- Can Engineers Hold Public Welfare Paramount
- Whistle blowing Policies
- Codes of Ethics and Moral Education – Luegenbiehl
I chose these 3 articles because they all related somewhat to a justice or social justice in some fashion to either business or engineering in general. The “Can We” article was primarily the ability for engineers to having public paramountcy. The “Code of Ethics” was about the education of engineers and how they could impact the code of ethics. Finally, the Whistle blowing article was about the policies of whistle blowing and how we could both protect the public and the accuser of consequences when blowing the whistle for wrong doing. This tie into morals, social justice, and the revision of the code of ethics in my opinion. My primary focus was on the revision and education of the codes to allow for policies of both risk taking and the promotion of whistle blowing to also promote healthy relationships between business and public.
In “Can we,” was about risk taking and how we can use the safety of the public and the taking of risks together and not have the risks impair our ability to innovate and create new products. In the response, I talked about how I thought that the public interest should be above the business interest. I also talked about how we should be aware of the danger and inform the public if it is a serious danger and that transparency would be key for the solution. This transparency allows trust between public and business. How this could tie in with the other articles is that if we revise and improve the existing code of ethics, maybe there could be a way to making it so engineers could use these evaluated risks. Some innovations may require risks, but if we impair ourselves by restricting us with these risks, some amazing inventions would never be able to come true. Creating some policies for the code of ethics to both allow the safety of both the public and the engineers would be a solution. This policies of risk taking could potentially be incorporated in with the code of ethics. This would allow for regulation and standardizing of these risks and evaluations of risks. Then potentially, or in a perfect world, there would be no grey areas for decisions on what may or may not be to risky. If someone could potentially be in serious danger and there was no obvious oversight, then innovations should be green lighted and allowed to continue development.
In the “Organizational whistle blowing Policies,” the article was about the policies of whistle blowing and how to incorporate the protection of accuser to reduce the risk or consequences of whistle blowing. This would allow for more opportunities to potentially whistle blow and bring unethical problems to light for the public and reduce shady practices. First the article talks about 3 distinct parts when it comes to whistle blowing. The first was access to privileged information. Second, there must be wrong doing within the information, of course, other wise there would not be anything wrong. Third, the accuser must have the goal to bring the wrong doing or shady acts to light or the public. This article was the key article that I thought would tie all the other articles together. The tie being about the policies of the code of ethics and revision of the codes. The policies of whistle blowing could be put into the code of ethics. This would allow and be the solution to that situation where the consequences of whistle blowing prevent the ability to remove the corruption from business. One possible solution that I discussed in my response was the inclusion of anonymity. With computers and technology of today, it could be possible to encrypt data and names and allow for that anonymity. This would allow for users and whistle blowers to be more comfortable in whistle blowing and remove some of the potential consequences and social unrest for whistle blowing.
I chose for my third article to be “Code of ethics and Moral education.” This article was of course, about the code of ethics. That was what I was tying all these articles to in the first place. I was on the other hand using this article for the discussion on education of engineers and effecting the code of ethics. This education of engineers could allow for that revision of the codes to further incorporate those other article positions that I have previous talked about, those being the whistle blowing revisions and revising the codes to allow for controlled risk taking. The article primarily talks about making good moral choices when it comes to ethics and revision of the codes. Luegenbiehl talks about how the codes should be used not as predetermined actions, but with the help of educations, allow for autonomous decision making for specific situations. His specific solution would be to use trial and error until something works out with the codes. This may not be the perfect or right solution, but I think that it is a step in the right direction. My tie to the other articles is about the education for the revision of the code of ethics. If we were to improve on our education to engineers for the future and educate them on the making more informed, ethical, and moral decisions when situations arise. If more education was applied for the code of ethics then the codes might allow for the inclusion of policies for whistle blowing and risk taking.