UNIT –II ENGINEERING ETHICS

Syllabus: Senses of 'Engineering Ethics' - variety of moral issues - types of inquiry - moral
dilemmas - moral autonomy - Kohlberg's theory - Gilligan's theory - consensus and
controversy – Models of Professional Roles - theories about right action - Self-interest -
customs and religion - uses of ethical theories.

SENSES OF ‘ENGINEERING ETHICS’

The word ethics has different meanings but they are correspondingly related to each
other. In connection with that, Engineering ethics has also various senses which are related
to one another.

Comparison of the senses of Ethics and Engineering Ethics

Ethics Engineering Ethics

1. Ethics is an activity which concerns 1. Like the ethics, engineering ethics

with making investigations and also aims at knowing moral values
knowing about moral values, finding related to engineering, finding
solutions to moral issues and accurate solutions to the moral
justifying moral issues and justifying problems in engineering and
moral judgments. justifying moral judgments of
engineering.

2. Ethics is a means of contrasting moral

questions from non-moral problems. 2. Engineering Ethics gives a total view
of the moral problems and how to
solve these issues specifically related
3. Ethics is also used as a means of to engineering field.
describing the beliefs, attitudes and
habits related to an individual‟s or
group‟s morality. Eg. : Ethics given 3. Engineering ethics is also using some
in the Bhagavat Gita or the Bible or currently accepted codes and
the Quran. standards which are to be followed by
group of engineers and engineering
societies.
4. As per the definition of dictionaries –
„moral principles‟ is about the actions
and principles of conduct of the 4. Engineering ethics also concerns with
people. i.e. ethical or unethical. discovering moral principles such as
obligation, rights and ideals in
engineering and by applying them to
take a correct decision.

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
 From these senses of Engineering ethics, one can realize that it is the study of
morality.

What is morality?

The term „morality‟ concerns with (a) what ought or ought not to be done in a given
situation, (b) what is right or wrong in handling it, (c) what is good or bad about the persons,
policies and principles involved in it.

If an action is said to be morally right or a principle is said to be morally good, then

they are said to be had some moral reasons in supporting it.

Moral reasons include respecting others and ourselves, respecting the rights of others,
keeping promises, avoiding unnecessary problems to others and avoiding cheating and
dishonesty, showing gratitude to others and encourage them to work.

So, if an engineering decision is said to be a good one, it has to meet out all the
specifications. These specifications must be covered both the technical and the moral
specifications such as safety of the product, reliability, easy maintenance and the product
should be user-friendly with environment.

VARIETY OF MORAL ISSUES

There are so many engineering disasters which are greater / heavier than the level of
acceptable or tolerable risk. Therefore, for finding and avoiding such cases such as nuclear
plant accident at Chernobyl (Russia), Chemical plant at Bhopal (India) where a big disaster of
gas leakage, occurred in 1980, which caused many fatal accidents. In the same way, oil spills
from some oil extraction plants (the Exxon Valdez plant), hazardous waste, pollution and
other related services, natural disasters like floods, earth quake and danger from using
asbestos and plastics are some more cases for engineering disasters. These fields should be
given awareness of engineering ethics. Hence, it is essential for engineers to get awareness on
the above said disasters. They should also know the importance of the system of engineering.

When malfunction of the system is a rapid one, the disaster will be in greater extent
and can be noticed immediately. When they ate slow and unobserved, the impact is delayed.
So, the engineers should not ignore about the functions of these systems.

These cases also explain and make the engineers to be familiar with the outline of the
case in future and also about their related ethical issues.

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
Approaches to Engineering Ethics:
i. Micro-Ethics: This approach stresses more about some typical and everyday problems
which play an important role in the field of engineering and in the profession of an
engineer.
ii. Macro-Ethics: This approach deals with all the social problems which are unknown
and suddenly burst out on a regional or national level.

So, it is necessary for an engineer to pay attention on both the approaches by having a
careful study of how they affect them professionally and personally. The engineers
have to tolerate themselves with the everyday problems both from personal and
societal point of view.

Where and How do Moral Problems arise in Engineering?

Any product or project has to undergo various stages such as planning, idea, design,
and manufacturing which is followed by testing, sales and services. This has to be done by
engineers of various branches like Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, Chemical etc. These
engineers may be grouped together as a team or they may be separated from each other with
an interconnection or co-ordination.

Inspite of the engineers‟ full attention and care, sometimes the product or project may
be unsafe or less useful. This may be due to some reasons 1) The product or project may be
designed for early obsolescence or 2) due to under pressure because of running out of time,
budgetary etc or 3) by ignorance on the size of the project, or 4) because of the large number
of a products sold on the mass market, people may be affected.

