Professional

Ethics
 Ethics is knowing the
difference between what you
have a right to do and what is
right to do.

Potter Stewart
 Morality and Ethics

Concerns the Morality (Latin Ethics (Greek

goodness of mores) usually ethos) commonly
voluntary human refers to any refers only to
conduct that aspect of human professional
affects the self or action behavior
other living
things
 Engineering Ethics

Black and White Areas Gray Areas Other Factors

Right vs. Wrong Right vs. Right Time/Money
Lesser of the Evils/Dilemma Family
Career
Reputation
Why study ethics?

To Understand the Standards Governing What

is Acceptable Behavior in the Practice of
Engineering

To responsibly confront moral issues raised

by technological activity

To deal with ethical dilemmas in their

professional lives.

Helps professional decide when faced with a

problem that raises a moral issue
 ABET code of Ethics of
01 Engineers

Engineering 02 NSPE Code of Ethics

Ethics Royal Netherlands

03 Society of Engineers
(KIVI) Code of Ethics
Code of Mechanical
04 Engineering Ethics in
the Philippines
 01
ABET Code of
Ethics of
Engineers
 THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and
dignity of the engineering profession by:

I. using their knowledge and III. striving to increase the

skill for the enhancement of competence and prestige of
human welfare; the engineering profession;
II. being honest and impartial, and
and servicing with fidelity the IV. supporting the professional
public, their employers and and technical societies of their
clients; disciplines.
 THE FUNDAMENTAL CANONS

1. Engineers shall hold paramount the 5. Engineers shall build their professional
safety, health and welfare of the public reputation on the merit of their services
in the performance of their professional and shall not compete unfairly with
duties. others.
2. Engineers shall perform services only in 6. Engineers shall act in such a manner as
to uphold and enhance the honor,
the areas of their competence.
integrity and dignity of the profession.
3. Engineers shall issue public statements 7. Engineers shall continue their
only in an objective and truthful manner. professional development throughout
4. Engineers shall act in professional their careers and shall provide
matters for each employer or client as opportunities for the professional
faithful agents or trustees, and shall development of those engineers under
avoid conflicts of interest. their
 02
NSPE Code of
Ethics of
Engineers

Source: https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
 Preamble
Engineering is an important and learned profession. As
members of this profession, engineers are expected to exhibit
the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Engineering
has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all
people. Accordingly, the services provided by engineers
require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be
dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and
welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard of
professional behavior that requires adherence to the highest
principles of ethical conduct.
Source:
https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
 THE FUNDAMENTAL CANONS
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:

1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and 4. Act for each employer or client as faithful
welfare of the public. agents or trustees.
2. Perform services only in areas of their 5. Avoid deceptive acts.
competence. 6. Conduct themselves honorably,
3. Issue public statements only in an responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as
to enhance the honor, reputation, and
objective and truthful manner.
usefulness of the profession.

Source:
https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
 NSPE Code of Ethics includes
the following:

● Rules of Practice
● Professional
Obligations

Source:
https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
 03
THE ROYAL
NETHERLANDS
SOCIETY OF
ENGINEERS
Source:https://www.kivi.nl/uploads/media/5a587110 Code of Ethics
c2160/2018-01%20Code%20of%20Ethics.pdf
 KIVI’s Code of Ethics

1. We shall take into account how our 4. We shall reject bribery and all forms of
technical decisions influence the health corrupt behaviour.
and safety of people and their 5. We shall base our conclusions,
surroundings. We will not hide any recommendation and deals on the most
factors that influence the safety of current and available information.
6. We shall maintain and enhance our
society and the environment.
technical competence. We are familiar
2. We shall alert stakeholders where real with our own limitations and we shall
or perceived conflicts of interest may make others aware of these limitations
occur of our services.
3. We shall contribute to clear 7. We shall mention the resources that
communication in reference to technical have contributed to our publications,
products and technologies with regard reports, and all other components of our
to the application and possible negative engineers work. We are open to
effects. feedback and recommendations of
others.
 KIVI’s Code of Ethics

8. We shall respect the cultural values and inhabitants of the countries we work in.
9. We shall promote a professional environment where everyone feels safe, and where
diversity and inclusion in all its forms are embraced and where our differences are valued
and respected.
10. We shall strive for a healthy development and practice of the engineering work in all it’s
components through loyal and open co-operation.

