A broader concept of responsibility

Following on from the previous sketch of the third generation of all three concepts, rights, ethics and CSR, it seems appropri-ate to inquire how this threefold social evolution is or could be reflected in the engineering ethics of today. At first glance, if our previous description is correct, that is to say, if engineering eth-ics is understood in a routine way as engineers’ etheth-ics and this shift favors the moral model of an isolated heroic engineer, then, engineering ethics is quite removed from those third generational features. Day by day, we transform the planet in which we live.

Engineering is one of the activities which contributes most to

this transformation in its demand of raw materials, consumption of energy, waste products, and the side effects on trades and the work place, and so it is necessary to take its influence on the life of all human and non-human beings into careful consideration.

An open and clear mind is essential. For instance, we are quite conscious that, regarding the environment, there are no strictly local problems. Our health and welfare depends on the activities we carry out in every corner of the planet. Globalization implies much more than the free market worldwide. Decisions about what we construct, design, use, visit, eat, or wear, in, say, New York, may have very tangible consequences for people living in Rwanda, Argentina or Indonesia.

To quote two fine observers of this disparity, Lynch and Kline (2000) pointed out that: “[…] the promotion of ethical decision making can be facilitated by developing an understanding of the sociological and cultural context of engineering practice and its effect on ongoing, mundane engineering practice. Direct, inten-tional conflicts of ethical values may be less important than the historically and sociologically explicable outcome of unintended consequences of intentional action and the cultural normalization of practices that would be questionable if the disparate effects of these practices could be traced.” More recently, Durbin (2008) suggested that: “Engineers and their professional societies need to broaden their outlook, moving beyond a focus on individual misconduct to broader social responsibilities.” To say this in other words, engineering ethics should abandon the suffocating scenario of engineers trying to discover in their conscience or wisdom both: a) the correct answer to a moral dilemma they are confronted with, and b) the courage to carry it out unhesitatingly.

The demand for a new framework of engineering responsi-bility can be dated back, at least, to the nineties. In their well-known study on the Therac-25 accidents, Leveson and Turner (1993) came to the conclusion that today, with so many complex technical attainments surrounding us, responsibility is no longer

restricted to single individuals; “Accidents are seldom simple, they usually involve a complex web of interacting events with multiple contributing technical, human, and organizational fac-tors.” It is also important to remember that such a complex of interacting events had also been indicated in the Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (1986), where a set of nine groups of recommenda-tions were made affecting different subjects; design, independent oversight, management structure, safety organization and main-tenance safeguards amongst them. These well-known accidents showed that, in regards to sophisticated technological products, such as those produced by engineering, there are a great number of factors and relationships to be taken into account. However, that is not all. Some factors and relationships, not all of them properly identified, may change over time. Moreover, some human practices, decisions and actions, which cannot be easily predicted, may also interfere. Thus, one lesson to learn from these failures is that responsibility means responsibilities. The ethical question is not, “Who is guilty?” but “What has been my contribution to the outcome?”

With regard to the technical degrees where ICT has an impor-tant role, professional responsibility exists because, as we already know, the engineering profession has its social connotations when developing a technological project. So in relation to the framework of engineering responsibility, we will differentiate two ways through which we can make reference to this profes-sional responsibility and the need to attain the objectives of this responsibility.

2.1.1. passive and active responsibility

On one hand, the engineer and his actions when exercising the profession should be held to account by society, the customer, colleagues, and the law and so on. It has to assume responsibility for damages or the failure to comply with the commitment

(qual-ity, costs, terms ...) stipulated within a contract when developing a project. This is passive responsibility. In other words [it] “refers to accountability for something that has occurred in the past”

(van de Poel and Verbeek, 2006). When we talk about this kind of responsibility, we infer that it is possible to make some kind of civil responsibility, meaning, a norm or law that has been violated in the action (i.e.: an offense), the breaking of a contractual agree-ment or both things simultaneously. The consequences could involve the repetition of the task, financial compensation or, in the worst case, a prison sentence.

On the other hand, active responsibility involves acting a pri-ori. This means paying enough attention to, and interest in, what we are doing at the workplace in order to minimize the possibil-ity of error, accident, the worsening of qualpossibil-ity or failure in the agreement stipulated. In others words, “It refers to responsibility as a virtue” (van de Poel and Verbeek, 2006). It involves think-ing about the consequences of the undertaken project and the interests of those who will encounter the effects of our actions.

So this responsibility implies the willingness to carry out a task or work of high quality, a commitment towards excellence, a feature that distinguishes the good professional. In parallel, it also justi-fies the social prestige of the engineering profession.

To conclude we must say that active responsibility within the professional practice of the engineering it is not just a possibil-ity, but a requirement. Many of the well-known thinkers such as Hans Jonas and Jacques Ellul cited in the Chapter 3, section 1, refer to that responsibility in relation to the technological world.

Acting responsibly within the context of ICT consists of being able to give appropriate use to the power that, as professional of the engineering, one possesses when interacting with technologi-cal advances.

In addition, it is well known that the engineering profession has a large scope of works related to the engineer’s roles and responsibilities. Engineers take their significant roles and

respon-sibilities across a multi disciplinary environment and, in this light we want to distinguish two responsibilities and their respective roles, the technical and the professional profiles, within the com-puting profession.

2.1.2 technical and professional responsibility

Technical responsibility is merely based on the technical knowledge and skills belonging to the sphere of activity. This profile promotes the idea that engineers are capable of continu-ously learning in their branch of engineering through the assimi-lation of varied information and applications in order to develop products of quality following regulations and rules. This case is the first stage for an engineering practitioner at the beginning of the exercise of his profession. The following stage should be that they are put in a position to make contributions to the development of engineering, its application and anything further necessary to change an engineering practitioner into a computing professional.

To make the distinction between the technical and profes-sional profiles we have to know which the distinctive feature that will allow us to go beyond the concept of responsibility is.

According to (Gotterbarn, 2001) “In a profession, the members pledge to use their skills for the good of society and not to merely act as agents for the client doing whatever a client asks”. This means, the professional profile that Gotterbarn points out is someone who by virtue of deeper reflection and wider practical experience of a given professional enterprise can clearly explain the evaluative and practical implications (consequences) of a given professional problem. This professional profile is based on lessons learned from experience or failures of responsibility. We refer to what Gotterbarn calls “positive responsibility”. This is another layer of responsibility focused on what ought to be done rather than on blaming or punishing others for irresponsible behavior. In others words, “The emphasis in positive

responsibil-ity is on the virtue of having or being obliged to have regard for the consequences of his or her actions on others”. Certainly, this responsibility is based on values.

These two types of responsibilities are a part of the evolution of the engineer’s responsibility and they are necessary within the maturation process of any engineer. The main goal is to tend towards professional responsibility in order to ensure that social wellbeing is advanced by individuals doing good acts which have good consequences for society. Thus a professional engineer is competent by virtue of his fundamental education and train-ing and able to apply the scientific method and outlook to the analysis and resolution of engineering problems. He is able to assume personal responsibility for the development and applica-tion of engineering, notably in research, designing, construcapplica-tion, manufacturing, managing and, in the education of the engineer, all of this is based on predominantly intellectual work and on the exercise of original thought and judgement.