ETHICAL THEORIES

An ethical theory is a comprehensive perspective on morality that clarifies, organizes, and guides
moral reflection. In order to develop workable ethical problem-solving techniques, we must first
look at several theories of ethics in order to have a framework for decision making. Ethical
problem solving is not as cut and dried as problem solving in engineering classes. In most
engineering classes, there is generally just one theory to consider when tackling a problem. In
studying engineering ethics, there are several theories that will be considered. The relatively
large number of theories doesn’t indicate a weakness in theoretical understanding of ethics or a
“fuzziness” of ethical thinking. Rather, it reflects the complexity of ethical problems and the
diversity of approaches to ethical problem solving that have been developed over the centuries.

Having multiple theories to apply actually enriches the problem-solving process, allowing
problems to be looked at from different angles, since each theory stresses different aspects of a
problem. Even though we will use multiple theories to examine ethical problems, each theory
applied to a problem will not necessarily lead to a different solution. Frequently, different
theories yield the same solution. Our basic ethical problem-solving technique will utilize
different theories and approaches to analyze the problem and then try to determine the
best solution.

Ethical theories also ground the requirements in engineering codes of ethics by reference to
broader moral principles. In doing so, they illuminate connections between engineering codes of
ethics and “ordinary” morality - that is, justified moral values that play a role in all areas of life.

Definition
A moral theory defines terms in uniform ways and links ideas and problems together in
consistent ways [Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins, 2000]. This is exactly how the scientific
theories used in other engineering classes function. Scientific theories also organize ideas,
define terms, and facilitate problem solving. So, we will use moral theories in exactly the same
way that engineering theories are used in other classes.

There are five ethical theories that will be considered here, each differing according to what is
held to be the most important moral concept:
1. Utilitarianism
2. Rights ethics
3. Duty ethics
4. Virtue ethics
5. Self-realization ethics

Utilitarianism seeks to produce the most utility, defined as a balance between good and bad
consequences of an action, taking into account the consequences for everyone affected.
Rights ethics says we ought to respect human rights. It emphasizes that we all have moral rights,
and any action that violates these rights is ethically unacceptable.
Duty ethics says we ought to respect individuals’ autonomy. It contends that there are duties that
should be performed (for example, the duty to treat others fairly or the duty not to injure others)
regardless of whether these acts lead to the most good.
Virtue ethics says that good character is central to morality. It regards actions as right that
manifest good character traits (virtues) and regards actions as bad that display bad character traits
(vices); this ethical theory focuses on the type of person we should strive to be.
Self-realization ethics emphasizes the moral significance of self-fulfillment. It gives greater
prominence to self-interest and to personal commitments that individuals develop.

1. UTILITARIANISM

It is the view that we ought always to produce the most good for the most people, giving equal
consideration to everyone affected. The standard of right conduct is maximization of good
consequences. Utilitarianism seems a straightforward way to interpret the central principle in
most engineering codes. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the
public in the performance of their professional duties.

Utilitarianism holds that those actions are good that serve to maximize human well-being. The
emphasis in utilitarianism is not on maximizing the well-being of the individual, but rather on
maximizing the well-being of society as a whole, and as such it is somewhat of a collectivist
approach.

Example 1: Dams often lead to great benefit to society by providing stable supplies of drinking
water, flood control, and recreational opportunities. However, these benefits often come at the
expense of people who live in areas that will be flooded by the dam and are required to find new
homes, or lose the use of their land. Utilitarianism tries to balance the needs of society with the
needs of the individual, with an emphasis on what will provide the most benefit to the most
people.

Utilitarianism is fundamental to many types of engineering analysis, including risk-benefit

analysis and cost-benefit analysis, which we will discuss later. However, as good as the
utilitarian principle sounds, there are some problems with it. First, as seen in the example of the
building of a dam, sometimes what is best for every one may be bad for a particular individual or
a group of individuals.

Example 2: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico is designed to be a
permanent repository for nuclear waste generated in the United States. It consists of a system of
tunnels bored into underground salt formations. These salt beds are considered by geologists to
be extremely stable, especially to incursion of water which could lead to seepage of the nuclear
wastes into groundwater. However, there are many who oppose this facility, principally on the
grounds that transportation of the wastes across highways has the potential for accidents that
might cause health problems for people living near these routes.

An analysis of WIPP using utilitarianism might indicate that the disposal of nuclear wastes is a
major problem hindering the implementation of many useful technologies, including medicinal
uses of radioisotopes and nuclear generation of electricity. Solution of this waste disposal
problem will benefit society by providing improved health care and more plentiful electricity.
The slight potential for adverse health effects for individuals living near the transportation routes
is far outweighed by the overall benefits to society. So, WIPP should be allowed to open. As this
example demonstrates, the utilitarian approach can seem to ignore the needs of individuals,
especially if these needs seem relatively insignificant.

