awry (Whitbeck2006).

LeMessuriers story is surely one of professionalism. But, it is far from the perfect

hypothetical or textbook case. LeMessuriers inability to make sure the New Yorkcontractors built the tower as designed and his subterfuge in hiding repair work mar an

unequivocal label of professional behavior. Critics can plausibly find fault with any

engineer and LeMessuriers faults are as glaring as is his professionalism.

No doubt LeMessurier followed the first fundamental canon of the National

Society of Professional Engineers (NSPEs) Code of Ethics (NSPE2009b). He held

paramount the public health safety and welfare by making sure his designs were

implemented correctly even when he had to exceed specified building code.

LeMessuriers case even shows a specific moral obligation to go beyondspecified

building code when following those codes (a) compromises public health, safety,and welfare and/or when following them (b) compromises the personal quality and

integrity of ones work. What it does notshow is a general moral requirement to

benefit humanity. It does not show that benefiting humanity is a requirement for

being a professional and doing professional work. No case does.

Arguably, the Citicorp tower and LeMessuriers actions can be construedto benefit

humanity. Most any action or thing can. It can be argued that nuclear weapons,

television sets, pornography and fried chicken all benefit humanity and that their

creators are all professionals. Simultaneously, it can be argued that these do not benefit

humanity and that whether they do is irrelevant to the professionalism of their creators.

What benefits humanity is really a subject of philosophical and political debate. The

results of these ongoing debates carry a high degree of subjectivity, personality, and

circumstance. They cannot be put into public documents such as those defining

engineering or codifying professionalism or ethics without in effect becoming an

exercise in arbitrary power (Ladd1991, p. 132).

Still, the link between a profession and the perceived need to have something

written down remains strong. Most authorities think that a profession musthave at

least a code of ethics (Firmage1991; Greenwood1991) if only to allow for self-

policing and the autonomy of the profession. Pride in professional knowledge was

fundamental to such thinking. An ASCE president based his hope for an increase in

the status of the engineer on the fact that the secrets of power were in his keeping

150 J. A. Stieb
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


3/22


4/22

Many countries do on occasion develop their own engineering societies or

collectives. Yet U.S. engineering societies and their documents still set the standard

in most Western nations (Lozano2006).

So then, with potentially many different types of people explicitly or implicitly

covered by these documents, questions of justification become more prominent:What were the authors thinking? Why did the NSPE code of ethics prohibit

engineers from striking in 1965 only to reverse the decision in 2001? Did it have to

do with a Boeing strike? (Werhane et al. 2002) No one seems to know.

The NSPE code used to read Engineers shall not actively participate in strikes,

picket lines, or other collective coercive actions (NSPE 1987, p. 101).Now, apparently,

striking is ethical or at least not unethical. Other acts remain dubious. The code does not

prohibit the creation of genetically engineered foods, or human cloning. It might be nice

to avoid debating such thorny issues in public. Yet, absent public debate, such

documents become written by unnamed persons and declared authoritative everywhere,the names and deliberative processes lost to all but a specialized few.

Hence, there is ample reason to believe that codifying professionalism is

dangerous. Codifying (that is hiding and mandating) the arguments behind ethical

evaluations such as professional or unprofessional makes it easier to call

Robert Oppenheimer professional when politically expedient to creating the atom

bomb, and communist or unprofessional when conscientious objector to the

hydrogen bomb (Anonymous1998). It throws suspicion on whistleblowers such as

Robert Boisjoly (of the Challenger space-shuttle case) who one might argue did not

3

Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner or 4

actfor each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees (NSPE 2009b).

No doubt a certain lack of transparency, clarity, and accountability may be

inevitable in any document regulating human behavior. Ethical quandaries cannot

be easily resolved. Nor are engineers always the best writers and debaters. However,

the hush prevalent among the professions authorities seems unnecessary. Also,

something clear and definite can be done to improve the general understanding of

the profession: the requirement to benefit humanity in its documents can be

removed. The NSPE code itself does not require the benefit of humanity but the

Association of Computing for Computing Machinery (ACM) code (ACM 1992)

does. As will become apparent, at least some important NSPE documents and most

of the literature on professionalism does require the benefit of humanity and this is

what should be removed or amended.

As if the troubles with writing specific, morally binding codes were not bad

enough, most everyone who writes or speaks on professionalism insists on adding

on the rather loose and contentious, benefit of humanity as a requirement for

professionalism in their documents. Some make it a criterion for professionalism

(Layton 1971, pp. 6162; Moriarty 2008, p. 39; Davis 1998, pp. 15, 205; Selvan

2004), The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) even makes the

benefit of humanity part of its very definition of engineering: knowledge of the

mathematical and natural sciences gained by study, experience, and practice to

152 J. A. Stieb
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


5/22

This sentiment has a long history. This specific definition has been used verbatim

by the American Board of Education and Training (ABET) (Davis 1998, p. 205),

and the idea in some form may go as far back as the development of civil

engineering in the nineteenth century.2 No matter. The requirement to benefit

humanity has to end. It is argued here that the NSPEs definition and much of thegeneral trend of the profession to favor the idea ofrequiring the benefit of humanity

for engineering or for professionalism violates common notions of an engineers

rights. The requirement to benefit humanity applies political pressure that dissuades

from scientific inquiry, approaches to new knowledge and technologies, and the

presentation, publication, and use of results or research findings. Meanwhile, a

definition of engineering and professionalism that does not include service or benefit

to mankind does not violate adherence to strong ethical standards. Giving up

benefitting humanity does not require giving up ethics or the rational engineering

ideal (Davis1997, pp. 411413) central to defining a profession.In essence, Charles Harris is correct that professional ethics includes more than

the prevention of disasters and professional misconduct (2008, p. 154). It does

include aspirational ethics. The mistake lies in thinking that promotion of human

good is the only thing to which it is worth aspiring. Serving others is not the only thing

worthy of aspiration (or at least there is no argument that it is). As a virtue ethicist,

Harris is aware that one should aspire to competence, integrity, honesty, diligence,

prudence, economy, and many other virtues. The engineer can and should aspire to

much more than the positive promotion of human good (Harris 2008, p. 154).

Defining Engineering as a Kind of Altruism

Numerous articles describing, extolling and attempting to explain professionalism

span the journals and textbooks of sociology, management theory, science,

engineering, and philosophy to name a few fields. A search of the Philosophers

Index database alone receives 371 hits. Indeed, professionalism remains a central

topic in many professional ethics courses including science and engineering ethics,

computer ethics, business ethics, and many others. No doubt professionalism is

important. It may even be, pedagogically speaking, the way that ethics enters into

the professions, in an age when words like good and hero seem so passe .