Some cases with which different areas covered by engineering ethics:

1. An inspector finds a faulty part in the manufacture of a machine, which prevents the
use of that machine for a longer period. But his superior, takes this as a minor mistake
and orders that the faulty part to be adjusted so that the delay in the process has to be
avoided. But the inspector doesn‟t want this and so he is threatened by the supervisor.

2. An electronic company applies for a permit to start a Nuclear Power Plant. When the
licensing authority comes for visit, they enquire the company authorities on the
emergency measures that have been established for safety of the surroundings. The
engineers inform them about the alarm system and arrangements have been made in
local hospitals for the treatment of their employees and they have no plan for the
surrounding people. They also inform that it is the responsibility of the people.

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
3. A Yarn Dyeing company which dumps its wastes in the nearby river. It causes heavy
damage to the people those who are using the river. The plant engineers
are aware of this, but they do not change the disposal method because their competitors also
doing similarly as it happens to be a cheaper. They also say that it is the responsibility of the
local government.

The above given examples clearly explain how the ethical problems arise most often
because of wrong judgments and expectations of engineers. These necessitate for
establishing some codes of conduct which has to be imposed on engineers‟ decisions on
the basis of ethical view.

TYPES OF INQUIRY

Inquiry means an investigation. Like general ethics, Engineering ethics also involves
investigations into values, meaning and facts. These inquiries in the field of Engineering
ethics are of three types.

1. Normative Inquiries
2. Conceptual Inquiries
3. Factual or Descriptive Inquiries

Normative Inquiries

These inquiries are mostly helpful to identify the values which guide the individuals
and groups in taking a decision. These are meant for identifying and justifying some norms
and standards of morally desirable nature for guiding individuals as well as groups. In most of
the cases, the normative questions are given below:

1. How do the obligations of engineers protect the public safety in given situations?
2. When should an engineer have to alarm their employers on dangerous practices?
3. Where are the laws and organizational procedures that affect engineering practice on
moral issues?
4. Where are the moral rights essential for engineers to fulfill their professional
obligations?

From these questions, it is clear that normative inquiries also have the theoretical goal
of justifying moral judgments.

Conceptual Inquiries

These are meant for describing the meaning of concepts, principles, and issues related

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
to Engineering Ethics. These inquiries also explain whether the concepts and ideas are
expressed by single word or by phrases. The following are some of the questions of
conceptual inquiries:
1. What is the safety and how it is related to risk?
2. What does it mean when codes of ethics say engineers should protect the safety,
health and welfare of the public?
3. What is a „bribe‟?
4. What is a „profession‟ and „professional‟?

Factual / Descriptive Inquiries

These help to provide facts for understanding and finding solutions to value based
issues. The engineer has to conduct factual inquiries by using scientific techniques. These
help to provide information regarding the business realities such as engineering practice,
history of engineering profession, the effectiveness of professional societies in imposing
moral conduct, the procedures to be adopted when assessing risks and psychological profiles
of engineers. The information about these facts provide understanding and background
conditions which create moral problems. These facts are also helpful in solving moral
problems by using alternative ways of solutions.

These types of inquiries are said to be complementary and interrelated. Suppose an

engineer wants to tell a wrong thing in an engineering practice to his superiors, he has to
undergo all these inquiries and prepare an analysis about the problem on the basis of moral
values and issues attached to that wrong thing. Then only he can convince his superior.
Otherwise his judgment may be neglected or rejected by his superior.

MORAL DILEMMAS

Why study engineering ethics?

Engineering ethics is not only teaching moral behaviour in knowing about immoral
and amoral in a set of beliefs, but also increasing the ability of engineers and other
professionals to face boldly with the moral problems arising from technological
advancements, changes and other related activities. This can be possible be imparted among
the engineers, only through college courses, seminars, etc. which are involved individual
study.

Moral Dilemmas

Dilemmas are certain kind of situations in which a difficult choice has to be made.
Moral dilemmas can also be called moral problems. Moral dilemmas have two or more

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
foldings - moral obligations, duties, rights, goods or ideals come into disagreement with each
other. One moral principle can have two or more conflicting applications for a particular
given situation. Moral dilemmas can be occurred in so many ways. For example, suppose one
gives a promise to his friend that he will meet him on the evening of a particular day, but
unfortunately on the same day his brother has met with an accident and he has to take him to
hospital. The dilemma here consists of a conflict between the duty to keep promise and
obligations to his brother. In this situation, to solve his moral problem, he can make a phone
call to his friend and make apology for his inability to come. So, from the above it is clear that
the duty to keep promise always has two different and conflicting applications.