Another objection to utilitarianism is that its implementation depends greatly on knowing what
will lead to the most good. Frequently, it is impossible to know exactly what the consequences of
an action are. It is often impossible to do a complete set of experiments to determine all of the
potential outcomes, especially when humans are involved as subjects of the experiments. So,
maximizing the benefit to society involves guesswork and the risk that the best guess might be
wrong. Despite these objections, utilitarianism is a valuable tool for ethical problem solving,
providing one way of looking at engineering ethics cases.

Before ending our discussion of utilitarianism, it should be noted that there are many flavors of
the basic tenets of utilitarianism. Two of these are act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.

Act-utilitarianism focuses on individual actions rather than on individual rules. A particular

action is right if it is likely to produce the most good for the most people in a given situation. The
best known proponent of act utilitarianism was John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), who felt that most
of the common rules of morality as given below are good guidelines derived from centuries of
human experience:
Don’t steal,
Be honest,
Don’t harm others,
Keep your promises,
Do not deceive, and
Do not bribe.
However, Mill felt that individual actions should be judged based on whether the most good was
produced in a given situation. But rules should be broken whenever doing so will produce the
most good in a specific situation.

Rule-utilitarianism differs from act utilitarianism in holding that moral rules are most
important. As mentioned previously, these rules include “Don’t harm others” and “Don’t steal.”
Rule utilitarian holds that although adhering to these rules might not always maximize good in a
particular situation, overall, adhering to moral rules will ultimately lead to the most good.

The act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism differ from each other and do seem to lead to
different results when applied in specific situations. Rule-utilitarianism for example, openly
rejects kickback schemes. Matz and Childs acted on a rule something like “Engage in secret
payoffs when necessary for profitable business ventures”. If this rule is generally followed, it
would cause a breakdown of trust between business people and their clients.

Cost-Benefit Analysis
There are different forms of utilitarianism covering various aspects. Before discussing these
forms, let us compare utilitarianism with cost-benefit analysis familiar in engineering. A typical
cost-benefit analysis identifies the good and bad consequences of some actions or policy, usually
in terms of dollars. It weighs the total goods against the total bads, and then compares the results
to similar tallies of the consequences of alternative actions or rules. This sounds just like
utilitarianism, but often it is not. To see this, we need to look closely at whose good and bad is
considered and promoted, as well as how good and bad are measured. Usually the answers center
around the good of a corporation, rather than the good of everyone affected, considered
impartially.

One tool often used in engineering analysis, especially when trying to determine whether a
project makes sense, is cost-benefit analysis. Fundamentally, this type of analysis is just an
application of utilitarianism. In cost-benefit analysis, the costs of a project are assessed, as are
the benefits. Only those projects with the highest ratio of benefits to costs will be implemented.
This principle is similar to the utilitarian goal of maximizing the overall good.

As with utilitarianism, there are pitfalls in the use of cost-benefit analysis. While it is often easy
to predict the costs for most projects, the benefits that are derived from them are often harder to
predict and to assign a dollar value to. Once dollar amounts for the costs and benefits are
determined, calculating a mathematical ratio may seem very objective and therefore may appear
to be the best way to make a decision. However, this ratio can’t take into account many of the
more subjective aspects of a decision. For example, from a pure cost-benefit discussion, it might
seem that the building of a dam is an excellent idea. But this analysis won’t include other issues
such as whether the benefits outweigh the loss of a scenic wilderness area or the loss of an
endangered species with no current economic value. Finally, it is also important to determine
whether those who stand to reap the benefits are also those who will pay the costs. It is unfair to
place all of the costs on one group while another reaps the benefits.

It should be noted that although cost-benefit analysis shares many similarities with utilitarianism,
cost-benefit analysis isn’t really an ethical analysis tool. The goal of an ethical analysis is to
determine what the ethical path is. The goal of a cost-benefit analysis is to determine the
feasibility of a project based on costs. When looking at an ethical problem, the first step should
be to determine what the right course of action is and then factor in the financial costs in
choosing between ethical alternatives.

Theory of Good
If the standard of right action is maximizing goodness, what is goodness? According to Mill, it is
the result of actions which produces happiness. There is intrinsic good and instrumental good.
Mill believes that happiness is the only intrinsic good, and hence he understands utilitarianism as
the requirement to produce the greatest amount of happiness. All other good things are
instrumental goods in that they provide means (instruments) for happiness. A trip to the dentist,
for example, is an instrumental good that promotes happiness by avoiding or removing the pain
of toothache.

According to Mill happiness is (a) a life rich in pleasures, mixed with some inevitable pains. The
happiest life is also rich in higher pleasures. Mill contended that the pleasures derived from
love, friendship, intellectual inquiry, creative accomplishment, and appreciation of beauty are
inherently better than the bodily pleasures derived from eating, sex, and exercise.
According to utilitarianism, right actions are those required by rules that produce the most good
for the most people. Individual actions are right when they are according to these rules. Thus we
ought to keep promises and avoid bribes, even when those acts do not have the best
consequences in a particular situation, because these practices produce the most overall good.

Brandt who is an influential rule utilitarian believes that rules should be considered in sets which
he calls moral codes. A moral code is justified when it is the optimal code that, if adopted and
followed, would maximize the public good more than alternative codes would. The codes may be
society-wide standards or special codes for a profession like engineering.

