Engineers Thumb

When it shows signs of having been groped and fumbled for, the needful illusion is of course absent, and the failure complete. Then the machinery alone is visible and the end to which it operates becomes a matter of indifference (50).

When Mrs. Brant started with the experiment she had no problem with it at first. After starting to hear the learner's sounds of agony, she turned to the experimenter questioning him if she should continue; the experimenter without hesitation commanded her to do so. A second later she asked him again, then remarking firmly. She discussed with the experimenter about the learner's medical condition. In this particular case the learner has heart problems. The experimenter explained to Mrs. Brant that the shocks may be painful but they are not dangerous and again asked her to continue with the experiment. At that point she was not willing to ask the experimenter to stop anymore; she then wanted to ask the learner himself. She told the experimenter that she would continue only if the learner wished to. The experimenter once again told her she had no choice and that she was obligated to continue. She then refused to go further and the experiment was terminated.

Mr Birling makes long speeches at dinner about things that the audience would know were incorrect. For example, he claims war will never happen and that the Titanic is unsinkable. “And I say there isn’t a chance of war. The world's developing so fast that it'll make war impossible." He is confident that there will not be a war. The audience, (knowing that two years after his speech, World War One will begin), see that Mr Birling is wrong. This makes the audience lose trust in him as a character - if he’s wrong about this, what else could he be wrong about too? However to contrast with Mr Birling’s thoughts, as the Inspector delivers his closing speech, he prophesies a terrible future. "And I tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish." The Inspector predicts a future of hell, filled with a vision of ‘fire’ and ‘blood’. Priestley experienced war first hand, so some suspect that what he saw in wartime influenced the Inspector's final speech.

the “engineers have a forest and a tree problem”, making it difficult for them to see beyond the issue in

The Milgram experiment was conducted in 1963 by Stanley Milgram in order to focus on the conflict between obedience to authority and to personal conscience. The experiment consisted of 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, and who’s jobs ranged from unskilled to professional. The roles of this experiment included a learner, teacher, and researcher. The participant was deemed the teacher and was in the same room as the researcher. The learner, who was also a paid actor, was put into the next room and strapped into an electric chair. The teacher administered a test to the learner, and for each question that was incorrect, the learner was to receive an electric shock by the teacher, increasing the level of shock each time. The shock generator ranged from

“Those were dear good people, but they must have carried simplicity and credulity to the limit. They would stick a pin in my arm and bear on it until they drove it a third of its length in, and then be lost in wonder that by a mere exercise of will-power the professor could turn my arm to iron and make it insensible to pain. Whereas it was not insensible at all; I was suffering agonies of pain” (3).

In the short story “Hands” by Xiao Hong, the main character, Wang Yaming, experiences this sort of pain in her boarding school. In this story, the main character is being tormented by students and staff because of her black, stained hands. Her hands are this way because, she is the dyer’s daughter and wants to make ends so she can afford to go to school. When fellow classmates and the Principal of Wang Yaming criticized her for her hands, it made depictions of how people will treat you unfairly because of your flaws. Judgment towards someone based off of looks is unacceptable, since you don’t know who the person really is.

Baumrind declares that Milgram’s experiments are unethical because of the possible harm that the teachers are exposed to during the teaching. In an article, published on Yahoo’s Associated Content, the author writes that because of Milgram lying to the subjects about what type of experiment they were participating in was the main reason of unethical interpretations (Associated Content). This reason is in agreement to Baumrind’s beliefs when she writes of the manipulation and embarrassment subjects are beginning to encounter when experiments are taking place. She cites the Ethical Standards of Psychologists, using this to present the standards that Milgram possibly overstepped while conducting the experiments. However when reading the the opening line, “Only when a problem is significant ...

Tierney begins his article by posing a hypothetical situation about two fictional men, Bill and Mark, that's often used by experimental philosophers. By posing morally questionable rhetorical

A lesser-anticipated pitfall associated with expert witnesses, is the possibility of them making a mistake. Especially in a case such as Woburn, where both sides have a slew of expert testimony, lawyers such as Schlichtmann aren’t able to catch or prevent every mistake. Even if eventually caught and corrected, one mistake can prove to be very damaging. In A Civil Action, George Pinder, Schlichtmann’s expert in hydrology and groundwater movement, made a minor calculating mistake. Although minor, “Schlichtmann knew that Facher and Keating would not miss this mistake, and that they would use it on cross-examination to attack Pinder’s credibility” (Harr 327). An expert witness whose credibility is

Ethics today investigate the examination about beguiling the individuals. Faultfinders moreover frequently raise the possible harm the examination did to the individuals. Every so often, this enthusiastic scarring continued for a significant long time and years after the examination, so investigating the Milgram Experiment ethics is a basic bit of science. Now a day, in this time and age, experiments have to get approve by a board of people, which is a great idea. That way we can avoid experiments like this, and people will not have to suffer long term side

At this point, the Teacher and Learner were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. The Teacher was then given an electric shock from the electro-shock generator as a sample what the Learner would supposedly to receive during the experiment. After the Teacher was given a list of word pairs which he was to teach the Learner. The Teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. To respond the Learner would press a button to indicate their answer, if the answer was wrong the teacher would shock the Learner with the voltage increasing by 15-volts for each wrong answer, if correct the Teacher would read the next word pair. The subjects believed that for each wrong answer the Learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After a series of wrong answers the Learner would start complaining about their heart, afterwards there would be no response from the Learner at all. Many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner at this point in the experiment. Some paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment, while most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects even began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress when they heard the screams of the

A mad scientist stands in one part of a double-chambered machine, leaving the other empty. As he presses a button, gears begin to whir and smoke. A bright light flashes, and out of the empty chamber steps a perfect replica of the scientist, complete with clothes and command of the English language.

William LeMessurier and the Citicorp Tower controversy provide examples of engineering ethics. He followed the NSPE Code of Ethics when dealing with the tower’s faults. The decision to tell his employers and ultimately fix the tower showed that he acknowledged his errors, acted as a faithful agent to his employers, and that he held paramount the safety of the public as seen in professional obligations 1 and the fundamental canons 4 and 1. Even when faced with the moral decision of risking his reputation by fixing the tower, he still thought that the safety of the public was more important than his own personal gain. He was willing to admit his errors and fix the tower.

More specifically, they were trying to avoid the blame and further their individual motives. When I saw the film I thought to myself there’s no possible way this happens in real life, but the article shows two examples. The Challenger case as well as the Macondo Well blowout showed that even though engineers might have noticed a problem, in the end management or other engineers decided that it was safe enough to proceed. Then during the investigation, the leaders of the company or project managers decided to play innocent and ignorant. The other thing that I found interesting is the “practice defines facts” model. If correlations are found, then they become facts until they are disproven; this is the problem with the model. A fact should not be able to change, if a fact is truly a fact then the evidence should always support it. When we spread misinformation by stating a correlation is fact, it can lead to many people thinking that it is the truth. It goes back to the first articles we read in class about misleading information in science. Not only does the Macondo/Challenger article tie into the film that we watch it also ties into other topics that we learned about ethics. People in certain situations have an innate self-interest that hurts