The moral dilemmas cannot easily be addressed or resolved always. It requires an

elaborate searching which sometimes causing extreme suffering and reflection of a situation.
The modern engineering practice compels that all the engineers have to face boldly about the
moral dilemmas in their careers.

To find a simple and clear solution to the moral problems in the field of engineering,
there must be some provision to allocate time to for learning ethics in engineering courses.
But at the same time, it should not be ignored in the following three categories of complex
and gloomy moral situations:

The Problem of Vagueness

The problem of vagueness is related to individuals. The individuals may not know
how to moral considerations or principles in resolving a moral problem at a particular
situation. For example, an engineer in a higher position of a company, is responsible and
having the sole right to make purchases on his own and behalf of the company. There may be
many suppliers for supplying materials. In this situation, a sales representative from one of the
suppliers approaches him with a moderating gift. In this case, the engineer may have some
doubts like (i) Whether this is an acceptance of a bribe? (ii) Does it create a conflict of interest?
The solution is only with that engineer. He can also discuss with his colleagues about the
problem. The colleague may find the solution on the basis of previous experiences, - it may
not be a kind of bribe, but at the same time it should not be encouraged in future because there
is the possibility of supplying substandard materials. It is difficult to arrive at the conclusion
whether the gift is an innocent amenity or an unacceptable bribe.

The problems of Conflicting reasons

These occur more frequently. In a difficult situation of a moral problem, an individual

may clearly know about what moral principle has to be applied to resolve the problem. When
it arises, there are two or more principles with clear solutions lead into conflict with one

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
another or one particular moral principle. Simultaneously there can be of two different
directions. In this case, that individual has to choose a better one among them on the basis of
the importance and the applicability. For example, an engineer has given a promise to his
employer and another one to a colleague. If it is difficult to fulfill both the promises, he can
drop off one promise which is of least importance. If he explains the situations to his
colleagues, it can be understood.

The problems of disagreement

The individuals and groups in engineering companies may disagree with resolving
moral problems in difficult situations. The disagreement will be normally about how to
interpret, apply and balance the moral problems. In this situation they have to use the
following steps to resolve the problems.

Steps / Procedures in facing / confronting moral dilemmas

All the above said three problems pave the way for the need of several steps in
resolving the moral dilemmas. All the steps are interrelated and they can also be used jointly.

1) Identifying the relevant moral factors and reasons: i.e. Finding solutions for (i) the
conflicting responsibilities (ii) the competing rights and (iii) the clashing ideals
involved.
2) Collecting and gathering all the available facts which are relevant to the moral factors
while resolving.
3) Ranking the moral considerations or principles on the basis of importance as
applicable to the situation. But sometimes it is not possible when the objective is to
find a way to meet equally urgent responsibilities and to promote equally important
ideals.
4) Considering alternative courses of action for resolving the problems and tracing the
full implications of each. i.e. conducting factual inquiries.
5) Having talked with the colleagues, friend about the problem getting their suggestions
and alternative ideas on resolving that dilemma and
6) Arriving at a careful and reasonable judgment or solution by taking into consideration
of all important moral factors and reasons on the basis of the facts or truths. But it
seems to be difficult.

To conclude, only the study of Engineering Ethics can help in developing the skills
and attitudes to follow the above steps in resolving a moral problem among the engineers
and other professionals by means of case studies, class room discussions and debating.

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
MORAL AUTONOMY

Meaning and Causes

Autonomy means self-governing or self-determining i.e act independently. Moral

autonomy means the right or the wrong conduct which is of independent on ethical issues. It
deals with the improvement of an individual‟s moral thoughts which make hi to adopt good
habits. Moral autonomy is concerned with the independent attitude of a person related to
ethical issues. It helps to improve the self-determination among the individuals.

The need for moral autonomy in the field of engineering ethics

The objectives of engineering ethics are not related to implanting particular moral
beliefs on engineers. In other way they help the engineers and other professionalists to
strength their professional values such as honesty, respect the colleagues and think for the
welfare of the general public. Though the above said values have been already in the minds of
the engineers, engineering ethics helps to improve these qualities in a better manner among
the engineers, and not inculcating newly. The structural objective of engineering ethics is to
be enable the individuals to understand the moral responsibilities in a clear and careful
manner. So, the main aim of studying engineering ethics is to increase the moral autonomy
within him.