Brandt, however, argues that things like love and creativity are good because they satisfy rational
desires. Rational desires are those that we can affirm after fully examining them in light of all
relevant information about the world and our own deepest needs. Some self-destructive desires,
such as the desire to use dangerous drugs, are not rational since if we see their full implications
we would not approve of them.

2. RIGHTS ETHICS

Rights ethics holds that people have fundamental rights that other people have a duty to respect.
Because you have a right to live, I have a duty not to kill you.

Human Rights
John Locke (1632-1704) argued that to be a person one has rights (human rights) to life, liberty,
and property. His views had a great impact at the time of the French and American Revolution.
In the Declaration of Independence of USA, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to
be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain
unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

The employers have rights to faithful service from employees, and employees have rights to
reciprocal fair and respectful treatment from employers. Rights to life imply a right to a
livable environment.

Rights Ethics gets more complex as we ask which rights exist. Thus, human rights might come in
two forms: Liberty rights and Welfare rights.

Liberty Rights are rights to exercise one’s liberty, and they place duties on other people not to
interfere with one’s freedom. (The “not” explains why they are also called negative rights).

Welfare Rights: This second version of rights conceives of human rights as intimately related to
communities of people. Welfare rights are defined as rights to community benefits needed for
living a minimally decent human life. Thus it lays the groundwork for recognizing a social
welfare system. These are sometime called positive rights.

The first version of rights ethics conceives of human rights as intimately related to communities
of people.
The second version of rights ethics denies there are welfare human rights. Libertarians believe
that only liberty rights exist; there are no welfare rights. John Locke, often called libertarian,
believed that the three most basic human rights are to life, liberty and property. Jefferson simply
changed property to the pursuit of happiness. Libertarians take a harsh view of taxes and
government involvement beyond the bare minimum necessary for national defense and the
preservation of free enterprise. They also oppose government regulation of business and the
profession.

3. DUTY ETHICS

Duty Ethics regards duties of respect for liberty and autonomy of individuals as fundamental.
Duty Ethics and Right Ethics are similar to each other in many ways. One writer suggests the
following list of important duties:

Do not kill, do not cause pain, do not disable, do not deprive of freedom, do not deprive of
pleasure, do not deceive, do not cheat, keep your promise, obey the law, do your duty.

How do we know that these are our duties? Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the most famous duty
ethicist, argued that all such specific duties derive from one fundamental duty to respect persons.
Persons deserve respect because they are moral agents capable of responding to moral duty.
Autonomy (moral self-determination or self-governance) means having the capacity to govern
one’s life in accordance with moral duties. Hence, respect for persons amounts to respect for
their moral autonomy.

Immorality occurs when we treat persons as mere objects to gratify our needs. Violent acts such
as murder, rape, and torture are obvious ways of treating people as mere objects serving our own
purposes. We also fail to respect persons if we fail to provide support for them when they are in
desperate need and we can help them at little inconvenience to ourselves.

We also have duties to ourselves, for we, too, are rational and autonomous beings. As example,
Kant says, we have a duty not to commit suicide, which would bring an end to a valuable life, we
have duties to develop our talents, as part of unfolding our rational natures, and we should avoid
harmful drugs that undermine our ability to exercise our rationality.

Kant also emphasized that duties are universal: they apply equally to all rational beings including
humans and supernatural beings. The idea of universal principles is often compared to the
Golden Rule; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Kant insisted that moral duties are “categorical imperatives”. As imperatives they are commands
that we impose on ourselves as well as other rational beings. “Be honest” says morality, not
because doing so benefits us, but because honesty is our duty.

Duty ethics and rights ethics are really just two different sides of the same coin. Both of
these theories achieve the same end: Individual persons must be respected, and actions are
ethical that maintain this respect for the individual. In duty ethics, people have duties, an
important one of which is to protect the rights of others. And in rights ethics, people have
fundamental rights that others have duties to protect.

As with utilitarianism, there are problems with the duty and rights ethics theories that must be
considered. First the basic rights of one person (or group) may conflict with the basic rights of
another group. How do we decide whose rights have priority? Using our previous example of the
building of a dam, people have the right to use their property. If their land happens to be in the
way of a proposed dam, then rights ethics would hold that this property right is paramount and is
sufficient to stop the dam project. A single property holder’s objection would require that the
project be terminated. However, there is a need for others living in nearby communities to have a
reliable water supply and to be safe from continual flooding. Whose rights are paramount here?
Rights and duty ethics don’t resolve this conflict very well; hence, the utilitarian approach of
trying to determine the most good is more useful in this case.

The second problem with duty and rights ethics is that these theories don’t always account for
the overall good of society very well. Since the emphasis is on the individual, the good of a
single individual, can be paramount compared to what is good for society as a whole. The WIPP
case discussed before illustrates this problem. Certainly, people who live along the route where
the radioactive wastes will be transported have the right to live without fear of harm due to
accidental spills of hazardous waste. But the nation as a whole will benefit from the safe disposal
of these wastes. Rights ethics would come down clearly on the side of the individuals living
along the route despite the overall advantage to society.

