Responsibility in Engineering PDF

The Lasallian Prayer “Let us remember that we are in the holy presence of God.” 6 September 2021 1 The Lasallian Prayer “I will continue, O my God, to do all my actions for the love of Thee.” Saint John...

The Lasallian Prayer “Let us remember that we are in the holy presence of God.” 6 September 2021 1 The Lasallian Prayer “I will continue, O my God, to do all my actions for the love of Thee.” Saint John Baptist de La Salle, pray for us. Live Jesus in our hearts, forever. 6 September 2021 2 Responsibility in Engineering Objectives To be able to understand the 1. meaning of obligation responsibility; 2. Responsible engineering practice;  3.1. Introduction ❖Refer to the Columbia Case. ❖The concept of responsibility has many-faceted. As a notion of accountability, it may be applied to individual engineers, divisions or units within organizations, or even organizations themselves. As professionals, engineers are expected to commit themselves to high standards of conduct. Kindly refer to the Basic Principles on the Engineering Code of Ethics and Fundamental Canons o the Engineering Code of Ethics.  As quoted from William F. May; “ The professional had better be virtuous. Few may be in position to discredit him. The knowledge explosion is also an ignorance explosion; if knowledge is power, then ignorance is powerlessness.” May concludes “ Important to professional ethics is the moral disposition the professional brings to the structure in which he operates, and the shapes his approach to problems.” Two possible approaches to responsibility: 1. Minimalist approach of doing as little as one can get away with and still stay out of trouble, keep one’s job, and the like. 2. Attitudes and dispositions that may take one “ above and beyond the call of duty.”  Characteristics of highly responsible engineer: - Integrity, honest, civic-mindedness, and a willingness to make some self-sacrifice to make sacrifice. - exhibit imaginativeness and perseverance, to communicate clearly and informative, to be committed to objectivity, to be open to acknowledging and correcting mistakes. To work well with others. To be committed to quality, and to be able to see the “big picture” as well as more minute details.  3.2. Engineering Standards Engineering Standards – regulatory body that specify technical requirements for specific kinds of engineering design. - may also require that certain procedures be undertaken to ascertain that specific, measurable levels of quality or safety are met, or they may require that whatever procedures are used be documented, along with their results.  Regulatory standards and standards of competence are intended to provide some assurance of quality, safety, and efficiency in engineering. “ Obligation Responsibility” – engineers have responsibility to use their specialized knowledge and skills in ways that benefit clients and public and do not violate the trust placed in them.  Obligation responsibility sometimes refers to a person who occupies a position or role of supervision. Blame-Responsibility is the negative and backward-looking concept of responsibility. An engineer who, for example, is guilty of self-deception or ignorance can be held morally responsible if these factors lead to harm.  3.3: The Standard of Care The engineers are expected to satisfy a more demanding norm, the Standard of Care. The Codes of Ethics of professional engineering societies are the result of efforts of their members to organize in a structured way the standards that they believe should govern the conduct of all engineers. Safety standards are set by government agencies.  According to Joshua B. Kardon: An engineer is not liable, or responsible, for damages for every error. Society ha decided, through case law, that when you hire an engineer, you buy the engineer’s normal errors. However, it the error is shown to have been worse than a certain level of error, the engineer is liable. That level, the line between non-negligent and negligent error, is the “ standard of care.”  As Kardon noted: A good working definition of the standard of care of a professional is: that level or quality of service ordinarily provided by other normally competent practitioners of good standing in that field, contemporaneously providing similar services in the same locality and under the same circumstances.  Refer to the following cases: 1. Kansas city Hyatt Regency Hotel 2. Manhattan’s 59-story Citicorp center  3.4: Blame-Responsibility and Causation Two principal causes were identified in the Columbia case: 1. Physical cause – damage in the left wing of the shuttle 2. Organizational causes – defects in the organization and culture of NASA that led in adequate concern for safety. Three types of explanation of the accidents: the physical cause, organizational causes, and individuals responsible or accountable for the accident.  3.5: Liability A practical way of examining moral responsibility is to consider the related concept of legal liability for causing harm. To be legally liable for causing harm is to warrant punishment for, or to be obligated to make restitution for, harms. Concepts of liability and moral responsibility for harm: 1. Intentionally or knowingly and deliberately cause harm 2. Recklessly cause harm 3. Negligently causing harm - Basis for charge of negligence: 1. A legal obligation to conform to certain standards of conduct is present. 2. The person accused of negligence fails to conform to the standards. 3. There is reasonable close causal connection between the conduct and the resulting harm. 4. Actual loss or damage to the interests of another results.  In the moral standpoint, intentionally, negligently, or recklessly causing harm to others is to fail to exercise reasonable care.  3.6: Design Standards Cite the Ford Case As Stuarts Shapiro notes: “ Standards are one of the principal mechanism for managing complexity of any sort, including technological complexity. Standardized terminology, physical properties, and procedures all play a role in constraining the size of the universe in which the practitioner must make decisions.”  3.7: The Range of Standard Practice Principles of Engineering: 1. Gather full and reliable information about the specific situation. 2. View engineering plans and projects in context, taking into account impact on workers, the needs of workers, system of transportation and communication, resources needed, resource accessibility, economic feasibility, impacts on users and on other affected parties, such as people who live downward.  3.8: The Problem of Many Hands As Larry May notes: “ If a harm has resulted from collective inaction, the degree of individual responsibility of each member of a putative group for the harm should vary based on the role each member could, counterfactually, have played in preventing the inaction.  3.9: Impediments of Many Actions Self Interest Self Deception Fear Ignorance Egocentric Tendencies Microscopic Vision Uncritical Acceptance of Authority Groupthink  END OF PRESENTATION ONE HEART. ONE COMMITMENT. ONE LIFE. 1719 – 2019 #300LaSalle Prepared 6 September by: Engr. 2021 Joshua Hernandez 24