Moral aspects through the codes of ethics

At this point, an implementation could be useful to reflect the need to do something more. This implementation is based on the eleven ethical factors presented in Chapter 1, section 3.

It is the development of the model that we propose in order to know what the moral consideration within the professional world through the codes of ethics is. It is a way to find out what the valuable elements are, which are in some cases missed and what the reprehensible elements embedded within are. Additionally,

through these eleven ethical factors, it is possible to illustrate how the analysis of the set of questions with regard to the new changes and needs of the ICT context shows many of the key ethical points to consider within the new approach for the engi-neering professional world.

Therefore, due to the importance of the codes of ethics in the engineering profession (Lynch and Kline, 2000), and being aware of the need to frame the basic values, ethical principles and standards through them, it is very fitting to show how our eleven ethical factors are in accordance with the spirit of some of the main codes of engineering ethics. In the following section, three well-known codes of engineering ethics will be reviewed:

Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE).

The relevant statements of these codes with regard to our proposal are the following:

ACM

1 Contribute to society and human well-being.

1.4 Be fair and take action not to discriminate.

2.1 Strive to achieve the highest quality, effectiveness and dignity in both the process and products of professional work.

2.7 Improve public understanding of computing and its con-sequences.

3.5 Articulate and support policies that protect the dignity of users and others affected by a computing system.

IEEE

1 To accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose prompt-ly factors that might endanger the public or the environment.

5 To improve the understanding of technology, its appropri-ate application, and practical consequences.

8 To treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race, religion, gender, disability, age, or nation origin.

NSPE

I.1 Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

III.2.a Engineers are encouraged to participate in civic affairs [...]

III.2.b Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not in conformity with applicable engineering standards.

III.2.d Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations.

The following table summarizes the results of the comparisons:

ACM IEEE NSPE (1) Does it answer or help to answer an existing demand? 2.1 * III.2.b (2) Does it make understanding and cooperation easier

among people trying to manage a problem? * * *

(3) Does it point towards the characteristics and demands of its users? Is it flexible, easy to adapt to chan-ges in its environment and to new requirements?

2.1 * III.2.a

(4) Does it promote user’s autonomy? 3.5 * *

(5) In what ways does it increase the welfare of its users? 1 1 I.1 (6) Does it respect valuable social practices and universal

human rights? 1.4 8 III.2.a

(7) Does it keep working under human control? 2.7 * * (8) Can it be integrated with other well-founded

techno-logies? Is it easy to update and maintain?

2.1 * III.2.b

(9) Is it constrained by heavy demand of resources when it is manufactured or used?

* * III.2.d

(10) What are the undesired effects on people or the environment?

2.1 5 III.2.d

(11) To what degree is it recyclable and/or reusable? * * * An asterisk means that there is no obvious correspondence between the ethical factor and the concerns shown in the professional code.

It is significant that two of the eleven ethical factors (numbers (2) and (11)) receive no support from any of the three ethical codes. Moreover, three of the factors (numbers (4), (7) and (9)) receive some support from just one of the codes. We consider that this does not reflect badly on the frame, quite the contrary.

In addition, it shows an important characteristic of many profes-sional codes. Both assertions are closely related and need to be justified.

To begin with, it is convenient to distribute these five ethical factors into two groups. The first group contains numbers (9) and (11), both of them pointing to environmental concerns. The second group contains the other three factors: numbers (2), (4) and (7). These are related to ―let us say― user advantage concerns.

On the one hand, until recently, environmental concerns had not been introduced into professional codes. This was considered, and still is, to be a huge social and political problem that lies out-side of the ethical professional context. However, as the NSPE code recognizes in III.2.d, there is also a clear responsibility in the work of engineers, both to the environment and to the future generations. Many professional decisions, practices, and attitudes have an influence on the problems of waste, squandering of resources, and pollution/contamination. We can notice that the codes of ethics defend and promote, overall, personal qualities;

next, personal relationships and, finally, the relationship with the natural environment. Probably, in the near future, many profes-sional codes will include this concern as being among the most relevant.

On the other hand, with regard to people, professional codes in engineering are directed towards the aim of not hurting any-one. Of course, this is a paramount concern, but is a negative one. It is also very important to think from a positive viewpoint, how to benefit people through the professional activity. This new commitment means that perhaps professional ethics deserves a still more serious consideration.