Prima Facie Duties

Principles of duty that have exceptions are called prima facie duties. The duty ethicists recognize
that many moral dilemmas are resolvable only by making exceptions to simple principles of
duty. Thus “Do not deceive” is a duty but it has exceptions when it conflicts with the moral
principle “Protect innocent life”. One ought to deceive a kidnapper if that is the only way to keep
a hostage alive until the police can intervene.

4. VIRTUE ETHICS

Virtue ethics emphasizes character more than rights and rules. Character is the pattern of virtues
(morally desirable features) and vices (morally undesirable features) in an individual. Virtues
are desirable habits or tendencies in action, commitment, motive, attitude, emotion, ways of
reasoning, and ways of relating to others. Vices are morally undesirable habits or tendencies.
Words for specific virtues, however, remain familiar, both in engineering and in everyday life –
for example, competence, honesty, courage, fairness, loyalty, and humility. Words for specific
vices are also familiar; incompetence, dishonesty, cowardice, unfairness, disloyalty, and
arrogance. Aristotle regarded wisdom and good judgment as the important virtue.

The internal good of engineering is the creation of useful and safe technological products while
respecting the autonomy of clients and public. The most basic and comprehensive professional
virtue is professional responsibility, that is, being morally responsible as an engineer.
There are four categories of virtues: Proficiency Virtues, Teamwork Virtues, Self-governance
Virtues and Public Spirited Virtues.

Proficiency virtues are the virtues of mastery of one’s profession, in particular mastery of the
technical skills that indicate good engineering practice. The most general professional virtues
include competence, diligence, and creativity.

Teamwork virtues are those that are especially important in enabling professionals to work
successfully with other people. They include collegiality, cooperativeness, loyalty, respect for
legitimate authority, ability to motivate others to meet valuable goals.

Self-governance virtues are those necessary in exercising moral responsibility. Some of them
center on moral understanding and perception. Other self-governance virtues center on
commitment and on putting understanding into action: for example, courage, self-discipline,
perseverance, self-respect, integrity and honesty.

Public spirited virtues are focused on the good of clients and the wider public. Generosity
which means going beyond the minimum requirements in helping others is shown by engineers
who voluntarily give their time, talent, and money to their professional societies and local
communities. The minimum virtue is non-maleficence, the tendency not to harm others
intentionally. Engineering codes of professional conduct also call for beneficence which is
preventing or removing harm to others and more positively promoting the public safety, health
and welfare.

Florman: Competence and Conscientiousness

Florman emphasizes on loyalty to employers, Aristotle emphasizes on loyalty to community
whereas Alasdair MacIntyre applied Aristotle’s perspective to contemporary professions.
Florman enjoys “existential pleasures” of engineering; the deeply rooted and elemental
satisfactions in engineering that contribute to happiness. These pleasures have many sources.
There is the desire to improve the world, which engages individuals’ sense of personal
involvement and power. There is the challenge of practical and creative effort, including
planning, designing, testing, producing, selling, constructing, and maintaining, all of which bring
pride in achieving excellence in the technical aspects of one’s work.

In Florman’s view “the essence of engineering ethics” is best captured by the word
conscientiousness. Engineers who do their job well are morally good engineers. Competence
and loyalty are the two virtues Florman most emphasizes.

On the one hand, conscientious engineers are competent. Florman estimates that 98 percent of
engineering failures are caused by incompetence. The other 2 percent involve greed, fraud,
dishonesty, and other conventional understandings of wrongdoing, often in addition to
carelessness. Competent means performing with requisite skill and experience. It implies
exercising due care, persistence and diligence.
On the other hand, conscientious engineers are loyal to employers, within the boundaries of laws
and democratic institutions.
It is true that engineers should be conscientious in meeting their responsibilities, but the question
is which responsibilities take priority. According to Florman priority should be given to duties to
employers, instead of professional codes that require engineers to hold “paramount” the safety,
health, and welfare of the public. He tells us that professionals have the task of meeting the
expectations of their clients and employers rather than “filtering their everyday work through a
sieve of ethical sensitivity.”

Aristotle: Community and the Golden Mean

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) defined the moral virtues as tendencies or habits to reach a proper
balance between extremes in conduct, emotion, desire, and attitude. To use the phrase inspired
by his theory, virtues are tendencies to find the Golden Mean between the extremes of too much
(excess) and too little (deficiency). Thus, truthfulness is the mean between revealing all
information in violation of tact and confidentiality (excess) and being secretive or lacking in
candor (deficiency). Again, courage is the mean between foolhardiness (the excess of rashness)
and cowardice (the deficiency of self-control) in confronting dangers. The most important virtue
is practical wisdom, that is, morally good judgment, which enables one to discern the mean for
all the other virtues.