Yet few are able to say why professionalism is so important. Some argue about

whether brick-layers or basketball players should be called professionals. Others

2 The 1828 definition of engineering, given by Thomas Tredgold a member of the British Institution of

Civil Engineers (Davis1998, p. 15), speaks of directing the great sources of power in nature for the use

and convenience of man. A 1961 definition changes this to Civil engineering is the profession in which

a knowledge of the mathematical and physical sciences gained by study, experience, and practice is

applied with judgment to develop ways to utilize, economically, the materials and forces of nature for theprogressive well-being of humanity. See History and heritage of civil engineering. American Society

of Civil Engineers.http://live.asce.org/hh/index.mxml?versionChecked=true. Accessed 19 August 2009.

Understanding Engineering Professionalism 153
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://live.asce.org/hh/index.mxml?versionChecked=truehttp://live.asce.org/hh/index.mxml?versionChecked=truehttp://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


6/22

put a positive spin on professionalism arguing that the dubious accolade returns

more compensation and social status for more responsibility (Layton 1971, p. 6;

Greenwood 1991, pp. 7071). Really approval does not matter as much as the

negative spin of disapproval. Quite simply, professionalism is important due to the

social costs of being labeled unprofessional. These can include firing, blackball-ing, or other social and legal sanctions (Bok2008, p. 129). Professionalism allows

society to keep tabs on its members who wield significant power (Ladd 1991,

p. 132). Those with power in society are forced to be accountablethat is, to

give an account, or a lot of words, describing their actions and procedures.

Once again, engineering societies are charged with writing and applying

documents such as codes of ethics to supplement their more usual networking,

social and pedagogical functions. The generalized wording of these documents and

the corresponding lack of knowledge or interest in reading them among most every

engineer seem to show that they where written mainly to satisfy the public clamorfor accountability (Ladd1991, p. 133). They do not effectively impress, entertain, or

make engineers more accountable or ethical. At best, they only rudely express

ethics: To try to solve [cases of genuine moral perplexity]through a code is like

trying to do surgery with a carving knife (Ladd 1991, p. 134).

More interesting at present is the position on ethics, however, bad or generalized,

that emerges from the response of engineering societies to public clamor. It appears

to be an ethics of altruismthat is, the theory that an action is morally right if the

consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except

the agent (Fieser2006, emphasis Fiesers). The society could also intend to followutilitarianismthat is pursue for good conduct the greatest good of the greatest

number. They could believe in absolute moral rules to benefit humanity (Kantian

deontology). However, all of these options are still generally altruistic in that they

place the good of two or moreothersahead of the individuals. For example, no less

than the ECPD (later to become ABET, the Accreditation Board for Engineering

and Technology 2009) says that in order to be a professional an engineer must

satisfy an indispensable and beneficial social need and render gratuitous public

service (Firmage 1991, pp. 6364).

To repeat, it may be wondered whether to do service or to benefit humanity is the

same as ethical altruism. It may indeed be a form of utilitiarianism, a form of

Kantianism if benefit humanity is taken to be an absolute rule, or even a form of

virtue ethics if benefiting humanity is thought to be a virtue. Chesher and Machan

take the requirement that business (and by implication engineering)3 is asked

repeatedly to redeem itself, to prove itself worthy by means of philanthropy or other

noncommercial good deeds as evidence of the widespread disdain of business in

our culture (Chesher and Machan 1999, p. viii). However, not much turns on

exactly what ethical theory benefitting humanity falls under, since traditional

arguments asserting the weakness of altruism, utilitiarianism, Kantianism and virtue

ethics are not employed here. Instead, this paper argues that the requirement that

154 J. A. Stieb
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


7/22

one must benefit humanity in order to be a professional violates an engineers

rightshence, violates rights theory as espoused by John Locke and others. Hence,

rights theory, it is argued, can also be an alternative school or system of ethics that

can guide professionals.

There are many examples of the ethical theory under question. However, it seemsuseful to look first at the work of Gene Moriarty, a professor of Electrical

Engineering at San Jose State University and a professor of Engineering Ethics.

Moriarty has recently compiled a novel and impressively broad set of thoughts on

what he calls focal engineering into a book titled The Engineering Project; Its

Nature, Ethics and Promise (2008) (Moriarty 2008). Moriarty seeks among other

things to define what it means for an engineer to be a professional or for engineering

to be a profession. He divides his text into three parts. The first, the modern

engineering enterprise includes process, process ethics, and the colonization

of the lifeworld by systems (Moriarty2008, p. 9). The second section, premodernengineering (Moriarty does not proceed chronologically) emphasizes the person

of the engineer and virtue ethics, and explores the idea [opposed to colonization]

of contextualization (Moriarty2008, p. 10). The third section looks forward to

the focal engineering venture, with emphasis on product and material ethics, which

apparently strikes some sort of balance between the forces of colonization and those

of contextualization. In essence, Moriarty recognizes how economic values of

efficiency and productivity tend to prey on engineers and he seeks to bring to the

profession the more humane and currently popular values of social justice,

environmental sustainability, and the public health, safety and welfare (Moriarty2008, pp. 10, 5473). The result is focal engineering.

However, if the question is how to instill the proper proportion of values into

engineering, then Moriarty and the profession in general beg this question at the

outset with an unequivocal list of proper values. A true and complete list of values is

easy to find, some say, since Ethics is ethics. If you desire to be ethical, you live by

one [obvious] standard across the board (Veach 2006, p. 97). Moriartys list

includes public safety, social justice and environmental sustainability (Moriarty

2008, pp. 5471). But, are these the right values? Are they even values? Why? They

look good on paper, but actually they are rather complicated. How much safety is

public safety?Whatprivileges should be given up by whom in order to foster social

justice? Who should be allowed to pollute (since no perfectly sustainable process

has yet been discovered)?

Moriarty high-mindedly instills these on the first page of his book with the very

definition of engineering. Engineering, says Moriarty: is the practice of making

good on the promise of technology (Moriarty2008, p. 1, emphasis mine).

Why should technology be promising? What technology? What does it promise?

