Philosophy Engineering Ethics- Case Analysis

Case: 07-6: Sustainable Development--Threatened Species NAME:

https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/ethics-resources/board-ethical-review-cases/sustainable-development-threatened

I. Facts

1. Engineer A works for an environmental engineering firm

2. The firm is hired by a developer to do an analysis on some land for potential construction of condominiums.

3. During the analysis a biologist working for the firm determines that a certain “threatened species” of bird could be negatively impacted by development of the property.

4. Engineer A tells the client about this, but needs to determine whether to include it in a written report, which will be seen by public officials.

5. Assume: No legal requirement to include the information in the engineering report.

6. Assume: Impacts on the threatened species of bird will not have any significant effect on humans.

II. Argument

P1: Including the information will involve Engineer A affixing her signature to a document about a threatened bird species.

P2: Affixing her signature to a document dealing with a threatened bird species is impermissible.

2a: Affixing her signature to a document dealing with a threatened bird species is performing a service outside her area of competence.

(NSPE Code of Ethics, II.2.b)

2b: Performing services outside one’s area of competence is impermissible.

(NSPE Code of Ethics, I.2)

C: So Engineer A including the information is impermissible.

III. Judgment

Engineer A should withhold the information about the threatened bird species from the written report.

IV. Objection (Counter-Argument)

P1: Not including the information will involve withholding relevant and pertinent information.

P2: Withholding relevant and pertinent information is impermissible.

2a: To withhold relevant and pertinent information is to issue a statement that is not objective and truthful. (NSPE Code of Ethics II.3.a)

2b: Not issuing statements in an objective and truthful manner is impermissible. (NSPE Code of Ethics, I.3)

C: So Engineer A not including the information is impermissible.

V. Reply

1. Premise P1 is false because the information about the threatened bird species is not relevant and pertinent to the engineering project.

2. For, given an anthropocentric approach to sustainable development, the information would be relevant only if the impact on the threatened species would negatively affect the resource base needed for future generations.

3. But the impact on the threatened bird species will not likely affect the resource base available for future generations.