Virtues enable us to pursue a variety of public goods within a community – a concept that was
especially important for citizens of ancient Greek city-states, since the city-state’s survival
depended on the close cooperation of its citizens. Taken together, the moral virtues also enable
us to fulfill ourselves as human beings. They enable us to attain happiness, by which Aristotle
meant self-fulfillment through an active life in accordance with our reason (rather than a life of
mere contentment or pleasure).

More recently, Alasdair MacIntyre applied Aristotle’s themes, including his emphasis on
community and public goods, to the professions. MacIntyre conceives of professions as valuable
social activities, which he calls social practices. There are three main ideas in social practice:
internal goods, standards of excellence and human progress.

Internal Goods are good things that are so essential to a social practice that they partly define it.
Some internal goods are public goods – benefits provided to the community. Thus, health is the
internal good of medicine, and legal justice the internal good of law. The internal goods
engineering, abstractly stated, are safe and useful technological products – products that can be
further specified with regard to each area of engineering. Other internal goods are personal goods
connected with meaningful work, such as portrait painter. Social practices produce external
goods, which are goods that can be earned through engaging in a variety of practices. External
goods include money, power, self-esteem, and prestige.

Standards of Excellence enable internal goods to be achieved. In professions like engineering

these standards include technical guidelines that specify state-of-the-art quality. Most important,
they also include the requirements stated in professional codes of ethics, which are to be
followed by all members of a profession. The virtues enable engineers to meet standards of
excellence and thereby achieve internal goods, especially public or community goods, without
allowing external goods such as money and power to distract their public commitments. The
virtues thereby added to the personal meaning that engineers find in their work by linking
individual lives to wider communities. All four categories of the virtues play key role in
engineers’ commitments to the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

Human Progress is made possible through social practices. Nowhere is this truer than in the
professions, which systematically expand our understanding and achievement of public and
private goods. Think how dramatically engineers have improved human life during the past
century by developing the internal combustion engine, computers, the Internet, and a host of
consumer products. In this way engineering and other professions are embedded in wider circles
of meaning, in particular within communities and traditions.

5. SELF-REALIZATION AND SELF-INTEREST

Each of the preceding ethical theories leaves considerable room for self-interest, that is, for
pursuing what is good for oneself. Utilitarian believes that self-interest should enter into our
calculations of the overall good; rights ethics says we have rights to pursue our own good; duty
ethics says we have duties to our slaves; and virtue ethics links our personal good with
participating in communities and social practices. Self-realization ethics, however, gives greater
prominence to self-interest and to personal commitments that individuals develop.

The theorists insist on creating a balance between one’s own interest and interest of others. There
are three types of values; ethical egoism, customs and religion.

Ethical Egoism
It says that the sole duty of each of us is to promote our own self-interest. The theory is ethical
because it is a theory about morality and it is egoistic because it says the sole duty of each of us
is to maximize our well-being. Self-interest is understood as our long term and enlightened well-
being and happiness, rather than a narrow and short-sighted pursuit of immediate pleasures that
leave us frustrated or damaged in the long run.

Talking about business and professional life, theorists argue that looking after one’s good
amounts to welfare of the society and corporations. The benefit to an individual is benefit to
society and higher profits of a corporation benefit all the stake holders. Rand in her novel
portrays heroic individuals who by pursuing their self-interest indirectly contribute to the good of
others.

Psychological Egoism
By nature, human beings are exclusively self-seeking and our sole motives are to benefit
ourselves. According to psychological egoism, all people are always motivated by what they
believe is good for them in some respect. This theory is about what actually motivates human
beings, whereas ethical egoism is about how they ought to act.

Customs
We live in a society and cannot isolate ourselves from the influence of customs on our conduct
and moral decisions. Moral values are many, varied and flexible.
Religious Commitments
Moral commitment and religious belief are related in several positive ways:
1. They are related historically. Our moral outlooks have been influenced in a number of
ways by the declaration of moral values within major religions. For example, the Judeo-
Christian tradition has been especially influential in Western countries; Islam has been
influential in the Middle East; Confucianism has been influential in China; and
Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism have been prominent in Asian countries.

2. For many people there are important psychological connections between their moral and
religious beliefs. In particular, religious views often support moral responsibility by
providing additional motivation for being moral. Hence it brings added inspiration to be
moral, even though many people are moral without having religious beliefs. Ducasse
points out that the main social function of religion is to motivate right action which
involves the concept of ethics. Likewise the personal function of the religion is very
important.

3. Religions sometimes set a higher moral standard than is conventional. Many have a
version of virtue ethics that emphasizes particular virtues. For example, the ethics of
Christianity centers on the virtues of hope, faith, and especially love; Judaism emphasizes
the virtue of righteousness; Buddhism emphasizes compassion; Islam emphasizes Ihsan;
and Navajo ethics centers on Hozho (harmony, peace of mind, beauty, health, and well-
being).

a. Of course, sometimes religions set standards below what most of us view as

acceptable moral standards. For example, some religions do not recognize the
equal rights of women, and some treat children in ways that health professionals
see as harmful. In such cases the conflict is not only between secular morality and
religion, but also between other religions or other versions of the given religions.

b. However, considering some of the positive connections between morality and

religion, there is no general conflict between them.