Technology, strictly speaking, does not promise anything: only human beings make

promises. Engineers simply design and buildor, so says Merriam Websters

dictionary which defines engineering as the application of science and mathemat-

ics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made



8/22

ordinary morality might demand (Moriarty2008, p. 39; Davis1997, p. 417). The

public must be assured that the professional will always act with a strong sense of

responsibility toward the public good and a strong commitment to advance the

public interest (Manion 2001, p. 169). They must satisfy an indispensable and

beneficial social need and have a service motive, sharing their advances inknowledge, guarding their professional integrity and ideals, and rendering

gratuitous public service in addition to that engaged by clients (Firmage 1991,

pp. 6364).

Apparently, authors miss the false dilemma implied or explicit in arguments for

such service motives. They only specify two options (my way or the highway)

when there are other alternatives. It is thought thateitheran engineer simply designs

and builds as Merriam Websters dictionary states in its definition of engineeringor

one behaves ethically and professionally. Not both. Contrapositively, they conclude

that one cannot behave ethically and professionally by simply designing andbuilding. But, why not? Moriarty and fellow scholars argue that engineers have to at

least try toserveothers, otherwise they are not professional and engineering is not a

profession. They take service to be a criteria of professionalism: A return to and

re-emphasis on the traditional professions primary goal of service to society would

go a considerable distance in redeeming professionalism as a virtue (Parkan2008,

p. 81). The professional organizations ethic of public service, is grounded,

moreover, in an implicit social contract that exists between society and the

professions (Manion 2001, p. 169). Make a good product, put it into the world,

try to make a buck, help to keep the company solvent. But this hyperpragmaticattitude belies the professionalism that is supposed to permeate the engineering

enterprise (Moriarty2008, p. 61). All of this is really unnecessary, perhaps even

simply wrong.

To see why, it is necessary to reflect a bit on the subject matter of ethics. Ethics is

the study of the theories of what is good or bad, right or wrong, in human conduct.

This definition derives from philosophy of which ethics has always been a branch.

Increasingly, authors argue, especially in professional ethics, for an account of

ethics that has little or nothing to do with philosophical theory. For example, O. C.

Ferrell writes in his Framework for Understanding Organizational Ethics (Ferrell

2009) about providing employees from diverse backgrounds . . . [with] a common

understanding of what is defined as ethical behavior [by society] through formal

training, thus creating an ethical organizational climate. One reviewer of this paper

writes of a functional account of professionalism:

Every profession seems to serve some social function. Medicine, for example,

serves the function (hopefully) of enhancing human health and physical well-

being. The function of the engineering profession must surely have something

to do with the creation of technology that benefits humankind. If there is not

some benefit to society, why would it reward and honor the engineeringprofession?

156 J. A. Stieb
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


9/22

whether it is ethical or professional to have to serve humanity. This is to confuse

ethics with a particular theory, namely some form of ethical altruismor putting the

good of others ahead of ones own. The reviewer also begs the question of how and

whether the engineering profession should seek honor and reward from society. He

or she implies that society would not honor or reward engineers who did notavowedly and publicly seek its good. One right of engineers is the right not to be

beholden to society for anything more than not harming it while following law and

scientific/mathematical standards. If society chooses to honor and reward engineers,

than it should do so based on the competence (i.e., professionality) of the engineer,

not on her purported service.

There is no special ethics [or standards] belonging to professionals (Ladd

1991, p. 131) or engineers. Every kind of human conduct is subject to evaluations

based on criteria that could be called Kantian (as in absolute rules given by the

categorical imperative and the respect for persons principle), Lockean as inrespecting inalienable rights such as those enshrined in the United States

Constitution (roughly the position taken by this paper), utilitarian as in pursuing

actions that create the greatest good for the greatest number, and so on. Moriarty

agrees:

The philosophy of Immanuel Kant can provide a foundation for the realm of

universal ethical judgments, within which the idea of duty stemming from

pure reason is paramount. Consequentialism is another ethical theory that is at

home in the realm of universal ethical judgments. Utilitarianism is the most

familiar form of consequentialism (Moriarty2008, p. 44).

One could and probably should add Daoist (roughly act with detachment from the

fruits of action), Confucian (uphold traditions and filial piety) and numerous

additional ethical views including the plethora of religious views so as not to be too

western in ones thinking. However, the point is clear that actions are only seen

as ethicalafterethical evaluation according to some theory or other or combination

of them. Moreover, there are many theories of ethics. Sometimes they reach the

same conclusions sometimes they do not. The 1984 poison gas spill at a Union

Carbide plant in Bhopal India is universally condemned by every ethical theory

(attaching blame of course is another matter). Meanwhile, abortion seems to be

morally permissible on some theories (or arguments) and impermissible on others.

The list of issues and how they should be disposed are hotly debated.

Such ethical theories, then, are available to evaluate any and all human action.

Engineering is a kind of human actioneven engineering of the rote plug and

chug variety. Whatever kind it is, it cannot help but be subject to ethical

evaluation. Separating ethics from engineering is like separating mathematics from

algebra. Algebra can be done well or badly but neither way of doing it removes it

from mathematical evaluation.4 Hence, as long as an engineer is not lying, cheating,

stealing, and so on, then the evaluation of her ethics is good. For example the

actions of an engineer who seals drawings can at least theoretically be evaluated as

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


10/22

competent on criteria that have nothing to do with service to others. The Kentucky

State Legislature has some such Design Criteria for Dams and Associated

Structures available on its web site (KAR2009). None ofthesedocuments mention

benefiting humanity.

In fact, there is no reason to believe then that an engineer who simply designsand builds without regard for the public welfare in the sense of rendering

gratuitous public service (Firmage 1991) is being unethical at all. No service to

society beyond good conduct is needed. The idea of simple good conduct or what

has been called competent creation (Stieb 2008) redeems professionalism as a

virtue (Parkan2008, p. 81), establishes a contract (Manion2001) to do no harm with

society, and refrains from putting a product into the world in order to make a

buck (Moriarty2008, p. 61).

One can behave ethically simply by designing and building. Provided the

standards of competence are high enough, the ethics are then hidden in the standardsof practice.5 A more politically neutral definition of engineering and/or profession-

alism that does not include service or benefit to mankind does not violate adherence

to strong ethical standards.

Defining Engineering so as to Violate an Engineers Rights

Academic authors have many altruistic views. Surely, engineering societies are

more pragmatic. Yet, even the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) asupposedly neutral, objective body comprised of the highest level of engineers has

jumped on the benefit humanity bandwagon in their definition of engineering.

They define engineering as knowledge of the mathematical and natural sciences

gained by study, experience, and practice to develop ways to economically utilize

the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of humankind (NSPE 2009a,

emphasis mine).