Source:https://www.kivi.nl/uploads/media/5a587110
c2160/2018-01%20Code%20of%20Ethics.pdf
 04
Code of
Mechanical
Engineering Ethics
in the Philippines
Source:
https://psme.org.ph/page/code_me_ethics_ph
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Rule 1. The mechanical engineer shall, in the Rule 3. The mechanical engineer shall update
practice of his profession, be governed by the and enhance constantly his professional
Golden Rule, the ideals of service to man and knowledge and skills through assiduous
his environment, and the indispensability of research and study, and meaningful
unwavering public confidence in his participation in continuing education
programs and seminars conducted or
professional competence, integrity and
authorized by the Philippine Society of
humanity. Mechanical Engineers or educational
institutions supervised by the State.
Rule 2. The mechanical engineer shall
maintain the proper pride for his profession, Rule 4. The ethical principle governing the
observe the standards of professional mechanical engineer applies equally to
practice, safeguard the dignity, welfare, and partnerships, firms and entities organized and
reputation of his colleagues in the existing for the practice of mechanical
professions, and fulfill his duties and engineering.
obligations as a citizen of the Republic of the
Philippines.
CASE STUDIES
 USE OF ALLEGED HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
IN A PROCESSING FACILITY (Case No. 99-11)

Facts: Engineer A is a graduate engineer in a

company’s manufacturing facility that uses
toxic chemicals in its processing operations.
Engineer A’s job has nothing to do with the
use and control of these materials.

Source: Schwartz, 2014

 USE OF ALLEGED HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
IN A PROCESSING FACILITY (Case No. 99-11)

A chemical called "Mega X" is used at the site. Recent stories in

the news have reported alleged immediate and long-term
human genetic hazards from inhalation of or other contact with
Mega X.
The news items are based on findings from laboratory
experiments, which were done on mice, by a graduate student
at a well-respected university’s physiology department. Other
scientists have neither confirmed nor refuted the experimental
findings. Federal and local governments have not made official
pronouncements on the subject.

Source: Schwartz, 2014

 USE OF ALLEGED HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
IN A PROCESSING FACILITY (Case No. 99-11)
Several colleagues outside of the company have approached
Engineer A on the subject and ask Engineer A to "do something"
to eliminate the use of Mega X at the processing facility.
Engineer A mentions this concern to her manager who tells
Engineer A, "Don't worry, we have an Industrial Safety Specialist
who handles that."

Two months elapse and Mega X is still used in the factory. The
controversy in the press continues, but since there is no further
scientific evidence pro or con in the matter, the issues remain
unresolved. The use of the chemical in the processing facility
has increased and now more workers are exposed daily to the
substance than was the case two months ago.
Source: Schwartz, 2014
 USE OF ALLEGED
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IN
A PROCESSING FACILITY
(Case No. 99-11)

Does Engineer A
have an
obligation to take
further action
under the
facts and
 Section II. Rules of Practice
II.1 II.1.a
Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, If engineers' judgment is overruled under
health, and welfare of the public. circumstances that endanger life or
property, they shall notify their employer or
client and such other authority as may be
appropriate.

Conclusion: Engineer A has no obligation to

take further action under the facts and
circumstances.
 USE OF ALLEGED
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IN
A PROCESSING FACILITY
(Case No. 99-11)
While engineers have an ethical
obligation to hold paramount the
POLL
public health and safety, it their
judgment is overruled by a QUESTION
management superior, the
engineer must yield to the
decision and not pursue the
matter further.
● Agree
● Disagree
● Not Sure
 PUBLIC WELFARE – BRIDGE STRUCTURE
(Case No. 00-5)

Facts: Engineer A was an engineer with a

local government. Engineer A learned about
a critical situation involving a bridge 280 feet
long, 30 feet above the stream. This bridge
was a concrete deck on wood piles built in
the 1950's by the state. It was part of the
secondary roadway system given to the
counties many years ago.

