Engineering Ethics: Do engineers owe duties to the public? Introduction The subject of Engineering Ethics is no longer novel: there is a growing body of literature, both in the United Kingdom1 and elsewhere,2 particularly in the USA.3 The subject still lacks any generally accepted definition and its scope remains uncertain. However, a convenient summary of the practical objectives of the subject is to be found in the Codes of Conduct promulgated by the Engineering Institutions. The Codes currently in operation within the United Kingdom are briefly reviewed below. Taking these Codes as a starting point, I have selected for examination the narrow but significant question that underlies much of their content: Do Engineers owe duties to the public? In addressing this question, I shall examine both the nature and scope of any such duty as well as the means by which it may be implemented. In the course of this inquiry, I shall also address a number of specific ethical questions that arise. It is then necessary to define an objective for any duty to the public. In this respect, the literature is largely focused on safety issues coupled increasingly with the need to avoid damage to the environment, and it is convenient to examine the postulated duty initially in this context. It needs to be borne in mind, however, that there are many other objectives that may equally merit inquiry, only some of which will be touched on. Duties in relation to safety and the environment will plainly be owed to particular individuals and perhaps to wider groups. In this context, the question to be considered might be stated more fully as whether Engineers individually owe duties to the public at large to act or to refrain from acting so as to promote or secure the safety of the public or the maintenance of the environment. In addition to individual Engineers, it is necessary to consider the role of Engineers acting collectively, through their Institutions, either as the voice of the profession or in the alternative role of setting and enforcing standards of conduct. This inquiry will, therefore, seek to cover both the role of individual Engineers and their Institutions. Any postulated ethical duty must take account of existing recognised legal duties. One aim of this inquiry will be to examine whether such legal duties are consistent with and conducive to the wider ethical duties that are promulgated by the Engineering Institutions. In classic legal terms, Engineers owe well-defined duties under the law of contract to their immediate clients, and under the law of tort to those persons whom they should reasonably have in contemplation as likely to suffer injury or loss as a result of acts of negligence. The latter category plainly includes some sections of the public, and the Courts, both in the UK and the USA, while acknowledging the existence of the floodgates argument, have consistently ignored it when allowing further extensions to the categories of persons to whom such duties are owed. However, the question is whether the duty of the Engineer extends to the ordinary members of the public who potentially suffer as a result of technical mishaps. This constitutes the individuals who may suffer delay, disappointment and financial loss as part of the wider effects of any major accident; or who have a legitimate interest in knowing just how safe are our transport systems, buildings and structures or power stations and process plants. Dr. Tin Tun
Posted on: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:22:53 +0000