Moral autonomy is a skill and habit of thinking ethical problems in a rational manner.
These ethical issues are to be found out on the basis of moral problems. These general
responsiveness of moral values are derived only from the training what we have received as a
child with response to the sensitive and right of others and ourselves. Suppose the training is
not given in the childhood itself, those children may be ill-treated or neglected by the society.
These children in future may grow up with lack of senses on moral issues and they become as
sociopaths. They are never morally autonomous. They won‟t regret for their mistakes and
wrong doings.

These moral concerns can be initiated or imparted among the engineers, mainly
engineers of various subjects and also by the way of their friends, or by social events
occurring around them or by books and movies. So the main aim of all the courses of Applied
Ethics is only to improve their abilities in order to face the moral issues critically. This can
only be achieved by improving the practical skills which are helping in producing effective
independent or self-determination thoughts among the individuals about the moral problems.

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
Skills for improving moral autonomy
1. The engineers must have the competence for identifying the moral problems and ethical
issues related to the field of engineering – they must have the ability to distinguish and
relate these moral problems with the problems of law, economics, religions principles
etc. They must possess the skills of understanding, clarifying and assessing the
arguments which are against the moral issues.

2. They must have the ability to suggest the solutions to moral issues, on the basis of
facts. These suggestions must be consistent and must include all the aspects of the
problem.
3. They must have the imaginative skill to view the problems from all view points and
also be able to suggest a proper alternative solution.
4. They must be able to tolerate while giving moral judgments and decisions which may
cause trouble. i.e. they have to understand the difficulties in making moral decisions.

5. They must have adequate knowledge and understanding about the use of ethical
language so as to defend or support their views with others.
6. They must have some better knowledge in understanding the importance of
suggestions and better solutions while resolving moral problems and also about the
importance of tolerance on some critical situations.
7. They must understand the importance of maintaining the moral honesty i.e. the
personal convictions and beliefs and individual‟s professional life must be integrated.
They must have this skill of doing so.

Conclusion

From the above decisions on moral autonomy, we can conclude that moral autonomy
helps an engineer to increase his moral outlook in an appreciable manner. It also helps him to
be morally responsible in his daily activities.

KOHLBERG’S THEORY

Moral Autonomy is based on the psychology of moral development. The first

psychological theory was developed by Jean Piaget. On the basis of Piaget‟s theory, Lawrence
kohlberg developed three main levels of moral development which is based on the kinds of
reasoning and motivation adopted by individuals with regard to moral questions.

The Pre Conventional Level

It is nothing but self-centered attitude. In this level, right conduct is very essential for

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
an individual which directly benefits him. According to this level,individuals are motivated by
their willingness to avoid punishment, or by their desire to satisfy their own needs or by the
influence of the power exerted by them. This level is related to the moral development of
children and some adults who never want to go beyond a certain limit.

The Conventional Level

The level deals with the respect for conventional rules and authority. As per this level
the rules and norms of one‟s family or group or society has been accepted as the final standard
of morality. These conventions are regarded as correct, because they represent with authority.
When individuals are under this level, always want to please/satisfy others and also to meet
the expectations of the society and not their self-interest. Loyalty and close identification with
others have been given much importance. No adult tries to go beyond this level.

The Post Conventional Level

This level is said to be attained when an individual recognizes the right and the wrong
on the basis of a set of principles which governing rights and the general good which are not
based on self-interest or social conventions. These individuals are called “autonomous”,
because they only think for themselves and also they do not agree that customs are always
correct. They want to live by general principles which are universally applied to all people.
They always want to maintain their moral integrity, self-respect and the respect for other
autonomous peoples.

Kohlberg‟s theory of moral development is very much related to the goals of studying
ethics at college level. To become morally responsible, an individual must be able and willing
to undergo with moral reasoning. Moral responsibility comes out of the foundation of early
moral training given by an individual‟s parents and culture. This early training helps to
complete the above said three levels of moral development by an individual.

As per Kohlberg‟s view only few people would reach the post conventional level
which is based on assumption that movement towards autonomous is morally desirable.

GILLIGAN’S THEORY

Gilligan’s argument

Caorl Gilligan was one of the students of Kohlberg. She criticizes Kohlberg‟s theory
on the basis of approached made by both male and female towards morality. On the basis of

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
her studies and researches, she criticizes Kohlberg‟s theory which is only based on male bias
and his studies are of typically male preoccupation with general rules and rights.

