Kenneth L. Carper's Commentary: Teaching Engineering Ethics-Exceeding Pollution Limits
Author(s):
Kenneth L. Carper
It is interesting to notice the language people use to
justify unethical behavior. Plant Manager Edgar Owens refers to
overlooking "mere technicalities," when he really means
breaking established laws. He requests Marvin Johnson to
"adjust" the report, when he really intends for Johnson to
falsify scientific data.
The falsification of data is viewed by scientists and
engineers to be an extremely serious breach of ethics. Marvin
Johnson is being asked to compromise one of the most important
moral concepts in science, truthfulness in reporting of
scientific measurements. Should he consent to a false report,
and should the incident come to light, his own personal career
will be in grave jeopardy. The scientific and engineering
community cannot survive unless its members can trust one
another to present data truthfully.
Yet, Marvin Johnson finds himself in a very difficult
position. His manager has raised the question of loyalty. The
implication is that truthfulness will damage the company;
fellow employees will suffer. Competitors will profit at the
expense of Wolfog Manufacturing. The arguments given by Edgar
Owens can be quite persuasive, and they are all too familiar in
the corporate setting (Nelson and Peterson 1982). Regulations
are often seen to be unrealistic or arbitrary. The assumption
is often made that competitors must be falsifying data to meet
these unrealistic expectations, so it is only wise business
practice to do what everyone else is doing.
Much has been written about the pitfalls of misguided
loyalty. While principled loyalty can be a commendable virtue,
misguided loyalty has been responsible for many, many tragic
moral disasters. When loyalty to a corporation, or a
government, or an individual, requires the sacrifice of
fundamental moral principles, such loyalty is not a virtue.
Engineers who find themselves in stressful situations like
this should refer to their professional Code of Ethics. This
can be a helpful, tangible tool in negotiations with their
employers. (Carper 1991, Davis 1991). Certain fundamental
ethical principles are embodied in the Codes of Ethics adopted
by professional societies, and the embattled engineer can point
to these principles, stating that his or her career as an
engineer requires adherence to these principles. What Johnson
is being asked to do is a violation of the canons of his
profession.
The principle of universalizability is introduced in this
case study. Immanuel Kant's "categorical imperative" provides
this guidance:
Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the
same time will that it should become a universal law.
In this case, Johnson should not write an "adjusted report"
unless he is truly willing to accept similar actions by all his
colleagues in the scientific and engineering community when
confronted by similar situations and similar pressure from
their employers. Should Johnson consent to Edgar Owens'
request, later self-analysis of his actions will bring the
crisis of conscience experienced by others who have compromised
their values in the interest of misguided loyalty.
One relevant example is the B. F. Goodrich case involving
data falsification on critical brake and wheel assembly testing
for Air Force attack aircraft (Martin and Schinzinger 1989,
p.58). The first-hand account provided by Kermit Vandiver, a B.
F. Goodrich employee, is very enlightening (Vandiver 1972).
Deborah Randle, the engineer who works for the Department of
Natural Resources, will most certainly evaluate reports from
the various corporations with the principle of
universalizability in mind. How else can someone charged with
global responsibility operate, and remain impartial? False data
will be absolutely unacceptable to Randle. Again, engineers
simply must be able to trust each other.
Should an unethical report be discovered, not only will
Johnson's reputation be irreparably damaged, but the impact on
Wolfog Manufacturing will also be significant. The case of
emissions test data falsification by the Ford Motor Company
shows the damage such behavior can do to a corporation (Martin
and Schinzinger 1989, pp. 163-164). A review of the Ford case
illustrates the fact that compromising ethics in the interest
of loyalty can actually result in great damage to the very
employer one is trying to protect.
It seems that Marvin Johnson has some thinking to do. It is
probably not yet time to "blow the whistle" publicly. There are
some moral principles and procedures involved in proper
whistleblowing, and Johnson has not yet exhausted his avenues
within the corporation (Elliston et al 1985). Indeed, Johnson
has an excellent opportunity to provide some moral leadership
to his colleagues by speaking out on the issue of scientific
truthfulness. But engineers simply must refuse to work for
corporations that place profit above scientific honesty. If
Edgar Owens represents the moral stature of the Wolfog
corporate management, then Wolfog Manufacturing is not a
healthy environment for an honest engineer.
Suggested Readings:
- Carper, Kenneth L. 1991. "Engineering Code of Ethics:
Beneficial Restraint on Consequential Morality,"
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education
and Practice, American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York, NY, Vol. 117, No. 3, July, pp. 250-257.
- Davis, Michael 1991. "Thinking Like an Engineer: The
Place of a Code of Ethics in the Practice of a Profession,"
Philosophy and Public Affairs, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ, Vol. 20, No. 2, Spring, pp.
150-167.
- Elliston, Frederick, J. Keenan, P. Lockhart and J. van
Schaick 1985. Whistleblowing Research: Methodological
and Moral Issues, Praeger Publishers, New York, NY,
pp.133-161.
- Martin, Mike W. and R. Schinzinger 1989. Ethics in
Engineering (2nd edition), McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
York, NY, pp. 58, 163-164, 176.
- Nelson, C. and S. R. Peterson 1982. "The Engineer as
Moral Agent," Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York, NY, Vol. 108, No. 1, January, pp. 1-5.
- Vandiver, Kermit 1972. "Why Should My Conscience Bother
Me?" from In the Name of Profit, by Robert L.
Heilbroner, Doubleday and Company, Inc., Garden City, NY, pp.
3-31.