EREKA - Etika REKAyasa - ETHICS ENGINEERING, Chapter The Responsibilities of Engineers

Etika REKAyasa – FT 4010

M. Misdianto, M.Sc.

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0LegalText_(Indonesian)

W3 – The Responsibilities of Engineer

M. Misdianto, M.Sc.


LO – Learning Objective

1. Passive & Active Responsibilities

2. Four conditions – BLAMEWORTHINESS

3. Profesional Ideals

4. Profesional Responsibilities

5. Social context of technologies vs

responsibilities of engineers

1 OCTOBER 2014 INTRODUCTION 5

CHALLENGER CASE

– 25th Launch SS; Jan 28th, 1986– Christa McAuliffe, Teacher– Ronald Reagan, US President

–4 C, Cape Canaveral, Florida USA– Morton Thiokol; Roger Boisjoly – 1985; O-Rings– 10 C, preceeding night

08 Oktober 2014 RESPONSIBILITY 6

RESPONSIBILITY

• Held accountable for your actions and for the effects of your actions.

• Active vs Passive– Active = Before something has happened.– Passive = After something (undesirable) has

happened.


Other Responsibility

• Role, based on the role one has or plays in a certain situation.

• Moral, based on moral obligations, moral norms or moral duties.

• Professional, based on one’s role as profes-sional in as far it stays within the limit of what is morally allowed.


PASSIVE RESPONSIBILITY

Backward-looking responsibility, relevant after something undesirable occurred; specific forms are accountability, blameworthiness, and liability.

08 Oktober 2014 PASSIVE RESPONSIBILITY 9

A & B

Backward-looking responsibility in the sense of being held to account for, or justify one’s actions towards others ACCOUNTABILITY

BLAMEWORTHINESS Backward-looking responsibility in the sense of being a proper target of blame for one’s actions or the consequences of one’s actions. In order for someone to be blameworthy;• Wrong-doing• Causal contribution• Foreseeability• Freedoom


WRONG-DOING

• A person, Institution• Carrying out a certain action• Violated a norm• Did something wrong

NASA violated the norm that a flight had to be proven to be safe.


CAUSAL CONTRIBUTION

• A person• Held responsible• Have made a casual contribution• Consequences• For he/she is held responsible

Both NASA Project Team & Morton Thiokol – causal contribution.


FORESEEABILITY

• A person held responsible• Know the consequences• His/her action

• Boisjoly, the Morton Thiokol management team & the NASA rep, could all have expected the Challenger disaster erosion O-rings on low temperature.


FREEDOM of ACTION

• One held responsible• Had a freedom of action• He/she must not have acted under compulsion.

NASA is under pressure of present McAuliffe.Morton too, further co-operation financial consequencesBoisjoly is limited.


ACTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

08 Oktober 2014 ACTIVE RESPONSIBILITY 15

Responsibility before something has happened referring to a duty or task to care for certain state-of-affairs or persons.

AR by Mark Boven (Bovens, 1998)

• Adequate perception of threatened violation of norms.

• Consideration of the consequences.• Autonomy• Displaying conduct that is based on a verifi-

able and consistent code; and • Taking role obligations seriously.


AR of Engineers

IDEALS, ideas or striving which are particularly motivating and inspiring for the person having them, and which aim at achieving an optimum or maximum – 2 characteristics• Motivating and inspiring 4 d person having

them.• Aim at achieving an optimum or maximum.


PROF. IDEALS

IDEALS that are closely allied to a profession or can only be aspired to by carrying out the profession.


TECH. ENTHUSIASM

The IDEAL of wanting to develop new techno-logical possibilities and taking up technological challenges.


EFFECTIVE & EFFICIENT

EFFECTIVENESS:The extent to which an established goal is achieved.

EFFICIENCY:The ratio between the goal achieved and the effort required.


21

HUMAN WELFARE

That of contributing to our augmenting human welfare.

• ASME – American Society of Mechanical Engineering

• ASCE – American Society of Civil Engineers

JOHAN van VEEN

08 Oktober 2014 ACTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

SEPARATISM

SEPARATISM, the notion that scientists and engineers should apply the technical inputs, but appropriate management and political organs should make the value decisions.

TRIPARTITE MODEL. A model that maintains that engineers can only be held responsible for the design of products and not for wider social consequences or concerns. Three separate segments : Politicians; Engineers and Users (ABG).

08 Oktober 2014 ENGINEER vs MANAGERS 22

THE TRIPARTITE MODELVan de Poel (2001)


POLITICIANSPRINCIPALSMANAGERS

(anticipated) customers

Designing Engineers

USERS

Once the rockets go up, Who cares where they come down. “That’s not my department, “ said Wernher von Braun

TECHNOCRACY

TECHNOCRACY, Government by Experts. Not TECHNO-CRAZY…

PATTERNALISM, the making of (moral) decisions for others on the assumption that one knows better what is good for them than those other themselves.


WHISTLE-BLOWING

• Case Inez Austin, Boisjoly, Nazarudin.

WHISTLE-BLOWING. The disclosure of certain abuses in a company by an employee in which he or she is employed, without the consent of his/her superiors, and in order to remedy these abuses and/or to warn the public about these abuses.


SOCIAL CONTEXT

ACTOR. Any person or group that can make a decision how to act and that can act on that decision.USERS. People who use a technology and who may formulate certain wishes or requirements for the functioning of a technology.REGULATORS. Organization who formulate rules or regulations that engineering products have to meet such as rulings concerning health and safety, but also rulings linked to relations between competitors.

08 Oktober 2014 SOCIAL CONTEXT 26

SOCIAL CONTEXT – 1

INTEREST. Things actions strive for because they are beneficial or advantageous for them.

STAKEHOLDERS. Actors that have an interest (“a stake”) in the development of a technology.

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (TA). Systematic method for exploring future technology developments and accessing their potential societal consequences.


TECH DEV MAP of ACTORS


TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

REGULATORS

OTHER ACTORS

USERS

DEVELOPERS & PRODUCERS

SUMMARY

• Responsibility of Engineers• Four conditions of BLAMEWORTHY:

– Wrong-Doing– Causal Contribution– Foreseeability– Freedom

• Two main ground of responsibilities:– Roles you play in Society– Moral Considerations

• Engineers have two main role responsibilities:– As Engineers– As Employees

08 Oktober 2014 CLOSING 29

SUMMARY - 1

• Three professional ideals were examined:– Technological Enthusiasm– Effectiveness and Efficiency and– Human Welfare

• Three models for dealing with conflicts engineer vs employee:– Separatism– Technocracy– Whistle-Blowing


REFERENCES

• IBO VAN DE POEL and LAMBÈR ROYAKKERS. (2011). Ethics, Technology, and Engineering: An Introduction. Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, UK. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.


Photo Credit

• Challenger Explosion, attribution to By Kennedy Space Center [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

• Space Shuttle – Challenger to See page for author [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons• Cape Canaveral to By Soerfm (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons• Space Shuttle Challenger to By NASA (NASA Human Space Flight Gallery (image link)) [Public

domain], via Wikimedia Commons• STS 121 approach ISS to By NASA [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons• Google Earth on multiple monitors to By Runner1928 (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons• Google Earth Logo to By Google [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons• Frederick W. Taylor to By Grap [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons• Watersnoodramps 1953 to By Agency for International Development [Public domain], via

Wikimedia Commons• Northsea Floods 1953 to By Lencer [CC-BY-SA-2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-

sa/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons


C U Soon

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Education

EREKA - Etika REKAyasa - ETHICS ENGINEERING, Chapter The Responsibilities of Engineers