Curiously, the NSPE does not define science altruistically: The scientist

discovers and systematically investigates the fundamental laws of nature and defines

the principles which govern them (NSPE 2009a). One wonders why engineers

must benefit mankind while scientists need not. Is there something about the nature

of engineeringthat it creates useable goods perhapsthat should make engineers

more beholden to serving others than scientists? The NSPE allows scientists to be

neutral, unpartisan, and objective as befits the dispassionate pursuit of truth.

Engineers apparently cannot be neutral, unpartisan, and objective as they do not

pursue truth; apparently they pursue promises.

How and when did engineering get so political? Something is political if it

relates to power, authority, and where necessary force. Websters defines political

as organizing people within a governmental system (or ancient Greek polis or

city). There are many systems of government and many political parties. The

United States is has at least two: the Republican and Democratic parties. One need

158 J. A. Stieb
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


11/22

force rearing their heads in a plethora of views as towhatwill benefit humanity. One

party favors increased government intervention for the good of the governed, the

other favors decreased government intervention for the good of the governed. One

favors a national health care system, the other disagrees. There are numerous other

disagreements.That the charge that engineers must serve others is politicala method of

exerting and enforcing powerand not merely neutral and obvious, becomes clear

when one turns to case law involving individual rights. In the maelstrom that is

public opinion, the United States was supposed from the start to be one of the few

places where a person could be left alone in the choice and execution of her

profession. As Justice Blackmun observed in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): this case

is about the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized

men, namely the right to be left alone.

Justice Blackmun was referring to an earlier opinion given by Louis Brandeis(Egar2000) in Olmstead v. U.S. (1928):

the protection guaranteed by the amendments (of the Constitution) is much

broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure

conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the

significance of mans spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect

They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their

emotions, and their sensations. They conferred as against the government the

right to be left alonethe most comprehensive of rights and the right most

valued by civilized men.

Bowers v. Hardwick concerns the privacy of ones home and Olmstead v. the

United States concerns wiretapping, but the issues about privacy of conscience and

aims still apply to engineering. Indeed, these judicial opinions descend from the Bill

of Rights of the United States Constitution proposed by James Madison and

instituted to protect United States citizens from the excesses of government no

matter how well meaningno matter how the violation of such rights might

benefit humanity. Among these rights are freedom of association, which may

well be taken to imply freedom in the choice and execution of ones occupation

(or later) profession. Apparently engineers need to be protected from the excesses of

their societies as well.

Unfortunately, it must be admitted, and even regretted, that engineers do not have

a universally agreed upon and instituted bill of rights even within the United States.

Most professions do not. Perhaps they should. Perhaps the NSPE, arguably the most

authoritative engineering society in the United States, should reverse its historical

tendency to favor the political position ofintervention for benefit of public interest,

and simply state its own limitations. Perhaps it should just simply do what it does

best: publishing and applying engineering regulations and standards, providing a

forum for disseminating research and information, providing networking opportu-

nities, andprotectingthe public safety, health and welfare as opposed to promoting

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


12/22

should openly say that it will limit itself to negative rights and corresponding

activities and keep from dragging its members into politics at the risk of labeling

those members unprofessional. NSPE members (professional engineers) canjoin

a mail list to discuss a prospective engineering bill of rights at www5.palmnet.

net/*welden/maillist/rights/righ_msg.html. Other engineers, and the general public,cannot.

Counterfactually, it is interesting to imagine what the NSPE Bill of Engineering

Rights would look like were one developed and instantiated. Other extant

Engineering Bills of Rights such as The American Institute for Medical and

Biological Engineering Bill of Rights (Hendee 2009) indicate what an NSPE

Engineering Bill of Rights might say. Here are some of the more important specified

rights:

3. A S/E [scientist/engineer] shall not be dissuaded from pursuing scientific

inquiry because of political or religious concerns, or because the inquiry

deviates from a conventional perspective.

4. A S/E shall be able to use any approach to new knowledge and technologies,

limited only by the restrictions that the approach follows sound scientific

principles and does not violate societal ethical precepts.

6. A S/E shall not be subject to restraints in the presentation and publication of

results that are imposed by political or religious entities or because the findings

conflict with traditional knowledge. Scientific and engineering results should

always be evaluated on their merits and not because of preconceived notions of

truth.9. A S/E should object to misuse of research findings for political, ideological or

financial purposes.

10. At all times a S/E shall adhere to universal ethical and moral standards (Egar

2000).

Consider once again the NSPEs definition of Engineering: knowledge of the

mathematical and natural sciences gained by study, experience, and practice to

develop ways to economically utilize the materials and forces of nature for the

benefit of humankind (NSPE 2009a, emphasis mine). It is argued here that the

NSPEs definition and much of the general trend of the profession to favor the idea

of requiring the benefit of humanity for professionalism violates 3, 4, 6, and 9.

Moreover, a more politically neutral definition of engineering that does not include

service or benefit to mankind does not violate 10. Giving up benefitting humanity

does not require giving up ethics.

It can be seen that most of these violations of engineers rights are conceptual.

The rights of engineers are violated in principle if not in practice. The trouble lies in

proving that Robert Oppenheimer was denied employment and declared a

Communist because he did not properly seek to benefit humanity. Certainly, it

is compelling that Communism was thought not to benefit humanity, and this was

the epithet used against Oppenheimer. Edward Teller was similarly tarred when he

160 J. A. Stieb
http://www5.palmnet.net/~welden/maillist/rights/righ_msg.htmlhttp://www5.palmnet.net/~welden/maillist/rights/righ_msg.htmlhttp://www5.palmnet.net/~welden/maillist/rights/righ_msg.htmlhttp://www5.palmnet.net/~welden/maillist/rights/righ_msg.htmlhttp://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://www5.palmnet.net/~welden/maillist/rights/righ_msg.htmlhttp://www5.palmnet.net/~welden/maillist/rights/righ_msg.html


13/22

1954, p. 7). Some scientists and engineers felt that Teller was disloyal to

Oppenheimer.

Did Teller benefit humanity by helping to get Oppenheimers security clearance

with the Atomic Energy Commission revoked? The truth is that almost any act,

good or bad, can be seen rightly or wrongly through the lens of benefittinghumanity. Hence, there is abundant proof that engineers rights are violated because

they fail to benefit humanity or no proof, depending on how one looks at it. That is

why benefitting humanity as a requirement (or even a consideration) should be

removed from society documents in favor of a list of rights. Politics should be

removed from engineering and ethics as much as possible.