She also suggest that men are always more interested in resolving moral dilemmas by
applying some most important moral rules. But women always want to keep up the personal
relationship with all those involved in a situation and they always give attention only on the
circumstances responsible for that critical situation and not on general moral rules.

She also states that Kohlberg‟s theory is only on ethics of rules and rights. But her
theory is known as ethics of care. i.e. context oriented emphasis required to maintain the
personal relationship.

Levels of Moral Development

Gilligan recasts Kohlberg‟s three levels of moral development on the basis of her own
studies of women, as follows:

The Pre-Conventional Level

This is more over the same as Kohlberg‟s first level i.e. Right conduct is a selfish
thing as solely one what is good for oneself.

The Conventional Level

This level differs from Kohlberg‟s second level. According to her, women don‟t want
to hurt others and want to help others i.e. women always want to give up their interests in
order to help the others to fulfill their needs.

The Post Conventional Level

This level is also differed from Kohlberg‟s level. In this level, individual (particularly
women) want to balance between caring about other people and their interests. The main aim
here is to balance an individual‟s needs with those of others on the basis of mutual caring.
This can be achieved only through context-oriented reasoning and not by abstract rules.

Heinz‟s Dilemma

Gilligan‟s criticism on the Kohlberg‟s theory can be made very clear with the help of a
famous example used by Kohlberg in his questionaries and interviews. This is called Heinz‟s

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
Dilemma.
This example was about a woman and Heinz, her husband living in Europe. The
woman was affected by cancer. The doctors told her to use an expensive drug to save her life.
The pharmacist who also invented that medicine charged ten times the cost of making the
drug. Besides his poverty, Heinz took a lot of effort to borrow money, but he could get only
half of the amount needed. He approached to the pharmacist and begged him to sell the
medicine at a cheaper price or allow him to pay for it later. But the pharmacist refused to do
so. Finally, without any hope, Heinz forcibly entered into the pharmacy and stolen the drug.
The question here is “Was the theft morally right or wrong?”

By asking this question among the male, Kohlberg has received two sets of answers:
One is based on the conventional level i.e. Heinz did a wrong thing. Another one is based on
the post conventional level i.e,Heinz was correct as the life of the wife is more important than
the property right of the pharmacist.

But when the same question was asked among the women, they gave (all women)
same answers. They replied that Heinz was wrong. They further told that instead of stealing
the medicine, Heinz could have tried other alternative solutions. They also told that Heinz
should have convinced still the pharmacist to get the medicine.

From the above, Kohlberg concluded that women’s decisions are always based on
conventional rule and they always have different opinions in applying the general moral rules
and principles about the right to live.

On the basis of the Kohlberg’s comment on the women, Gilligan came to a different
conclusion. She tells that it shows greater sensitivity to people and personal relationships. She
concluded that the decision taken by women is context-oriented and not on the basis of
general rules ranked inorder of priority.

Now, the question here is, how Gilligan’s theory of moral development relates to
moral autonomy as a goal of studying ethics at the college level?

Autonomy requires independent reasoning on the basis of moral concern and not
separated from other people. As per Gilligan’s theory and Kohlberg’s theory, moral autonomy
should be consistent with context-oriented and also with an awareness of general moral
principles and rights.

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
CONSENSUS AND CONTROVERSY

Consensus means ‘agreement’ and ‘controversy’ means disagreement. The consensus

and the controversies are playing the vital roles while considering the moral autonomy.
When an individual exercises the moral autonomy, he cannot get the same results as
others get in applying moral autonomy. Surely there must be some moral differences i.e. the
results or verdicts will be of controversy. This kind of disagreements is unavoidable. These
disagreements require some tolerances among individuals those who are autonomous,
reasonable and responsible.

As per the principle of tolerance, the goal of teaching engineering ethics is not merely
producing an agreed conformity on applying moral principles among engineers but also to
reveal the ways of promoting tolerances to apply moral autonomy.

Both the goals of engineering ethics and the goals of engineering courses have some
similarities. These similarities have to be extended with the help of exercising authority. For
example, in the class room, the teachers are having the authority over students and in the work
place, the managers are having the authority over engineers.

There are two general points regarding the relationship between autonomy and
authority with reference to the class room:

1) Moral autonomy and respect for the authority cannot be differentiated or

separated from each other. Moral autonomy is exercised on the basis of moral
concern for other people and also recognition of good moral reasons. Authority
provides for the framework in which learning can take place. It is based on the
acceptance of authority by both the students and the professors. Without this
acceptance, the classes cannot be conducted in a smooth way. On the other
hand, cheating will be encouraged and the trust between faculty and the
students may be reduced to some extent. These kind of deviations are due to
the absence of moral views and respect for authority. They must be coincide
with each other.
2) Generally a tension may arise among the individuals regarding the need for
consensus about authority and need for autonomy. This tension can be reduced
by discussing openly regarding a moral issue between students and faculty
with the help of the authority.