Source: Schwartz, 2014

 PUBLIC WELFARE – BRIDGE STRUCTURE
(Case No. 00-5)

In June 2000, Engineer A received a telephone call from the

bridge inspector stating this bridge needed to be closed due to
the large number of rotten piling. Engineer A had barricades
and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon.
Residents in the area were required to take a 10-mile detour.
On the following Monday, the barricades were in the river and
the “Bridge Closed” sign was in the trees by the roadway. More
permanent barricades and signs were installed. The press
published photos of some of the piles that did not reach the
ground and the myriad of patch work over the years.

Source: Schwartz, 2014

 PUBLIC WELFARE – BRIDGE STRUCTURE
(Case No. 00-5)
Within a few days, a detailed inspection report prepared by a
consulting engineering firm, signed and sealed, indicated seven
pilings required replacement. Within three weeks, Engineer A
had obtained authorization for the bridge to be replaced.
Several departments in the state and federal transportation
departments needed to complete their reviews and tasks before
the funds could be used.
A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200
signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic
was presented to the County Commission. Engineer A explained
the extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace
the bridge. The County Commission decided not to reopen the
bridge.
Source: Schwartz, 2014
 PUBLIC WELFARE – BRIDGE STRUCTURE
(Case No. 00-5)
Preliminary site investigation studies were begun.
Environmental, geological, right-of-way, and other studies were
also performed. A decision was made to use a design build
contract to avoid a lengthy scour analysis for
the pile design.
A non-engineer public works director decided to have a retired
bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge,
and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the
bridge and to open the bridge with a 5-ton limit. No follow-up
inspection was undertaken.

Source: Schwartz, 2014

 PUBLIC WELFARE – BRIDGE STRUCTURE
(Case No. 00-5)
Engineer A observes that traffic is flowing and the movement of
the bridge is frightening. Log trucks and tankers cross it on a
regular basis. School buses go around it.

Source: Schwartz, 2014

 PUBLIC WELFARE – BRIDGE
STRUCTURE
(Case No. 00-5)

What is Engineer
A’s ethical
obligation under
these
circumstances?
 Section II. Rules of Practice
II.1 II.1.f

Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, Engineers having knowledge of any
health, and welfare of the public. alleged violation of this Code shall report
thereon to appropriate professional
bodies and, when relevant, also to public
authorities, and cooperate with the proper
II.1.a authorities in furnishing such information
or assistance as may be required.
If engineers' judgment is overruled under
circumstances that endanger life or
property, they shall notify their employer or
client and such other authority as may be
appropriate.
 III. Professional Obligations
Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of
III.8.a engineering.

Conclusion: Engineer A should take immediate steps to go to Engineer A’s

supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this is
ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the
state engineering licensure board the director of public works,
county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate.
Engineer A should also work with the consulting engineering firm to determine if
the two crutch pile with five-ton limit design solution would be effective and report
this information to his supervisor. In addition, Engineer A should determine
whether a basis exists for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector
to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
 PUBLIC WELFARE – BRIDGE
STRUCTURE
(Case No. 00-5)
Under no circumstances would it
have been ethical for Engineer A
POLL
to go directly to the media
to report his personal and QUESTION
professional concerns
regarding the potential collapse
of the bridge.
● Yes
● No
● Not Sure
Suggested readings / Films
YT - Engineering Ethics: Crash Course Engineering #27
YT - Engineering Ethics and Difficult Decision Making | Justine Metz |
TEDxCSM
YT - Engineering Ethics
YT - Engineering Ethics (Case Studies)
● Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster: Ethics Case Study No. 1
● Piper Alpha: Ethics Case Study No. 2
● Spiro Agnew: Ethics Case Study No. 3
● Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse: Ethics Case Study No. 4
YT - Engineering Ethics: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
YT - Engineering Ethics: Social Equity
YT - Engineering Ethics: Competence
References
Schwartz, Arthur E., 2014, Key Concepts in Engineering Ethics: Protecting the Public
Health and Safety & Demonstrating Professional Competence