The NSPEs definition and the current tenor of the profession violate 3 because

these would dissuade engineers from pursuing that inquiry lest their pursuit not be

judged to be sufficiently in the public interest (a political concern). They violate 4,

because they dissuade engineers from using scientifically grounded approaches tonew technologies that do not sufficiently appeal to an indispensable and beneficial

social need (Firmage 1991, p. 63). They violate 6, partly because 6 is written so

broadly. Who would not evaluate engineering results on the basis of some

preconceived notion of truth? More importantly, the NSPEs requirement of

service for professional status would violate 6 because the NSPE or other

associations that act politically or have political preconceptions would subject

scientists and engineers to restraints in the presentation and publication of results

[or designs] that are imposed by political or religious entities when those results do

not fit with what is taken to be bettering humanity. Finally, the NSPEs definitionof engineering and the current tenor of the profession violate 9 which says that

A S/E should object to misuse of research findings for political, ideological or

financial purposes because, as has been said, some findings or designs will fit the

political agenda and some will not. It is difficult to ascertain whether television and

nuclear weapons provide a benefit to mankind. Professional societies that avoid such

political wrangling over what is good for mankind also avoid infringing upon the

rights of engineers and scientists.

It should be stressed, however, that a list of rights should not be taken as an

exhaustive list of ethical guides or responsibilities any more than a code of ethics

should be taken to exhaust ethics. Legally mandated regulations or law is not the

same as ethics. First, ethics must, by its very nature be self-directed rather than

other-directed (Ladd 1991, p. 131). Ethics cannot be put into a code or a list of

rights because it is essentially argumentative (Ladd 1991, p. 130). Professionals

should agree to behave professionally through agreement and understanding rather

than force. In attaching disciplinary procedures, methods or adjudication and

sanctions formal and informal to the principles that one calls ethical one

automatically converts them into legal rules or some other kind of authoritative

rules of conduct (Ladd1991, p. 131). Rights theory is meant to liberate individuals

not to ensnare them or to proceduralize their decisions (Halliday1997). Rights are

used here to specify a way of thinking about how ethics relates to professionalism

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


14/22

engineer has to make her own decisions in a technological and business world that

increasingly seeks to co-opt or limit her options for its own ends.

These damages are real. Gene Moriarty like many professionals who work with

science, engineering and technology, is very aware of the dangers of technology run

amok. He writes in his chapter on colonization that technoscience colonizesscience, the military, the body, and in general the nonsystemic lifeworld

(Moriarty2008, pp. 7980). The military turns technoscience into a war machine,

medicine finds a drug for everything real or imagined, seasonal crops are replaced

with technology-dependent agribusiness supplying world markets with highly

processed and genetically engineered foodstuffs (Moriarty2008, p. 80).

The solution hasto be some sort of restraint. But what form should this restraint

take? Suppose, that Moriartys focal engineering which balances disburdenment

and engagement against burdens and disengagement is the right answer. The

question becomes who will keep engineering focal? Moriarty agrees notgovernment:

The structure of modern government has been engineered by modern

enterprises. If not countered the structure of hypermodern electronic

government will be engineered by hypermodern enterprise. The attempt to

make the attainment of the common good hyperefficient and hyperproductive

will entail making that effort hyperbureaucratic (Moriarty 2008, p. 84).

Well, who then will to check the forces of disengaged, burdensome technology

hypercommodified, hyperbureacratized and run amok if not government? Thisauthors opinion is that Democratic governments should not be discounted yet, lest

countries fall into anarchy. Citizens need to work within government. Yet citizens

also need protection from the faceless, hand-waiving, bureaucratic aspect of

engineering societies that demand the benefit of humanity. Engineers need

protection from entities that demand self-sacrifice while pretending that such

sacrifices are obvious and the only way to be ethical:

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for youask

what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, butwhat together we can do for the freedom of man (Kennedy 1961).

An individual engineer needs protection against the bureaucratic forces that

would force her sacrifice. An Engineering Bill of Rights that would prevent

engineering societies from defining professional on the basis of contribution to or

service to some unspecified others would go far to providing just the sort of checks

and balances that the United States forefathers foresaw when they envisioned that

countrys Bill of Rights.

Otherwise, Moriarty and others fail to check the technological colonization

and the resulting deadening of spirit they so decry. The loneliness and ethical

isolation of the individual engineer is rarely helped by asking her to give more. And

162 J. A. Stieb
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


15/22

compensation, and to extend the state of the art in his or her field of expertise

(Moriarty 2008, p. 54). What could be more deadening and colonizing than an

unspecified ideal that simply says exceed extending the state of the art? Either the

engineer becomes as vain as to think he has exceeded the general state of the art, or

he is pressured into obligations that he cannot meet.Critics argue that minimal aims are not enough. Minimal aims only serve the

engineers personal good or the corporate good. They are self-interested. The

engineering enterprise must serve the common good, they argue, otherwise it

does not properly hold paramount the public safety, health and welfare (Moriarty

2008, p. 54). Moriarty argues for a cause and effect relationship: Without social

justice for all there can be no welfare of the general public. Without protecting the

environment, the other aims of the engineering enterprise are diminished. Thus,

Moriarty takes social justice and environmental sustainability as crucial.

Others take social justice (whatever social justice actually spells out to be) andenvironmental sustainability as important requirements for professionalism. Mark

Manion reports that the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the

American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES) have taken an active role

in setting the pace for sustainable engineering (Manion 2001, p. 170). The World

Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development (WEPSD), and the AAES

together issue and endorse statements that claim that Engineers will translate the

dreams of humanityinto action through the creative application of technology to

attain sustainable development (Manion 2001, p. 170).

Manion concludes that the ASCE, AAES, and WEPSD philosophies not onlystress the importance of sustainable development for sound engineering practice, but

[also] they make it unethical for engineers not to strive for these goals (Manion

2001, p. 170).

This paper does not object to the idea that environmental sustainability is a

worthy and sound ethical goal. Far from it. Management of resources so as not to

produce an inordinate amount of waste given cost considerations has and always

will be part of an engineers personal, ethical, and professional responsibilities. No

one likes a wasteful slob; such a person does not exhibit good character. Instead this

paper objects to the political power assumed by associations that think they can

pronounce upon their members ethics above and beyond what is commonly called

law and ethical custom specifically in the call for sacrifices for the benefit of

humanity. Surely an association, as well as anyone, can decry outright stealing.

