Breadcrumb Trail
Home > Education > Guides & Advice > Negligence, Recklessness & Harm	Text Only Email This

Online Ethics Center: Teaching Engineers About Negligence, Recklessness, Intended/Unintended Harm

Basic Definitions
What to Stress
Assignments and Discussion
Web Resources and Bibliography

We cannot always predict the impact technology might have on society, individuals, or the environment. This impacts our ability to adequately control the technology we create. How does this fact play into our assessments of professional and moral responsibility? In other words, not all bad (or good) consequences of technology are intended. This fact affects our assessment of culpability or responsibility for those effects. This page offers pedagogical advice for teaching students the difference between negligence, recklessness, and intended/unintended harm and for thinking about the notion of responsibility or culpability in connection with these concepts.

Basic Definitions

Defining terms relevant to this issue is the first place to start. For more detailed definitions, see our Glossary. Legal definitions obtained from the 'Lectric Law Library' (see link below).

A person acts with intent when s/he acts with determination or resolves to do a certain thing, or has the state of mind with which something is done.

A person's conduct is reckless when that conduct is highly unreasonable and represents an extreme departure from ordinary care. Reckless disregard of another's rights is conduct that, under the circumstances, reflects complete indifference to the safety and rights of others.

A person is negligent when s/he fails to be sufficiently careful in a matter in which s/he has a moral responsibility. The legal definition of negligence is: failure to use reasonable care. Negligence involves engaging in an act that a reasonably sensible person would not do, or the failure to take some action, which a reasonably sensible person would do under like circumstances. It is a departure from what ordinary reasonable members of the community would do in the same community.

A person has a moral responsibility when s/he is entrusted to achieve or maintain a good result in some matter, and is expected to both have the relevant knowledge and skills, and to make a conscientious effort to achieve that result. There are a number of questions one must consider when determining whether a given engineer or group of engineers were negligent or otherwise morally responsible for something that has gone wrong.

What to Stress

As the above definitions indicate, when we are considering whether a given problem was the result of negligence or recklessness, the first step is to consider whether this was a matter for which the person or group had a moral responsibility. We cannot determine whether the actions reflected a serious departure from ordinary care if we have no idea about the standard of care or responsibility for that particular group. So we must first determine what a person or group is responsible for achieving. This is often referred to as the forward-looking sense of responsibility.

A Matter of Responsibility: As Caroline Whitbeck points out, professionals like engineers, because of their special knowledge and training, are held to a higher standard than the average person in matters related to engineering. (See Background Concepts for Teaching Engineering Ethics for more information about this topic.)
The Standard of Care Approach: One way to think about these ideas is in terms analogous to the physician's standard of care. The legal definitions above seem to take this approach. There is a standard of care (a norm of behavior) to which professionals should adhere. Standards of care change over time as circumstances change; for example, as professionals learn from past mistakes or as new technology develops.

Even despite all good intentions and great efforts, one may not achieve the expected result. This leads us to the second step. The fact that the intended result isn't reached is not necessarily cause for moral blame. There are two senses of responsibility: the sense in which someone caused something to happen (causally responsible) and the sense in which one is accountable for what happened (or morally responsible for it). The fact that a person is responsible for something in the causal sense does not mean she is responsible for it in the moral or accountable sense.

Often referred to as the backward-looking sense of responsibility, we must determine whether the person or group is responsible for the outcome in the moral or accountability sense. That is, does the person or group deserve moral praise for a good outcome or moral blame for a bad outcome? There are several issues of importance to making this determination.

A Matter of Circumstance: Making determinations about whether a person or group is morally responsible for a mistake or an unintended consequence depends in large part on the circumstances. It is difficult to thoroughly test a very complex product, it is often hard to predict all of the effects of a particular product (especially new ones), with some products (like computers) there may be no indication when it is about to fail (as there may be with a car, for example). These factors all play a role in determining whether a person or group is culpable for a bad outcome.
The Standard of Care Approach: If one thinks about negligence in terms of a standard of care, one would argue (as Deborah Johnson does) that accountability presumes a set of norms; someone is accountable only if they act outside of those norms. Is there a standard of care or set of defined norms to which engineers must adhere? (See The Structural Engineer's Standard of Care for a good discussion of this concept.
Individual versus Group Responsibility: Engineers typically don't work in isolation. The design, development, and use of technology involve many people. Thus, when a negative event occurs, it is not always easy to determine who, if any, is responsible. As Weckert and Adeney explain (see citation below), while we often talk as if we hold all members of a group responsible for some event, we surely don't mean that literally. Not all citizens of a country are responsible for the possible effects of its nuclear testing. And even those who are responsible are not usually equally responsible. Yet the fact that a member of a group did not directly cause the adverse event does not mean that the member is not responsible for that event to some degree. If a member of a group knows about the potential problem and does nothing to try to stop it when s/he is in a position to do so, s/he can be held accountable to some extent for the consequences. (This aspect of responsibility is closely related to the notion of whistleblowing, which is discussed in the section on personal responsibility.) For more information about group versus individual responsibility, see the Werckert citation below.

Assignments to Enhance Discussion

Ask students to think about what kinds of norms or standards might make up a standard of care for engineers. What might the standard of care have looked like at the time the first automobile, first software program, etc. was developed, as compared to the present?
Have students make a list of the kinds of circumstantial factors relevant to determining culpability for mistakes.
There are several cases on the Online Ethics Center that depict disasters that were, in part, caused by mistakes. Examining these cases can help students get a sense of the kinds of factors involved in determining moral responsibility. These cases are listed below.

Web Resources and Bibliography

The Structural Engineer's Standard of Care: In this essay, Joshua B. Kardon (University of California at Berkeley) discusses the concept of 'standard of care' as establishing the line between negligent and non-negligent error.
Glossary: Online Ethics Center: The glossary offers definitions of various ethical terms; including responsibility and negligence.
Topics Section: Negligence: This portion of the Online Ethics Center contains definitions of negligence, liability and other related words, as well as case studies that deal with negligence, such as the Hyatt Regency Walkway collapse, and essays on the subject of negligence. A bibliography of suggested further readings is also provided.
Topics Section: Responsibility: This portion of the Online Ethics Center contains items that will enhance discussion on professional responsibility. Links to case studies (LeMessurier), essays, and ethics codes that deal with this topic are provided. An annotated bibliography of further readings is also provided.
Dealing with a Costly Error: This scenario, from Mike Pritchard, raises questions about negligence and professional responsibility. There are several commentaries on this case included here. This case would make a good basis for discussion. You might have students write their own commentary or choose which commentary best expresses their own views.
Negligence, Risk and the Professional Debate over Responsibility for Design: The Implicit Social Contract between Engineers and Society: This essay, on the Engineering Ethics site of Texas A&M University, discusses the issue of negligence and risk in light of the uncertainty of technological implications.
Engineering Design: Literature on Social Responsibility Versus Legal Responsibility: This essay, on the Engineering Ethics site of Texas A&M University, discusses the issue responsibility for engineering mistakes. The question of which type of responsibility, social or legal, should have precedence is addressed.
The 'Lectric Law Library: This site contains a law dictionary with thousands of definitions and explanations of legal terms. Legal definitions listed above were obtained from this website.

John Werckert and Douglas Adeney. 1997. Computer and Information Ethics. (London: Greenwood Press).: In addition to a discussion of the notion of responsibility, this book contains interesting and valuable information about computer ethics. Among the issues it covers are privacy, virtual reality, and freedom, information and images.