Personal versus Corporate Morality

This is an appropriate place to discuss a tricky issue in engineering ethics: Is there a distinction
between the ethics practiced by an individual and the ethics practiced by a corporation? Put
another way, can a corporation be a moral agent as an individual can? This is a question that is
central to many discussions of business and engineering ethics. If a corporation has no moral
agency, then it cannot be held accountable for its actions, although sometimes individuals within
a company can be held accountable. The law is not always clear on the answer to this question
and can’t be relied upon to resolve the issue.

This dilemma comes most sharply into focus in a discussion of virtue ethics. Can a company
truly be expected to display honesty or loyalty? These are strictly human traits and cannot be
ascribed to a corporation. In the strictest definition of moral agency, a company cannot be a
moral agent, and yet companies have many dealings with individuals or groups of people.
How, then, do we resolve this problem? In their capacity to deal with individuals, corporations
should be considered pseudo-moral agents and should be held accountable in the same way that
individuals are, even if the ability to do this within the legal system is limited. In other words,
with regard to an ethical problem, responsibility for corporate wrongdoing shouldn’t be hidden
behind a corporate mask. Just because it isn’t really a moral agent like a person doesn’t mean
that a corporation can do whatever it pleases. Instead, in its interactions with individuals or
communities, a corporation must respect the rights of individuals and should exhibit the same
virtues that we expect of individuals.

Some insight into how the legal system views the moral status of corporations came in the
Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, handed down in
2010. This case was in response to a federal law that limited the ability of corporations to
contribute money to the campaigns of political candidates. The Supreme Court held that
corporations have a free-speech right to contribute to political campaigns just like individual
citizens do, and that this right was being infringed upon by the federal law. Basically, the court
said that corporations are like individuals and have some of the same rights.

WHICH ETHICAL THEORY IS BEST?

Just as ethical theories are used to evaluate actions, rules, and character, ethical theories can
themselves be evaluated. The ethical theories are attempts to provide clarity and consistency,
systematic and comprehensive understanding, and helpful practical guidance in moral matters.
Sound ethical theories succeed in meeting these aims, because:

- They are clear and coherent.

- They recognize basic moral values in a systematic and comprehensive ways.
- They provide helpful guidance that is compatible with our most carefully considered
moral convictions about concrete situations.

An important role of a sound ethical theory is to improve our moral insight into particular
problems. Hence there is an ongoing checking of an ethical theory against the judgments about
specific situations that we are sure, are correct, and in reverse a checking of our judgments about
specific situations by reference to the ethical theory.

Which of the ethical theories most fully satisfies these criteria? In our view, some versions of
rule-utilitarianism, rights ethics, duty ethics, virtue ethics, and self-realization ethics all satisfy
the criteria in high degrees. We find ourselves more impressed by the similarities and
connections, rather than the differences, among the general types of theories.

Duty ethics and rights ethics differ and virtue ethics needs to be complemented by the other
theories. The community-oriented versions of self-realization ethics can be linked to Kant’s idea
of duties to oneself, Mill’s emphasis on personal liberty, and to the Aristotelian pursuit of
excellence.
Now that we have discussed five different ethical theories, the question arises: How do we
decide which theory is applicable to a given problem? The good news is that in solving ethical
problems, we don’t have to choose from among these theories. Rather, we can use all of them to
analyze a problem from different angles and see what result each of the theories gives us. This
allows us to examine a problem from different perspectives to see what conclusion each one
reaches. Frequently, the result will be the same even though the theories are very different.

Take, for example, a chemical plant near a small city that discharges a hazardous waste into the
groundwater. If the city takes its water from wells, the water supply for the city will be
compromised and significant health problems for the community may result. Rights ethics
indicates that this pollution is unethical, since it causes harm to many of the residents. A
utilitarian analysis would probably also come to the same conclusion, since the economic
benefits of the plant would almost certainly be outweighed by the negative effects of the
pollution and the costs required to ensure a safe municipal water supply. Virtue ethics would say
that discharging wastes into groundwater is irresponsible and harmful to individuals and so
shouldn’t be done. In this case, all of the ethical theories lead to the same conclusion.

What happens when the different theories seem to give different answers? This scenario can be
illustrated by the discussion of WIPP presented previously. Rights ethics indicated that
transporting wastes through communities is not a good idea, whereas utilitarianism concluded
that WIPP would be beneficial to society as a whole. This is a trickier situation, and the answers
given by each of the theories must be examined in detail, compared with each other, and
carefully weighed. Generally, rights and duty ethics should take precedence over utilitarian
considerations. This is because the rights of individuals should receive relatively stronger weight
than the needs of society as a whole. For example, an action that led to the death of even one
person is generally viewed very negatively, regardless of the overall benefit to society. After
thorough analysis using all of the theories, a balanced judgment can be formed.

PROFESSIONAL SUCCESS

Teamwork
Ethical issues can arise when working on projects in groups or teams. Many of your engineering
classes are designed so that labs or projects are performed in groups. Successful performance in a
group setting is a skill that is best learned early in your academic career since most projects in
industry involve working as part of a team.