However, in order to place lack of environmental sustainability on the list of

moral outrages,6 an association and its associated engineers and authors would have

to specify exactly what is environmentally sustainable enough in a world of

engineering that will always fall short of the ideal of perfect sustainability in some

respect or other. They would have to specify neutrally and unequivocally what will

benefit humanity, so as not to violate an individuals right to seek benefit or

6 The NSPE has amended its code of ethics to read III.2.d: Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


16/22

happiness on her own and unimpeded. They would have to specify what social

justice is in a way that does not risk continued social injustice by discounting the

autonomies and abilities of individuals to make up and pursue the dictate of their

own minds against those of the powerful status quo. These, the associations, authors

and engineers cannot do.

Is the Goal of Professionalism Competent Creation?

Hurlburt et al. (2009) describe an attitude that they feel is at least partially

responsible for the financial crises of 2008 including those precipitated by

irrational lending practices (Hurlburt et al. 2009, p. 14) and adjustable rate

mortgages (ARMs). This attitude among people discussing automation [is] that

their work is technical, and therefore ethics isnt relevant (Hurlburt et al. 2009,p. 18). Hurlburt et al. then cite an article by the present author as evidence of this

attitude:

Such an attitude isnt unheard of among computing professionalsfor

example, a recent article claims that competent creation, not any

responsibility for the public good, should be at the core of any professional

ethics for computing professionals (Hurlburt et al. 2009, p. 18).

Stieb (2008) actually claimed that

One need not support all that [Ayn] Rand stood for, nor battle her considerableopposition to point out that the primary goal of professionalism is competent

creation. Negative responsibilities not to harm others follow from this primary

goal/criterion. Positive responsibilities do not. The government, whose job is

to secure the rights of the governed, use law and ethical custom to judge and

establish these negative responsibilities. No government, or professional

society for that matter, can rightly compel individuals toserveothers unless as

part of the common security from which each benefits (Stieb 2008, p. 227,

emphasis mine)

Stieb (2008) believes in negative responsibilities not to harm others. This

directly contradicts the belief that professional work is technical, and therefore

ethics isnt relevant (Hurlburt et al. 2009, p. 18). Ethics is very relevant, just not

the ethics of altruism or benefitting humanity. The present paper argues for the

relevance of rights based ethics, an ethical tradition going back at least to John

Locke, espoused in the United States Constitution, the legal frameworks of The

United States, Britain and much of Europe as well as the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Many

authors use rights theory as their governing ethical paradigm. For example, the

contemporary bioethicist, George Annas, attempts to use rights theory to cross the

boundaries of human rights and health law (Annas 2004).

164 J. A. Stieb
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


17/22

possibility. However, there is no evidence for the ethical necessity of favoring the

public good or benefiting humanity. There is no evidence that serving the public good

or benefiting humanity is the only way to have a strong professional ethics. The

documents cited by Miller and Voas (2008) such as the Institute of Electrical and

Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Code of Ethics, the Association of ComputingMachinery (ACM) Code of Ethics, the Software Engineering Code of Ethics and

Professional Practice, the work of Cicero and others even if they could be construed

as requiring the benefit of humanity are not evidence of the ethical necessity or

requirementto benefit humanity. They are only evidence in the widespreadbeliefin

this necessity.

Some codes definitely do say contribute to society and human well-being

(ACM1992). The ACM code of ethics tends to use words like protect, respect,

minimize, but they do include that Professionals must attempt to ensure that the

products of their efforts will be used in socially responsible ways, will meet socialneeds, and will avoid harmful effects to health and welfare (ACM1992). The code

does not specify how one is to ensure that a product is socially responsible and

meets social needs. There are abundant problems with ascertaining either:

Implicit in the very existence of SRI [socially responsible investing] is the

claim that it is possible to identify which firms are more or less responsible.

Not only is this claim questionable, but the selection criteria employed by SRI

fund managers and researchers can be criticized on several grounds.

First, questions have been raised about both the information that fundmanagers rely on to make investment decisions and the consistency of the

criteria they employ.

A second criticism focuses on criteria employed by SRI funds to determine

corporate irresponsibility. Tobacco and alcohol are the two negative screens

American funds use most often (Vogel2006, p. 39).

The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE 2009) code says,

Accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and

welfare of the public. This is not objectionable. A responsibility to do no harm

can be accepted without accepting a purported responsibility to benefit others

positively.

The statement that the primary goal of professionalism is competent creation

(Stieb, p. 227) is a misleading choice of words. It is misleading because, strictly

speaking, professionalism does not have goals. Only people choose goals. Stieb

(2008) meant that competent creation should be the primary criterion by which one

is judged a professional. There may be other, secondary criteria. So for example, it

can be agreed that a true professional must always consider the public good

(Miller and Voas2008, p. 16). It is important to considerwhat the myriad voices of

the publicthinkto be good. One should consult and be aware of current law, ethical

theory, codes, standards etc. One should even follow most of these. One should



18/22

the creators of television sets, weapons, and genetically modified foods are

professionals since these do not obviously benefit humanity. It would create trouble

for their creators. Whether these technologies are good is really a political and

philosophical issue. Some or all of them might be reasonably prohibited on the basis

of thedangersthey may pose and noton their failure to benefit humanity. Until theverdict of safety (or un-safety as the case may be), it should be possible to engineer

professionally without actually benefiting humanity or serving anyone.

Unfortunately, engineers are prosecuted for unprofessional conduct with

alarming frequency. However, no engineer has ever been prosecuted or thrown

out of a society for failing to benefit humanity. Hence, the requirement seems

hollow and it does seem possible to engineer professionally without benefitting

humanity or serving anyone. However, the words and the sanctimonious ideals

remain to damage accurate portrayal and ethical evaluation of the profession and

professionalism.Finally, what is the relationship between a dedicated professionalsomeone

who is fully committed to apply the most up-to-date knowledge and skills to a given

line of workand an ethical professional? Is there a difference? Should there be?7

Indeed, there is a difference as Davis (1997) has noted: one would not want to

call the engineers who built the Nazi concentration camps professional. Perhaps this

is why engineers feel they must appeal to the benefit of humanity. The camps

certainly did not benefit humanity. Ergo, those who built them where unprofes-

sional. The benefit of humanity works, in this argument, to separate Nazi engineers

from professionals. Still, all that is required here is a moral ideal, not necessarilythat of benefiting humanity. Davis himself writes that to be a member of a

profession is to be subject to a set of special morally-binding standards beyond what

law, market, and morality (otherwise) demand (Davis 1997, p. 421, emphasis

Davis). Even this ideal seems excessive. Following law, marketandmorality seem

sufficient. Clearly the Nazi engineers where immoral no matter how well they

followed the law and the market. Davis feels that he must argue against Airaksinen

(1994) that engineering has a moral ideal comparable to other professions (health

for medicine; justice for law). It appears sufficient to say that engineering seeks

good control over the environment (Davis 1997, p. 412). However, it is not the

concern of this paper to show that engineering is a profession. It assumes as much.