In short, conflicts will arise between autonomy and authority, when the authority is
misused. For example, in small classes, the students are having the authority to express their
own views. But when the professor doesn‟t allow them to do so, he misuses his authority.

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
This will create some moral problems between the students and the faculty.

MODELS OF PROFESSIONAL ROLES

The main aim of the profession of engineering is to improve the public safety, wealth
and welfare. In order to perform these functions, the engineer has to play various models to
channalise his attitudes towards the achievements of objectives. They are as follows:

1. Savior
The engineers are responsible for creating an utopian society in which
everything is possible and can be achieved without much effort – This can only be
achieved through technological developments made by the engineers for safe-guarding
the society from poverty, inefficiency, waste and manual labour.
2. Guardian
Engineers only know the directions through which technology will be
developed. So, they should be given position of high authority based on their expertise
skills in determining what is in the best interests of the society. They should act as
guardians to the technological improvements.
3. Bureaucratic Servant
Engineer‟s role in the management is to be the servant who receives and
translates the directive of management into better achievements. They have to solve
the problems given by the management, within the limits set by the management.

4. Social Servant
The role of engineers is not only providing service to others but also their
responsibility to the society. The interests of the society can be expressed to the
engineers either directly or indirectly. So, the engineers, with the co-operation of the
management have the work of receiving society‟s directives and satisfying the desires
of the society.
5. Social enabler and Catalyst
The engineer has to play a role of creating a better society and should be the
cause of making social changes. Service given by the engineers to the society includes
carrying out the social directives. Engineers are needed to help the management and
the society to understand their needs and to create decisions about technological
development.
6. Game Player
We cannot say that engineers are servants or masters of anyone. They are

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
 playing the economic game rules which may be effective at a given time. Their aim is
to play successfully within the organization enjoying the happiness of technological
work and the satisfaction of winning and moving ahead in a completive world.

THEORIES ABOUT RIGHT ACTION

There are four types of theories on ethics, which help to create the fundamental
principles of obligation suitable and applicable to professional and personal conduct of a
person in his everyday life. These theories are essential for cause of right action and morality.
They are:

1. “Golden mean” ethics (Aristotle, 384 – 322 B.C.). The best solution is achieved
through reason and logic and is a compromise or “golden mean” between extremes of
excess and deficiency. For example, in the case of the environment, the golden mean
between the extremes of neglect and exploitation might be protection.

Problem: Variability from one person to another in their powers of reasoning and the
difficulty in applying the theory to ethical problems.

2. “Rights – based” ethics (John Locke, 1632 – 1704). Every person is free and equal
and has the right to life, health, liberty and possessions (in effect prohibiting capital
punishment, medical charges, jails and income taxes).

Problem: One person‟s right may be in conflict with another‟s rights.

3. “Duty – based” ethics (Immanual Kant, 1724 – 1804). Each person has a duty to
follow a course of action that would be universally acceptable for everyone to follow
without exception. (Thus we would all be honest, kind, generous and peaceful).

Problem: Universal application of a rule can be harmful.

4. “Utilitarian” ethics (John Stuart Mill, 1806 – 1873). The best choice is that which
produces the maximum benefit for the greatest number of people (which could
endanger minority rights).

Problem: Qualification of the benefits can be difficult.

All these theories can be differentiated on the basis of what they provide for
moral concept, good results for all, duties and human rights.

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
SELF – INTEREST, CUSTOMS AND RELIGION

Moral justifications and principles form a distinct category of value, which are
different from other category of values. This can be more clear by relating and
contrasting moral values to three other types of values namely self-interest, customs and
religion. Focus must be made in each case, how we can reduce morality to these types of
value.

Self –Interest and Ethical Egoism

Self-interest is nothing but one‟s personal good. It refers to the goodness of oneself in
the long run.

Each of the ethical theories recognizes the importance of self-respect. Utilitarian

considers one‟s own good as well as the good of others. Duty ethicists stresses duties to
ourselves and for won well-being. Ethicists of rights emphasize our rights to pursue our own
good. Virtue ethicists accent the importance of self – respect.

