bdnguyen15_Ethics

.docx

School

University of Houston *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1100

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

6

Uploaded by Budder561

Benjamin Nguyen 11/8/23 2267538 Professor Claydon Ethics Assignment Part 1 Engineer A Codes Broken: 0. Fundamental Canons IV. “Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.” V. “Avoid deceptive acts.” VI. “Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.” 1. III.9.c “Engineers, before undertaking work for others in connection with which the engineer may make improvements, plans, designs, inventions, or other records that may justify copyrights or patents, should enter into a positive agreement regarding ownership.” 2. III.6.a “Engineers shall not request, propose, or accept a commission on a contingent basis under circumstances in which their judgment may be compromised.” 3. III.7.b “Engineers in governmental, industrial, or educational employ are entitled to review and evaluate the work of other engineers when so required by their employment duties.” 4. II.1.c “Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.” 5. III.9.a “Engineers shall, whenever possible, name the person or persons who may be individually responsible for designs, inventions, writings, or other accomplishments.” Justification: Firstly, Engineer A breaches Fundamental Canons IV and V by providing inaccurate information about the origins/accreditation of the battery design to EnergyCo. Moreover, Engineer A fails to keep Engineer B informed about the design process. Additionally, Engineer A intentionally engages in inappropriate actions to expedite project completion, violating Canon VI . Secondly, in violation of Code III.9.c , Engineer A neglects to inform EnergyCo that the battery design is derived from an existing one and does not initiate contact/negotiations with the original design holder. Thirdly, Engineer A violates Code III.6.a
by subcontracting Engineer B, who is not contracted by EnergyCo. Although no commission is explicitly stated, this action, driven by time constraints, lacks consideration for the necessary procedures when collaborating with Engineer B, classifying it as a stress-induced impulse. Fourthly, Engineer A breaches Code III.7.b by failing to thoroughly evaluate Engineer B's research before presenting the design to EnergyCo. This oversight results in the omission of inherent flaws in the design/research. Fifthly, Code II.1.c is violated as Engineer A fails to obtain consent to present the design to EnergyCo alongside Engineer B, who is still assessing the design. This suggests the design's in-viability at the current stage. Lastly, Engineer A breaks Code III.9.a by not accrediting Engineer B for the research and not acknowledging that the overall battery form/structure is rooted in a pre-existing design from another manufacturer/holder. Engineer B Codes Broken: 0. Fundamental Canons I. “Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” III. “Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.” IV. “Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.” VI. “Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.” 1. II.4.c “Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside agents in connection with the work for which they are responsible.” 2.III.1.b “Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful.” 3. III.8.b “Engineers shall not use association with a nonengineer, a corporation, or partnership as a ‘cloak’ for unethical acts.” Justification: Firstly, Engineer A violates Fundamental Canons I , III , and IV by choosing not to disclose the inherent dangers within the battery design to both Engineer B and EnergyCo. This omission poses hazards to manufacturers and the public if the design is fully approved. Additionally, Engineer B breaches Canon VI by selfishly withholding information about the design's dangers due to a grudge over lack of accreditation, despite the consequences of leaving these dangerous flaws unaddressed. Secondly, Engineer B breaks Code II.4.c by accepting the contract from Engineer A (though the reasons for doing so are not
explicitly mentioned in the scenario). This action occurs despite Engineer B having no connection with EnergyCo and no officially designated role in the development of the design. Thirdly, Code III.1.b is violated, as Engineer B keeps the dangers within the design secret instead of disclosing them. This withholding of information increases the risk of catastrophic failure when EnergyCo works on the design post-presentation by Engineer A. Lastly, Engineer B breaches Code III.8.b by consciously concealing their involvement in the battery design due to a lack of accreditation by Engineer A, who essentially acts as their design client/partner. This choice implies that Engineer B is avoiding acknowledging the flaws in the design for malevolent or indifferent reasons. Consequently, this poses severe consequences for Engineer B, potentially intensifying punishment once the hazardous flaws are discovered and linked to them and their "veiled" research. Ethicality Ranking Considering the listed and explained violations of the NSPE Code of Ethics by both Engineer A and Engineer B, I would argue that Engineer B acted slightly more ethically than Engineer A, primarily because they were "invited" into the scenario rather than instigating it. Despite some vagueness in certain areas of the scenario, Engineer B's ethical intentions were generally good. They assisted Engineer A, who was in a desperate time crunch, in developing and researching the battery without hesitation. Engineer B also continued to conduct extensive research to identify any flaws in the design, which turned out to be present. The ethical issues arising from Engineer B mostly stem from EnergyCo's lack of approval or association with Engineer B collaborating with Engineer A, as well as the withholding of the discovery and involvement of the research. These actions were caused by the deceptive and ignorant behavior of Engineer A, indicating a disregard for Engineer B. While Engineer B's true ethical lapse lies in their failure to disclose the dangers of the battery design, which could potentially cause harm if not discovered in-house by EnergyCo, there is some justification for this lapse. It was induced by Engineer A's ignorance in presenting the design, including its constraints, and the accreditation of Engineer B as the proprietor of the design. Thus, there is some plausible reasoning behind Engineer B's ethical violation, which is not as prevalent in the case of Engineer A. Engineer A's actions are mainly centered around a stress-induced time crunch and the need to provide a design for EnergyCo. The ethical lapses of Engineer A, such as not giving credit for the battery design, contracting Engineer B without complete authoritative ability, and not fully reviewing the design, lack as much of an ethically moral basis compared to Engineer B. Engineer A's faults are centered on job fulfillment rather than aiding someone.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help