This paper concerns establishing rights theory as the minimum basis for a moral

ideal in contrast to the ideal of benefitting humanity. Put positively instead of

negatively, the proper moral ideal for engineering professionalism is actually what it

is for most walks of lifesomething like act according to ones true self-interest,

or seek happiness. Happiness or true self-interest are ideals associated not only with

rights theorists such as Locke (as well as the U.S. Declaration of Independence) but

with virtue ethicists such as Aristotle. Hence it is no surprise that current work on

professionalism that also seeks alternatives to benefitting humanity as a requirement

derive from virtue ethics and ethical egoism. Other than the current author, only

Chesher and Machan (1999) consistently reject the benefit of humanity for

166 J. A. Stieb
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


19/22

professionalism. Most authors still require some greater social benefit or ideal. The

work of engineering ethicist Harris (2008), business ethicist Solomon (2003), and

bioethicists Oakley and Cocking (2001), can be cited as encouraging.

References

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. (2009). History. Accreditation Board for

Engineering and Technology. Resource Document. http://www.abet.org/history.shtml. Accessed 5

August 2009.

ACM. (1992). ACM code of ethics and professional conduct. Resource document. Association for

Computing Machinery.http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics. Accessed 9 August 2009.

Airaksinen, T. (1994). Service and science in professional life. In R. F. Chadwick (Ed.), Ethics and the

professions (pp. 113). Aldershot: Avebury.

Annas, G. J. (2004). American bioethics: crossing human rights and health law boundaries. New York:Oxford University Press.

Anonymous. (1998). A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries J. Robert Oppenheimer. Resource

document. WGBH, Pbs.org.

Bok, S. (2008). Whistleblowing and professional responsibility. In T. Donaldson & P. Werhane (Eds.),

Ethical issues in business;a philosophical approach (8th ed., pp. 128135).New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). Bowers v. Hardwick 478 U. S. Resource Document. United States Supreme

Court. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=478&invol=186. Accessed 7

August 2009.

California Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors. (2009). EIT/LSIT certification

information and application (engineer-in-training/land surveyor-in-training). Resource Document.

California Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors. http://www.pels.ca.gov/applicants/eit_lsitapp.shtml. Accessed 2 August 2009.

Chesher, J. E., & Machan, T. (1999). The business of commerce; examining an honorable profession.

Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.

Cooke, M. L. (1921). On the organization of an engineering society. Mechanical Engineering 43, 323,

325 [page range unknown]. Quoted by Layton 1971, 15.

Davis, M. (1997). Is there a profession of engineering? Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, 407428.

Davis, M. (1998). Thinking like an engineer; studies in the ethics of a profession. Oxford University

Press, New York. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/baoppe.html. Accessed 5 August

2009.

Egar, J. M. (2000). The right to be left alone. Resource Document. Insight. San-Diego Union-Tribune.

Reprinted in Smart Communities.http://www.smartcommunities.org/library_alone.htm. Accessed 6

August 2009.Ferrell, O. C. (2009). A framework for understanding organizational ethics. Online Document. http://www.

aacsb.edu/resource_centers/ethicsedu/a%20framework%20for%20understanding%20organizational

%20ethics.doc. Accessed 17 September 2009.

Fieser, J. (2006). Ethics. Resource document. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.

utm.edu/e/ethics.htm. Accessed 5 August 2009.

Firmage, D. A. (1991). The definition of a profession. In D. Johnson (Ed.), Ethical issues in engineering

(pp. 6366). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Greenwood, A. (1991). Attributes of a profession. In D. Johnson (Ed.), Ethical issues in engineering

(pp. 6777). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Halliday, R. (1997). A theory of property rights for a free nation. Resource Document. Libertarian Nation

Foundation.http://libertariannation.org/a/f52h2.html. Accessed 16 August, 2009.

Harris, C. E. (2008). The good engineer: giving virtue its due in engineering ethics. Science and

Engineering Ethics, 14, 153164.

d di i l f h i h f i i d i

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://www.abet.org/history.shtmlhttp://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethicshttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=478&invol=186http://www.pels.ca.gov/applicants/eit_lsitapp.shtmlhttp://www.pels.ca.gov/applicants/eit_lsitapp.shtmlhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/baoppe.htmlhttp://www.smartcommunities.org/library_alone.htmhttp://www.aacsb.edu/resource_centers/ethicsedu/a%20framework%20for%20understanding%20organizational%20ethics.dochttp://www.aacsb.edu/resource_centers/ethicsedu/a%20framework%20for%20understanding%20organizational%20ethics.dochttp://www.aacsb.edu/resource_centers/ethicsedu/a%20framework%20for%20understanding%20organizational%20ethics.dochttp://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htmhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htmhttp://libertariannation.org/a/f52h2.htmlhttp://libertariannation.org/a/f52h2.htmlhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htmhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htmhttp://www.aacsb.edu/resource_centers/ethicsedu/a%20framework%20for%20understanding%20organizational%20ethics.dochttp://www.aacsb.edu/resource_centers/ethicsedu/a%20framework%20for%20understanding%20organizational%20ethics.dochttp://www.aacsb.edu/resource_centers/ethicsedu/a%20framework%20for%20understanding%20organizational%20ethics.dochttp://www.smartcommunities.org/library_alone.htmhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/baoppe.htmlhttp://www.pels.ca.gov/applicants/eit_lsitapp.shtmlhttp://www.pels.ca.gov/applicants/eit_lsitapp.shtmlhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=478&invol=186http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethicshttp://www.abet.org/history.shtmlhttp://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


20/22

Hurlburt, G. F., Miller, K., & Voas, J. M. (2009). An ethical analysis of automation, risk, and the financial

crisis of 2008. IT Professional, 11, 1419.

IEEE. (2009). IEEE code of ethics. Resource Document. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.

http://www.ieee.org/web/membership/ethics/code_ethics.html. Accessed 9 August 2009.

KAR. (2009). Design criteria for dams and associated structures. Resource Document. Kentucky

Administrative Regulation (KAR) 4:030. Kentucky Legislature. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/401/004/030.htm. Accessed 6 August 2009.

