Ethical engineering work 5

[BigInch]

In a discussion in another forum I mentioned that I had recently decided not to work on a particular project as I was not convinced of its environmental soundness (locating an NGL plant on supposedly sensitive island when pleanty of space is available only a short distance to the mainland). One response was more or less of a nature suggesting, why not, money is nice". While I would generally agree that money is nice, surely there must be some limits in engineering work. Many nuclear scientists stopped working on certain projects in history, because it didn't fit into their view of the world's future. Is there an ethical limit to engineering work?

I'm curious about how other engineers view my decision and if they can envision themselves taking a similar decision based on environmental soundness, or some other reason. Is there a project that would cross your line and what might it be?

**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[btrueblood]

"...perhaps depending on where you live. Although I don't understand the last part very much."

BigInch, I don't understand. Is this in reference to Indians in slaughterhouses (cultural ethics/mores being different across cultures), or a reference to American engineers whose country has not yet signed a weapons treaty?

I guess if the latter, I would counter that it cuts both ways: if a (for instance) New Zealand engineer claimed he'd never worked on a cluster munition, it would be less of a big deal to me than if a Yankee claimed the same thing. One has more or less had the moral issue decided for him by geography or citizenship, the other has/had to make a concious moral decision.

I am sure that the cluster bomb treaty is being discussed by the various interest parties within the USA. I am not sure which way I personally lean on the matter of the US signing the treaty, but see no problems if it does, given the weasel wording that I pointed out. Signing the treaty would obsolete a (I think) huge pile of older type munitions that the US has had in storage since the '60s, and their destruction would not bother me in the least, both because it would be a good thing to get rid of the nasty things (even if replaced by the newer, more accurate, less persistent munitions), but also because it would keep the MIC alive and kicking, and my neighbors/friends/family working.

Would I work in a plant, today, making the older style munitions, or worse, persistent land mines, say, to try and get a few more dollars before the treaty got ratified? Not likely, both for the moral reasons, but also because I'd know I'd likely be looking for work again too soon.

FWIW, I am proud of you for walking away from a possibly well-paid job because you didn't like the possible environmental impacts. I hope you spoke up about your reasons to the hiring manager...maybe if enough small voices were raised y'all could be heard. Or, maybe one small voice (yours?) in the right political ear...

 

[patprimmer]

To my mind:-

Ethics are about doing what you believe is right.

Morals are about doing what you believe is right.

I can't spot the difference.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[BigInch]

Nothing specific. The location reference was to no country in particular. Could be US for a Cuban project, Syria for a project in Israel, anywhere for nuclear materials for Iran or NKorea. Any country that has prohibited commercial or military cooperation or maintains sanctions of some kind against another.

**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[stevenal]

Perhaps a couple examples may help. Many of us might consider it immoral to help a criminal avoid the consequences of his actions. A lawyer assigned to defend such a criminal is obligated by his code of ethics to do just that.

Many of us would consider it moral to assist in a state execution in order to ensure the act was done as humanely as possible. Medical ethics, though, forbid doctors to assist in any way; even though the execution will proceed regardless.

Ethics is not simply a personnal decision. What we believe individually may may not be so important. We are likely to sit in judgement by our peers for our ethical lapses.

 

[BigInch]

Good examples of the difference Steve.

**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[KENAT]

I was a member of the relevant society in the UK, part of the career path toward being chartered, and I don't clearly recall any code of ethics. In fact, many of the society seminars etc. were about weapons and they had working groups specializing in that area and so on.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[IRstuff]

Well, doesn't that go along with the notion, "Guns don't kill, people do" i.e., it's not unethical to build weapons, it's unethical to use weapons indiscriminately.

Seems to be well within the putative position of the NRA.

I think that the dividing line, at least in defense circles, is whether the collateral damage from the deployment of a weapon has been reasonably mitigated. However, even there, the issue is more related to the bad PR that we would get, as opposed to the death and suffering incurred.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[stevenal]

http://www.engc.org.uk/ecukdocuments/internet/document library/Statement_of_Ethical_Principles.pdf

So in the UK it is not the "public" safety that is paramount, it is the safety of "others."

No surprise that members work on weaponry. Same in the USA. Just not sure how this fits with the code.

 

[KENAT]

Just checked out my old societies website and about the only relevant thing relating to ethics I found was:

"Manage and apply safe systems of work"

The only date mentioned was after I'd joined the society, but I hadn't got as far as being chartered yet so maybe it would have come up then.

However, I don't see the above being a conflict with designing weapons systems.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[IRstuff]

Well, we could probably argue the finer points of the code, ad naseum. Note however, that "ensure that all work is lawful and justified" has comparable importance with "hold paramount the health and safety of others." These, however, are conflicting requirements in weaponry. One can take the obvious way out, and not work on weapons, and there would be no conflict.

One could, however, tread the fine line. In my particular line of weaponry, it's ethical to kill an opponent outright, but not OK to maim or blind them, even if they are going to die 40 seconds later. It is a curious line, though.

That basic line would hold that weaponry in a "lawful and justified" conflict would perforce be required to kill the opponent, but that the death of innocent bystanders ought to be minimized to the maximum extent possible or feasible.



TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[ScottyUK]

For any conventional war fought between nations and within the boundaries set by the Geneva Convention then blinding and maiming weapons are very difficult to defend as 'acceptable'. Once the enemy decides that the rules include blowing up passenger trains and using airliners to knock down skyscrapers then as far as I'm concerned the enemy can be burned, blinded, gassed or nuked with absolute justification.


----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!

 

[KENAT]

However, in those types of conflicts identifying the 'enemy' is usually problematic. Even I wouldn't want to wantonly burn, blind... a bunch of Afghan villagers to get a few suspected insurgents for instance.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[ScottyUK]

I totally agree Kenat: innocent parties are innocent, whether they live in Afghanistan or London or New York. On the other hand pumping poison gas into Osama's Tora Bora cave hideout wouldn't keep me awake very long at all.

It will be interesting to see what happens if Putin delivers on his threat to 'break the spine' of terrorism after the attack on the Russian train. After seeing the size of the force deployed against Georgia the Chechens must be expecting little mercy when the Red Army arrives.


----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!

 

[IRstuff]

I wasn''t referring to blinding civilians, only opposing combatants. There was, at one point in time, concern about the 1064-nm laser designators used for laser guided munitions being non-eyesafe. So, picture this
> I see a tank
> I designate it
> The tank driver looks up and is blinded
> 25 seconds later, the munition kills the driver and the tank

This was somehow interpreted to be unacceptable. There's still great desire to develop an eye-safe laser designator in the defense industry.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[BigInch]

Sounds good. Keep working on it. The higher level of immediate medical care and increased rate of survival experienced in warfare these days would make that very relevant.

**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[PeterStock]

An eye save laser would be useful for when you paint a friendly.

Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services

http://www.infotechpr.net

 

[KENAT]

I knew what you were talking about IRstuff. Of a more practical concern, if the lasers aren't eye-safe it can limit where you can train with them. People don't like their own airforce flying around potentially zapping them with lazers that could blind.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​