i have hw on philosophy

Deborah Johnson,

“The Social/Professional Responsibility of Engineers”

Topic:

1. What do the social responsibilities of engineers imply about military research?

2. What are the social responsibilities of engineers?

3. What criteria should engineers use to determine whether to work on a project?

Alternative Views:

1. Engineers should not impose their moral views on society; they should let society decide what projects are undertaken.

2. Engineers should refuse to work on projects they deem, on balance, to conflict with their moral values.

3. Engineers should refuse to work on projects that increase risk unless the public is informed about the risk and given the opportunity to consent.

Thesis: Engineers should only direct their professional skills to projects they deem, on balance, to be of positive value to humanity, and should refuse to work on projects that put people at risk unless information about such projects is made generally available.

Main Argument:

P1: The social responsibility of engineers is to work on projects only if they are moral and promote the distinctive professional value of engineering.

P2: A project is moral only if individuals deem it to be, on balance, of positive value to humanity.

P3: Safety is the distinctive professional value of engineering.

P4: A project is safe only if it does not increase ambient levels of risk unless sufficient information is made available to allow for public consent.

C: (Thesis)

Against the Hired Guns Approach

1. Approach (Florman)

Principle: Engineers should let society decide what projects to undertake.

Criteria: Work on a project only if it is legal and economical.

Motivation: Whether to take on certain projects ought to be a political decision made democratically. We don’t want technocratic elite to impose their views on society.

2. Objections (Johnson)

Major: P1: Hired guns approach implies that professions are amoral.

P2: But professions are not amoral— they are directed toward a social good.

Minor:

P1: Hired guns approach implies that law and market are good filters for determining what is good for society.

P2: But law and market are not good at determining what is good for society.

Against the Personal Values Approach

1. Approach (Unger)

Principle: Engineers should do what they deem to be of positive value to humanity

Criterion: Work on project only if it is compatible with moral values.

Motivation: All engineering committed to the good of humanity and there is individual freedom of conscience

2. Objections (Johnson)

Major: P1: Personal values approach does not acknowledge that professions have values of their own.

P2: Professions do have values of their own.

Minor: P1: Personal values approach is empty of specific useful content.

P2: Social responsibility criteria need to have specific useful content to help professionals figure out what to do

Against the Safety Approach

1. Approach (Kipnis)

Principle: Engineers should hold safety paramount.

Criterion: Work on a project only if it does not increase extant risk without providing information for public consent.

Motivation: Acknowledges that safety is professional value for engineering, respects that risk is pervasive and that public have right to informed consent.

2. Objections (Johnson)

Major: The principle does not explicitly put forth the good of humanity as a goal at the heart of engineering.

Minor: Because we must be content with only implicit consent and the law and market may be sufficient for implicit consent, there is a danger that this view could collapse into the hired guns approach.

Against the Hybrid Approach

1. Approach (Johnson)

Principle: Engineers should promote the good of humanity and its distinctive professional value.

Criteria: Work on a project only if it is of positive value to humanity and it does not increase extant risk without providing information for public consent.

Motivation: Recognizes that profession has a moral dimension and is committed to a particular value (safety)

2. Objections (Larkin)

Major: Criteria for social responsibility should be concerned with performing proximate function well rather than with explicitly aiming at ultimate orientation.

Minor: Safety is an in techno consideration and not an ad technum criterion.

Just Technology Approach

Principle: Engineers should aim at human flourishing by performing their proper function well.

Criteria: Work on a project only if (a) it is a genuine material problem, (b) complex enough to require formal practical knowledge to solve, and (c) a solution is feasible.

Motivation: Recognizes that engineering is ultimately oriented toward a social good (human flourishing) and has a distinctive way of promoting that good (solving complex material problems through the application of formal practical knowledge).