Kennedy, J. F. (1961). Inaugural Address. Resource Document. Famous Quotes. http://www.famousquotes.

me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/5.htm. Accessed 7 August 2009.

Ladd, J. (1991). The quest for a code of engineering ethics: an intellectual and moral confusion. In D.

Johnson (Ed.), Ethical issues in engineering (pp. 130136). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Layton, E. T. (1971). The revolt of the engineers. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University.

Lozano, J. F. (2006). Developing an ethical code for engineers: the discursive approach. Science and

Engineering Ethics, 12.2, 245256.

Manion, M. (2001). Engineering professionalism and the imperative of sustainable development.

Proceedings of the International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS01) (pp. 168176).

IEEE Computer Society: Washington, DC.

Miller, K. W., & Voas, J. (2008). IT as a profession: is competent creation the primary goal? IT

Professional, 10, 1517.

Moriarty, G. (2008). The engineering project; its nature, ethics and promise. University Park,

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.

NSPE. (1987). Code of ethics for engineers, National Society of Professional Engineers. In: Johnson, D.

(Ed.) (1991), Ethical issues in engineering (pp. 98104). Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

NSPE. (2009a). Engineering Education Resource Document. NSPE Position Statements. Governmental

Relations. National Society of Professional Engineers. http://www.nspe.org/GovernmentRelations/

TakeAction/PositionStatements/ps_eng_edu.html. Accessed 5 August 2009.

NSPE. (2009b). NSPE code of ethics for engineers. Resource Document. National Society of Professional

Engineers.http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html. Accessed 31 July 2009.

NSPE. (2009c). History of the code of ethics for engineers. Resource Document. National Society ofProfessional Engineers. http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/CodeHistory/historyofcode.html.

Accessed 2 August 2009.

NSPE. (2009d). Board of ethical review. Resource Document. National Society of Professional

Engineers. http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/BoardofEthicalReview/index.html. Accessed 2 August 2009.

NSPE. (2009e). Licensure. Resource Document. National Society of Professional Engineers. http://www.

nspe.org/Licensure/Resources/faq/lic_rec_FAQ.html.

Oakley, J., & Cocking, D. (2001).Virtue ethics and professional roles. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Olmstead v. U.S. (1928). Olmstead v. U.S. 277 U.W. 438. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?

court=US&vol=277&invol=438. Accessed 7 August 2009.

Parkan, B. (2008). Professionalism: a virtue or estrangement from self-activity? Journal of Business

Ethics, 78, 7785.Schinzinger, R., & Martin, M. (1996). Ethics in engineering (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Selvan, K. T. (2004). An approach for harmonizing engineering and science education with humaneness.

Science and Engineering Ethics, 10.3, 573577.

Solomon, R. (2003). A better way to think about business: how personal integrity leads to corporate

success. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stieb, J. A. (2008). A critique of positive responsibility in computing. Science and Engineering Ethics,

14(2), 219233.

Unknown Author. (1954). National affairs: The oppenheimer case.Time Magazine63. 26. June 28, 1954.

Online Document. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,860874-9,00.html. Accessed

17 September 2009.

Veach, C. M. (2006). Theres no such thing as engineering ethics, inLeadership and Management in

Engineering, 6.3, 97101 quoting Maxwell (2003).

Vogel, D. (2006). The market for virtue. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

168 J. A. Stieb
http://www.ieee.org/web/membership/ethics/code_ethics.htmlhttp://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/401/004/030.htmhttp://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/401/004/030.htmhttp://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/5.htmhttp://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/5.htmhttp://www.nspe.org/GovernmentRelations/TakeAction/PositionStatements/ps_eng_edu.htmlhttp://www.nspe.org/GovernmentRelations/TakeAction/PositionStatements/ps_eng_edu.htmlhttp://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.htmlhttp://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/CodeHistory/historyofcode.htmlhttp://www.nspe.org/Ethics/BoardofEthicalReview/index.htmlhttp://www.nspe.org/Licensure/Resources/faq/lic_rec_FAQ.htmlhttp://www.nspe.org/Licensure/Resources/faq/lic_rec_FAQ.htmlhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=277&invol=438http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=277&invol=438http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,860874-9,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,860874-9,00.htmlhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=277&invol=438http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=277&invol=438http://www.nspe.org/Licensure/Resources/faq/lic_rec_FAQ.htmlhttp://www.nspe.org/Licensure/Resources/faq/lic_rec_FAQ.htmlhttp://www.nspe.org/Ethics/BoardofEthicalReview/index.htmlhttp://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/CodeHistory/historyofcode.htmlhttp://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.htmlhttp://www.nspe.org/GovernmentRelations/TakeAction/PositionStatements/ps_eng_edu.htmlhttp://www.nspe.org/GovernmentRelations/TakeAction/PositionStatements/ps_eng_edu.htmlhttp://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/5.htmhttp://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/5.htmhttp://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/401/004/030.htmhttp://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/401/004/030.htmhttp://www.ieee.org/web/membership/ethics/code_ethics.html


21/22

Werhane, P. H., Gorman, M. E., Mead, J., & Cummings, M. (2002). Boeing (a): no nerds, no birds to

strike or not to strike. Resource Document. Darden Case No. UVA-E-0233. Darden Business

Publishing. https://store.darden.virginia.edu/business-case-study/boeing-no-nerds-no-birds-c-will-a-

strike-jeopardize-public-safety-817. Accessed 31 July 2009.

Whitbeck, C. (2006). Part 3: the discovery of the change from welds to bolts. Resource Document. Online

Ethics Center for Engineering. National Academy of Engineering. http://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/profpractice/exempindex/lemesindex.aspx. Accessed 31 July 2009.

https://store.darden.virginia.edu/business-case-study/boeing-no-nerds-no-birds-c-will-a-strike-jeopardize-public-safety-817https://store.darden.virginia.edu/business-case-study/boeing-no-nerds-no-birds-c-will-a-strike-jeopardize-public-safety-817http://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/profpractice/exempindex/lemesindex.aspxhttp://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/profpractice/exempindex/lemesindex.aspxhttp://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/profpractice/exempindex/lemesindex.aspxhttp://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/profpractice/exempindex/lemesindex.aspxhttps://store.darden.virginia.edu/business-case-study/boeing-no-nerds-no-birds-c-will-a-strike-jeopardize-public-safety-817https://store.darden.virginia.edu/business-case-study/boeing-no-nerds-no-birds-c-will-a-strike-jeopardize-public-safety-817


22/22

Copyright of Science & Engineering Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

stieb understanding engineering professionalism(autosaved)

Documents