Engineering ethics

Engineers should not be “guns for hire” and always do what would maximize the outcome; they should be looking out for the “good of humanity”[1]. If I had to make the decision of where to put the cell phone tower I would undeniably recommend the building of site b. Murray said “Gentlemen, we must not let anything interfere with this series of tests, nothing” [2], this clearly shows why we shouldn’t put the consequences ahead of human life. This is another case where the ends do not justify the means, but Thomas Murray, the atomic energy commissioner, didn’t see it that way. This problem is along the same lines as the cell tower problem, should benefits have to be sacrificed in order to ensure the health of humanity? Johnson argues “We want…engineers committed to the safety and human well- being” [1], if we want to be safe then we should always should put the “site b” over the “site a” whenever possible. In Terry Tempest Williams “Clan of the one breasted women” the government tested atomic bombs in Nevada, and several families were affected, with many women dying because of breast cancer. Although we don’t know if it would cause any harm to the community it is better to be safe than to expose people to radiation. Is it that big of deal to put people at risk so cell phone users can increase their roaming capabilities by thirty percent?

.

Building on site A would be a purely consequence oriented approach, and the ends would definitely not justify the means.

Money should never be placed in higher value than human life. And as an engineer I would have to look out for the safety of humanity. ofessional Responsibility of Engineers”, Samuel Florman gives the example “Should we risk oil spills and increase our reserves by offshore drilling?” [1].