In order for a project to be completed successfully, cooperation among team members is

essential. Problems can arise when a team member doesn’t do a good job on his part of the
project, doesn’t make a contribution at all, or doesn’t complete his assignments on time. There
can also be a problem when one team member tries to do everything. This shuts out teammates
who want to contribute and learn. An analogy can be made here to team sports: clearly one
individual on the team who is not performing his role can lead to a loss for the entire team.
Equally true, individuals who try to do it all—“ballhogs”—can harm the team. Ethical teamwork
includes performing the part of the work that you are assigned, keeping to schedules, sharing
information with other team members, and helping to foster a cooperative and supportive team
atmosphere so everyone can contribute.

NON-WESTERN ETHICAL THINKING

A detailed understanding of ethical thinking from cultures around the world is well beyond the
scope of this lecture. So we will look at the ethical thinking in a few representative
cultural/religious traditions—Chinese, Indian, Islamic, and Buddhist—and will attempt to see
how these ethical principles influence the ethics of engineering practice in these cultures. In
trying to do this in a few paragraphs, we will of necessity oversimplify ethical traditions that
have developed over centuries, and which are not monolithic, but rather have evolved rich and
varied interpretations and meanings over the centuries as they have matured, and expanded into
new cultural groups. Despite the diversity of origins of ethical philosophy, we will see that the
ethical concepts governing engineering practice are similar regardless of where engineers
practice.

Personal ethics are not determined by geography. Personal and business behavior should be the
same regardless of where you happen to be on a given day. For example, few would find the
expression “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” applicable to personal morality. If you
believe that being deceptive is wrong, certainly it is no less wrong when you are dealing with a
(hypothetical) culture where this behavior is not considered to be bad. Thus, the ethics that we
discuss will be applicable regardless of where you are doing business.

Chinese Ethics
Chinese ethical philosophy originates with the writings of Kongzi, more commonly known in the
West by his Latinized name, Confucius, who lived from 551 to 479 BC in what is now the
southern portion of Shandong province in China. Confucius’ written works reflect a practical
rather than a theoretical approach to moral problems, unlike Western philosophy after Plato that
emphasizes more theoretical thinking. This way of thinking is often called “pre-theoretical.”
Confucian ethics emphasizes the role of ideal character traits. As such, it has much in common
with the Western concept of virtue ethics.

Confucian ethics emphasizes the importance of balancing individual rights with the needs of the
larger community, often expressed through a sense of mutual respect. In trying to balance
individual and group rights, Confucianism emphasizes the fact that this is not an either/or
proposition: either individual rights are paramount or the rights of society as a whole are
paramount. Rather Confucianism emphasizes the interdependence of the group and the
individual. In other words, the individual depends on the group and so must take group concerns
into account, but also the group must recognize its dependence on individuals and must respect
individual rights. In acknowledging this interdependence, Confucianism mirrors the tension
inherent in trying to balance the Western concepts of utilitarianism and rights or duty ethics
[Wong, 2008].
How might Confucian ethics inform our decision making as engineers? First, its emphasis on
virtues and the importance of leading a virtuous life speaks very directly to the engineering
profession especially in terms of integrity, honesty, and other core values of engineers. It also
speaks toward ensuring that we do not harm others by our actions. In its sense of the
interdependence of individual and group rights, Confucianism speaks to the need for engineers to
balance respect for individuals with the needs of society in making design decisions.

Indian Ethics
The philosophical traditions of the Indian subcontinent are the oldest surviving written
philosophical systems in human civilization. Discussing Indian philosophy and Indian ethics are
made very difficult by the diversity and richness of the various cultures that make up the modern
nation of India, each with its own literature and philosophical background. Indian philosophical
and ethical thinking have their origins in the ancient texts known as the Vedas, further developed
through the Upanishads, Jainism, Buddhism, and also expressed in the Bhagavad-Gita. These
ancient traditions continue to inform current philosophical thinking in India, though more
contemporary thinkers such as Tagore, Gandhi, and Nehru have adapted these traditions to the
modern world [Sharma and Daugert, 1965].

Indian philosophy and ethics, like many other non-Western philosophies, focuses less on the
theoretical and intellectual aspects of philosophy, and more on the practical and the spiritual.
“Indian ethics, instead of analyzing the nature of good, lays down practical means of attaining a
life of perfection. . .” [Sharma and Daugert, 1965]. This practical orientation speaks directly to
our interest in ethics; nothing could be more practical than the ethical concerns about human
social behavior. In a very general way, like Chinese ethics, Indian ethical philosophy has much
in common with virtue ethics discussed in Western ethical traditions. For example, “the
Bhagavad-Gita mentions the virtues of non-violence, truth, freedom from anger, renunciation,
tranquility, aversion to fault-finding, compassion to living beings, freedom from greed,
gentleness, modesty, steadfastness, forgiveness, purity, freedom from malice; and excessive
pride, anger, harshness, and ignorance”[ Sharma and Daugert, 1965 ]. These virtues are similar
to those discussed by Western philosophers, and in the same way can be thought of as leading to
good or bad character traits.