Each of these theories insists that the pursuit of self – interest must be balanced and
kept under control by moral responsibilities to other people. Now let us consider a view called
“ethical Egoism” which challenges all the ethical theories and it tries to reduce morality to the
pursuit of self-interest. It is called „egoism‟, because it says that the main duty of us is to
maximize our own good. According to Thomas Hobbes and Any Rand, moral values are
reduced to concern for oneself but always a rational concern which requires consideration of a
person‟s long-term interests.

The Supporters of ethical egoism make a differentiation between narrower and wider
forms of self-interest. When a person who selfishly preoccupies his own private good and
disregard for the good of others, will be off from rewarding friendships and love. Personal
well-being generally requires taking some large interest in others. But the rational egoist
insists that the only reason for showing an interest in others is for the sake of oneself.

Ethical Egoists try to protect their positions by arguing that an ironic importance of
everyone rationally pursuing one‟s self-interest is that every one get benefited. The society
benefits mostly when (i) individuals pursue their private good and (ii) corporations pursue
maximum profits in a competitive free market. The main idea here is that leads to the
improvement of economy through which benefiting everyone.

Because, both the individual and the corporation know very well that what is good for
them and how best to pursue that good.
JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
 As per ethical egoism, people should always and only pursue their self – interest in a
very cautious manner to value the interest rationally on the basis of facts.
Morality essentially needs a willingness on the part of both individuals and
corporations to place some restrictions on the pursuit of private self – interests. Accepting
these constraints is presupposed in what is meant by moral concern Engineering Ethics also
has one task of exhibiting the moral limits on the pursuit of self interest in the Engineering
profession.

The above said remarks do not constitute a wrong proof for ethical egoism. Morality
stresses that we have to give value and we are concerned for the good of other people.
Ethical egoism is not a persuasive or probable theory to state what is morality but it is only a
convinced rejection of morality.

Customs and Ethical Relativism

As we live in a society which is of increasingly diverse nature, it is more important to
have tolerance for various customs and outlooks. Hence the concept of ethical pluralism
emerges. It views that there may be alternative moral attitudes that are reasonable. But none
of the moral perspectives can be accepted completely by all the rational and the morally
concerned persons. Ethical pluralism allows the customs which plays an important role in
deciding how we should act. Moral values are many, varied and flexible. So, these moral
values allow considerable variation in how different individuals and groups understand and
apply them in their day-today activities. In other words, to be precise, reasonable persons
always have reasonable disagreement on moral issues, including issues in engineering ethics.

Ethical Relativism, an objectionable view, should not be confused with Ethical

Pluralism. As per Ethical relativism says that actions are morally right when they are
approved by law or custom and they are said to be wrong when they violate laws or customs.
Ethical relativism tries to reduce moral values to laws, conventions and customs of societies

What is the necessary for a person to accept ethical relativism? There are so many
reasons for accepting ethical relativism –

I. The laws and customs seem to be definite, real and clear – cut. They help to reduce
the endless disputes about right and wrong. Moreover, laws seem to be an objective
way to approach values. The above argument is some what weak. This reason
underestimates the extent to which ordinary moral reasons are sufficiently objective
to make possible criticism of individual prejudice and bias. Moreover, moral reasons

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
 allow objective criticism of the given laws as morally inadequate. For example, the
apartheid laws (racial segregation) in south Africa. This law violated the human
rights are not given any legal protections to the majority of the blacks, but morally
ought to be.
II. The second reason for accepting ethical relativism is because it believes the values are
subjective at the cultural level. They also state that the moral standards are varied from
one culture to another. The only kind of objectivity is relative to a given set of laws in
a given society. This relativity of morality encourages the virtue of tolerance of
difference among societies.

The above said argument is also confusing one. It assumes that ethical relativism is
implied by descriptive relativism. i.e., values and beliefs differ from culture to culture. There
is nothing self-certifying about the laws and beliefs. This can be explained by the following
illustration. Ethical relativism would allow that Hitler and his followers (Nazis) acted
correctly when they killed 6 million Jews, for their laws, customs, and beliefs which were
based on anti – Semitism (hostile to Jews).

So, ethical relativism refers anything but for the tolerant doctrine it pretends to be. But
there is nothing tolerant in accepting Nazi beliefs about morality Admitting intolerant anti-
semitic beliefs is not an act of tolerance.

The supporters of ethical relativism, generally say that an action is right “for cultures”
when believe it as the right one.i.e., it is right “for them” though not “for us”. So, beliefs,
however customary or widely shared, are not self-certifying whether we are talking about
moral beliefs or scientific beliefs.

