.

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

Engineering Ethics Essay

The need for safety is proportional to the danger of having an accident. Nothing is fool-proof, yet we must try to minimize risks. If the public is solelyowing to run or to wages such risks, who are engineers to ref mathematical function? In my opinion, the above argument is precise valid and it indeed reflects the position of applied science science science science as a fulfil. The basis why I support this argument is because first of all, the advancements the society has been fit to make are due to the milestones that have been achieved by engineers. in that location leave always be a demand for innovation so that liveness may become what the society wants it to be smooth and efficient (Davis, 1998).To fig the establishments which are able to channel about these comforts, we as engineers must prime our practice on the mathematical and physical principles that have been established by empirical research (Baura, 2006). Any measures to safeguard the safety in the use of agreements and devices designed by engineers are constant and dep finale on certain(p) constants and these constants are in turn dependent on external factors. When this range of mountains of determinants fails to hold up, then risks will arise. Nevertheless, it is our craftal responsibility as engineers to bring innovation to the society.Due to unanticipated circumstances, engineering processes or the point of intersections of these processes may malfunction, causing danger to their users or other third parties. But through exhibiting an family family for these processes and increases, the society is virtually signing an agreement to face the associated risks as a issuance of choice and engineers asshole non dissuade them (Davis, 1998). However, all engineers have a part of ensuring that the profession is approached with pains so that the risks emanating from its processes are as low as nates be possible (Davis, 1998).This is our obligation to the society, our conscience and our employers and the profession. That is what makes a holistic engineering practice. Relationship between risk and safety To understand the relationship between risk and safety it is important to first understand the essence and implication of the two terms. Risk in the engineering context can be defined as the probability of an accident arising from an engineering wander or a product of an engineering project (Baura, 2006).Safety on its part can be defined as the state of having a defined degree of certainty that adverse effects or accidents will not result from a process or the use of a specific device or system. With the above definitions in mind, it can be concluded that risk and safety are inversely proportional entities. employ to engineering moral philosophy, their implication is that we as engineers must strive, as a matter of macrocosm professionally satisfactory, to minimize risks as much as can be possible so that safety can be change magnitude (Bau ra, 2006).Risks have m both dimensions in that they can occur in any stage of engineering, raging from design, implementation of the design and in the application of the product of the design (Davis, 1998). The same is translated to safety since the two are mutually interdependent, connect by the rule of inverse proportionality the higher the risks associated with a system or a process, the lesser the safety of the people interacting with it. Determining whether an engineer is accountable for an accidentUnder the unfortunate eventuality that an accident has occurred in an engineering project or in the use of a product or system designed through the engineering process, whether or not an engineer should be held responsible is a matter resolved by examining if he or she stuck by the pre-defined standards of professionalism and ethics (Baura, 2006). This is one of the main concerns of engineering ethics. It is a field in the study and practice of engineering that deals with the cont ext and unilateral enforcement of the standards that govern the practice of engineering as a profession. fit in to these standards, an engineer is supposed to exhibit diligence, morality and high takes of engagement to the process (Rabins, Pritchard & Harris, 2008). When these attri plainlyes are not followed to the letter, safety may be compromised. In skid an accident happens and the engineer in charge of the event or system that caused the accident is found to have diverged from recommended standards of competence, then he or she should be held responsible for the accident (Baura, 2006). As discussed above, all engineering processes always take on some risks no matter how minimal.An accident may occur not because of negligence on the part of the engineer in charge and because of other factors outside his or her control (Davis, 1998). Determining if an engineer is responsible for an accident on that pointfore is a matter of evaluating the circumstances that led to the accide nt. If there is sufficient proof of negligence, then the engineer should be blamed but if all evidence shows that the engineer stuck to the recommended standards of professionalism and ethical responsibility, then he or she should not be blamed (Davis, 1998). It is just part of the risks involved in the job.Standards of due diligence Moral, ethical and professional standards of diligence applying to the practice of engineering are defined for each specific discipline by societies comprised of see engineers. These societies define an elaborate set of standards which an engineer needs to be acquainted(predicate) with and show competence in before he or she is certify to practice. Among these is the National Institute of Engineering ethics (NIEE), the Institute of Electrical and electronic Engineers (IEEE), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (AMSE).In incompatible countries, national societies exist which liaise with the inte rnational societies for easier implementation of these standards of due diligence (Rabins, Pritchard & Harris, 2008). Regulating and enforcing Standards Professional engineers who have garnered sufficient experience in the profession have the moral and professional obligation of inducting graduating engineers to the practice. They, in collaboration with engineering societies and educational institutions should ensure that student engineers are taught engineering ethics as part of the regular curriculum.Upon graduating, engineering students should be made to undertake competence courses and examinations so that the required standards of ethical and professional are ingrained into their conscience before they can be licensed to operate as engineers (Davis, 1998). There should be levels so that an engineer graduates from one level to another depending on experience garnered experience which should be evaluated in terms of his or her level of competence. Practicing licenses should be su spended for engineers who show incompetence in their practice. Competence, Personality and faithGood ( capable) engineers are those who apply the standards of diligence prescribed in the engineering code of ethics. A large(p) (incompetent) engineer is one who does not note value the above standards (Rabins, Pritchard & Harris, 2008). The are parameters (or standards of due diligence) include being knowledgeable, having the skills or expertise necessary for a given task and having the ethical stand to be able to take responsibility for the process itself incase of any unforeseen eventuality (Baura, 2006). A sincere engineer wholeheartedly dedicates his service to his clients, employer and to the society.When all or any of these virtues are missing, then we have a bad engineer. No matter how skilled an engineer may be, he or she can be branded incompetent if he does not stack away ethics into his or her practice. There is a relationship between being a good engineer and being a good mortal since all ethics have a common foundation. Morally competent people are more likely to be professionally competent (Baura, 2006). A person of good character in personal bearing transfers the virtues that define good character into his or her profession.Based on this analogy, good people are likely to make good engineers and vice versa. An several(prenominal)s moral competence can be established by evaluating his or her approach to issues requiring decisiveness and strength of character (Rabins, Pritchard & Harris, 2008). This is when morality and ethics come into play. Morally incompetent people tend to place the end before the means whereas morally competent people exhibit readiness in balancing between their acts and the likely outcomes, putting into consideration the well-being of other people directly or indirectly affected by the issue at hand.Evaluation of an individuals morality is extremely hard since morality is essentially an intrinsic characteristic (Rab ins, Pritchard & Harris, 2008). E truly benevolent being develops a alone(p) moral outlook based on the environment and the experiences that he or she had while growing up. Since these are unique to each individual, no one has the moral right to impose his or her moral values on another (Baura, 2006). Morality can neer be universal, just like knowledge.However, moral evaluations are still very necessary since as human beings and as engineers, we must build a consensus tending to those competencies which can be agreed upon as binding so that we live and practice harmoniously, exhibiting collective social and professional responsibility. References Baura, G. (2006) Engineering Ethics An Industrial Perspective. Burlington, MA Academic Press. Davis, M. (1998). Thinking like an Engineer Studies in the Ethics of a Profession. Oxford Oxford University Press Rabins, M, Pritchard, M. S. & Harris, C. (2008) Engineering Ethics Concepts and Cases. Belmont CengageBrain.

No comments:

Post a Comment