How do Indian philosophical and ethical traditions speak to modern engineering practice? The
emphasis on the practical everyday nature of philosophy directly speaks to modern engineers and
engineering practice. In addition, the emphasis on reinforcing virtues and avoiding vices directly
mirrors the language used in modern engineering codes of ethics. Indeed, codes of ethics of
engineering professional societies in India are basically the same as those in Western countries.
Of course, this is partly due to the international nature of the engineering profession, but
certainly also reflects ancient Indian ethical thinking applied to the modern world.

Muslim Ethics
The early Muslim philosophers who formulated the foundations of Muslim ethical thinking were
influenced by the early Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle, whose works had been translated
into Arabic and were available throughout what is now known as the Middle East. So, Muslim
ethics can be considered to be similar to many Western ethical traditions.
Broadly speaking, Muslim ethics have much in common with what Western philosophers refer to
as virtue ethics. For Muslim philosophers, ethics is derived from principles set forth in the
Qur’an. Specific virtues mentioned in the Qur’an are humility, honesty, giving to the poor,
kindness, and trustworthiness. Very clearly honesty and trustworthiness are important virtues for
those practicing a profession such as engineering, and indeed are articulated in the codes of
ethics of the engineering societies in the United States. It’s also not much of a stretch to see how
humility and kindness can be applied to professional practice. The Qur’an also mentions vices
such as boasting, blasphemy, and slander [Donaldson, 1963]. While blasphemy is only
applicable in a religious context, the other two vices do speak to engineering professional
practice. For example, the engineering codes of ethics discuss making accurate and realistic
claims based on available data and prohibit engineers from making false claims about other
engineers.

Thus, it seems that although some of the roots of ethical thinking common in the Islamic world
are different from those in the Western world, the way Islamic ethics impacts engineering
professional practice is the same as that of Western ethics. Indeed, the codes of ethics of
professional engineering societies in the Middle East are similar and frequently overlap those
from the United States.

Buddhist Ethics
Buddhism had its origins between the 6th and 4th centuries BC in India and is based on the
teachings of Siddhartha Guatama also known as Buddha. Buddhist teachings come down to us
through various ancient religious and philosophical writings in Sanskrit, and through subsequent
interpretations and thought regarding these ancient works. Buddhism was very influential outside
of India and is the dominant religious tradition in nations of the Far East such as Japan, China,
Tibet, Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia. In India, Buddhism is less widely practiced today than
are other religious traditions such as Hinduism.

Like other formulations of ethical thinking in non-Western societies, Buddhist ethics can appear
to be similar to the Western concept of virtue ethics. Buddhist’s speak of five major vices:
destruction of life, taking what is not given, licentiousness, lying, and taking intoxicants.
Buddhism also speaks of virtues such as friendship, spiritual development, learning mastery of
skills, filial piety, generosity, diligence, patience, and a sense of proportion or limits. Buddhist
teachings also emphasize the basic equality of mankind, and the interdependence of people on
each other as well as our dependence on nature. Clearly, these virtues and vices have much in
common with the virtue ethics systems developed by Western thinkers [Dharmasiri, 1989].

Equally clear is how many of these virtues and vices speak to our roles in the engineering
profession. For example, the desire to avoid destruction of life tells us that the safety of those
who will use products and structures based on our engineering work is important and closely
parallels the statements in codes of ethics that tell us to keep paramount the health and safety of
the public. Likewise, the Buddhist teachings against the vices of theft and lying have parallels in
the codes of ethics relating to honesty and integrity. We should also examine the role that the
Buddhist virtues of learning, mastery of skills, and diligence have in relation to engineering
practice. The engineering codes of ethics often discuss the importance of continuous
development of an engineer’s skills, and supporting others in developing their skills. It is
interesting to note that many of those involved in the origins of the environmental movement
beginning in the 1970s based their ideas on the Buddhist principals of the sense of limits and
human’s basic interdependence with nature. Thus, the ideas regarding protecting the
environment and sustainable development that appear in the most recent versions of the codes of
ethics of professional engineering societies are similar to ideas found in Buddhist teachings.

Engineering Codes of Ethics in non-Western Countries

Although ethical thinking throughout the world has originated in various ways and has diverse
language and terminology, the results are similar across cultures. How then are the ethical
principles of differing cultures expressed when applied to professional ethics, in general, and
codes of ethics specifically? It seems that the concept of a formal code of ethics is a Western
creation designed to serve the needs of professional communities. However, engineers around
the world have recognized the value of codes of ethics in expressing shared values and ideas on
engineering practice. Indeed, many of the codes of ethics for engineering professional practice
borrow heavily and sometimes even use the exact wording of the codes of ethics of the U.S.
engineering societies. In addition, some of the engineering societies, such as the IEEE, already
have an international reach and their code of ethics is widely recognized and adhered to by
electrical engineers worldwide.