Why Engineers Must Consider the Ethical Implications of Their Work 406
An anonymous reader writes "An article by Abbas El-Zein at The Guardian explores the ethical responsibilities for engineers who create and maintain 'technologies of violence.' He says, 'Engineers who see themselves as builders of the shelter and infrastructure for human needs also use their expertise in order to destroy and kill more efficiently. When doctors or nurses use their knowledge of anatomy in order to torture or conduct medical experiments on helpless subjects, we are rightly outraged. Why doesn't society seem to apply the same standards to engineers? There is more than one answer to the question of course, but two points are especially pertinent: the common good we engineers see ourselves serving and our relationship to authority. ... Our ethics have become mostly technical: how to design properly, how to not cut corners, how to serve our clients well. We work hard to prevent failure of the systems we build, but only in relation to what these systems are meant to do, rather than the way they might actually be utilised, or whether they should have been built at all. We are not amoral, far from it; it's just that we have steered ourselves into a place where our morality has a smaller scope.'"
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
A certificate doesn't make an engineer (Score:5, Informative)
Strictly speaking coders are not engineers. We use that term colloquially but I definitely got the impression that the article was speaking primarily of PEs.
Strictly speaking coders are not engineers.
They may or may not have an engineering degree/license but what coders are doing is most assuredly engineering. I'm an industrial engineer by training but I also do work almost daily that could be described as electrical engineering and sometimes mechanical engineering. Just because you don't have a document hanging on the wall saying you are an engineer doesn't mean you aren't one in real life.
We use that term colloquially but I definitely got the impression that the article was speaking primarily of PEs.
There are relatively few PEs compared to the number of engineers out there. Having a PE license doesn't mean you are better at engineering than someone who doesn't have one. The the sort of engineering I do it would have been a complete waste of my time for me to go get a PE license. It simply isn't necessary for many engineers. A PE is only required in certain circumstances and primarily for liability and statutory reasons. (Though it must be said that people with PE licenses tend to be good engineers in my experience)
Re:Because... (Score:3, Informative)
As an engineering consultant, I do in fact have a copyright on the design documents I produce. If I really wanted to, I could sue a former client if they attempt to continue using my designs. They are licensed, not sold.
And if I shelve a project (or more appropriately, walk off a job - which I've done) then all that really happens is I'm no longer legally responsible for any shit that goes down from that point on. I can refuse to deliver finished project documents, oversee the project construction, and address issues that arise during and after installation.
And just because your name is on a patent doesn't mean you own the rights. Must be one of those situations where the stipulation of your employment at a company means anything you create belongs to them? If so, then that's what you agreed to and that's what you get.
=Smidge=