The third reason is based on the moral relationalism or moral contextulaism. This
states that moral judgments must be made in relation to some factors which varies from case
to case. Making simple and absolute rules are impossible in this way. In most of the cases,
customs and laws are considered as morally important factors for making judgments.

All philosophers accepted this moral relationalism. But contemporary duty and right
ethicists like “Kant” do not accept. As per their views, respecting people require some
sensitiveness to special circumstances. The virtue ethicists stress the role of practical wisdom
in identifying the facts which are relevant to assessment of conduct based on virtual manner.

The ethical relativism was accepted by early cultural anthropologists because they had

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
a specified tendency to overstress the scope of moral difference between cultures. Absorbed
with unusual practices such as head – hunting, human sacrifices and cannibolism (cannibal is
a person who eats human flesh); these persons who shifted their idea quickly form moral
views differ greatly to “Morality is a simply a culture as such”. But modern anthropologists
states that all cultures by virtual show some commitment to promote social co-operation and
protect their members against needless death and suffering. Moral differences are based only
on the circumstances and facts, not on the difference in moral attitudes. For example, we can
consider the practice of human sacrifice in the Aztecs. [Members of a former Indian people
th
who ruled Mexico before the 16 century]. This practice seems to be a sign of cruelty an lack
of concern for life. But a full examination of their beliefs reveal that they believed their gods
are pleased by such sacrifice to ensure the survival of their people and also it was considered
an honour for the victims. Refer to the sacrifice or placing chicken and goal to god.

Religion and Divine Command Ethics

Moral responsibilities and religious belief are interwined in many positive ways. First,
they are related historically. Our moral views have been shaped by the most known central
moral values within the major world religions. For example, the Judeo-Christian tradition has
been influential in Western countries like England, USA etc. Islam has been having a great
influence in middle east countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan etc. Confucianism
has been influential in China and Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism have been famous in
Asian countries.

Second, most of the people still having beliefs and show some important and
inevitable psychological connections between their moral and religious beliefs. Religious
views frequently support moral responsibility by providing additional motivation for being
moral. Faith in Religions or religious hopes imply trust. This trust gives an inspiration to be
moral.

The main social functions of religion is motivating right action based on ethical
principles. Religion supports many people to follow their beliefs and promote tolerance and
moral concern for others. Many of the engineers are motivated by the religious beliefs.

Thirdly, religions form a set of higher moral standards. For example, Christianity
suggests for loving neighbors. Many religions include virtue ethics that stresses about
particular virtues. For example, the ethics if Christianity focuses in the virtue of hope, faith
and love. Buddhism emphasizes a feeling of pity (compassion). Islam pressures “insane”
(being religious and pursuit of excellence).

JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page
 Some times, religious set standards below the level of acceptable moral standards.
Some religions do not give equal rights to women, as in Islam (particularly in Iran, Iraq). In
this situation the conflict is not only between secular morality and religion but also among
other religions.
By giving stress on the positive connections between secular morality and religion, we
go for defining Divine Command ethics. It views that right action is defined by the commands
of God, and without a belief in God there could be no moral values and if an action is said to
be wrong, it means that it is forbidden by God.

The Major difficulties in Divine Command ethics are: how to know what God‟s
commands are and whether God exists or not. Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are
mostly God-centered i.e., they believe in God. But some other religions such as Buddhism,
Taoism and Confucianism calls for only faith in a right path from which code of ethics can be
derived. For example in Buddhism the right path included eight steps such as right
understanding, right intention, right intention, right action, right livelihood, right effort,
right mindfulness and right concentration.

Questions on the belief in God were rejected by most of he theologians, [Theology –

study of God] based on the question asked by Socrates. Socrates asked why does god make
certain commands and not others? Are these commands made on the basis of sudden fancy?
The answer is surely no. Because God is supposed to be morally good and He never
commands bad acts such as irresponsible killing, rapes, tortures and other immoralities.

Suppose a man claimed that God commands him to kill people randomly without
making any religious inquiry, we can say that the main is mistaken.

Divine Command ethics has things backwards. A morally divine being commands on
the basis of moral reasons which determines the wrongness of actions and rightness of other
actions. Moral reasons are presupposed as the foundation for making certain commands.
Moral reasons can not force hard to religious matters. Religious beliefs provides an added
inspiration for responding to moral reasons.

USES OF ETHICAL THEORIES

Ethical theories have so many uses. Out of them, the following three are the most
important uses:

1. Understanding moral dilemmas.

2. Justifying professional obligations and ideas and
3. Relating ordinary and professional morality
JIT/GE6075/PEE/R2013 Page