© 1996 American Society for Engineering Education, Reprinted from the Journal of Engineering Education, April 1996, Vol. 85, No.2 Engineering Ethics: What? Why? How? And When? CHARLES EDWIN HARRIS, JR. Department ofPhilosophy TexasA&M University MICHAEL DAVIS Centerfor the Study ofEthics in the Professions Illinois Institute o/Technology MICHAEL S. PRITCHARD Department ofPhilosophy Western Michigan University MICHAEL J. RABINS Department ofMechanical Engineering Texas A & M University ABSTRACT Engineering ethics is professional ethics, as opposed to personal morality. It sets the standards for professional practice, and is only learned in a professional school or in professional practice. It is an essential part ofprofessional education because it helps students deal with issues they will face in professional practice. The best way to teach engineering ethics is by using cases--notjust the disaster cases that make the news, but the kinds ofcases that an engineer is more likely to encounter. Many cases are available, and there are methods for analyzing them. Engineering ethics can be taught in a free-standing course, but there are strong arguments for introduc­ ing ethics in technical courses as well. Engineering is something that engineers do, and what they do has profound effects on others. Ifthe subject ofprofessional ethics is how members ofa profession should, or should not, affect others in the course ofpracticing their profession, then engineering ethics is an essential aspect ofengi­ neering itself and education in professional responsibilities should be part ofprofessional education in engineering, just as it is in law and medicine. Probably few engineering educators would disagree with these claims; their implementation in engineering education is another matter. We want to discuss the introduction ofengi­ neering ethics into engineering education in terms offour ques­ tions: What is engineering ethics? Why should it be emphasized in engineering education? How should it be taught? and When should it appear in the student's education? I. WHAT? We begin with an obvious but important distinction, that be­ tween morality and professional ethics. Morality, as we shall use that term, refers to those standards of conduct that apply to every­ one rather than only to members of a special group. Ideally, these standards are ones that every rational person wants every other to follow, even if everyone else's following them would mean that he or she had to do the same. We were all quite young when we learned such basic moral rules as: don't lie; don't kill; don't cheat; keep your promises; don't steal; and so on. We were still quite young when we learned that these rules have exceptions (for exam­ ple, "except in self-defense" for "don't kill").l Now and then, we may change our view on how to interpret a particular rule or exception­ for example, we may come to think that it is possible .

1. © 1996 American Society for Engineering Education,
Reprinted from the Journal of Engineering Education,
April 1996, Vol. 85, No.2
Engineering Ethics: What? Why? How?
And When?
CHARLES EDWIN HARRIS, JR.
Department ofPhilosophy
TexasA&M University
MICHAEL DAVIS
Centerfor the Study ofEthics in the Professions
Illinois Institute o/Technology
MICHAEL S. PRITCHARD
Department ofPhilosophy
Western Michigan University
MICHAEL J. RABINS
Department ofMechanical Engineering
Texas A & M University
ABSTRACT
Engineering ethics is professional ethics, as opposed to personal
morality. It sets the standards for professional practice, and is
only
learned in a professional school or in professional practice. It is
an

2. essential part ofprofessional education because it helps students
deal with issues they will face in professional practice. The best
way
to teach engineering ethics is by using cases--notjust the
disaster
cases that make the news, but the kinds ofcases that an engineer
is
more likely to encounter. Many cases are available, and there
are
methods for analyzing them. Engineering ethics can be taught in
a
free-standing course, but there are strong arguments for
introduc-
ing ethics in technical courses as well. Engineering is
something
that engineers do, and what they do has profound effects on
others.
Ifthe subject ofprofessional ethics is how members ofa
profession
should, or should not, affect others in the course ofpracticing
their
profession, then engineering ethics is an essential aspect ofengi-
neering itself and education in professional responsibilities
should
be part ofprofessional education in engineering, just as it is in
law
and medicine. Probably few engineering educators would
disagree
with these claims; their implementation in engineering
education
is another matter. We want to discuss the introduction ofengi-
neering ethics into engineering education in terms offour ques-
tions: What is engineering ethics? Why should it be emphasized
in
engineering education? How should it be taught? and When
should it appear in the student's education?

3. I. WHAT?
We begin with an obvious but important distinction, that be-
tween morality and professional ethics. Morality, as we shall
use
that term, refers to those standards of conduct that apply to
every-
one rather than only to members of a special group. Ideally,
these
standards are ones that every rational person wants every other
to
follow, even if everyone else's following them would mean that
he
or she had to do the same. We were all quite young when we
learned such basic moral rules as: don't lie; don't kill; don't
cheat;
keep your promises; don't steal; and so on. We were still quite
young when we learned that these rules have exceptions (for
exam-
ple, "except in self-defense" for "don't kill").l Now and then, we
may
change our view on how to interpret a particular rule or
exception-
for example, we may come to think that it is possible to lie
without
saying anything false (for example, by omitting some fact
necessary
for understanding what we do say). But, since we entered our
teens,
such changes have been few and relatively marginal. Our
students
are much like us. They arrive in class more or less morally
mature.
We have little to teach them about ordinary morality.

4. Not so with professional ethics. By "professional ethics"
(hence-
forward in this paper, just "ethics") we refer to those special
morally
permissible standards of conduct that, ideally, every member of
a
profession wants every other member to follow, even if that
would
mean having to do the same. Ethics applies to members of a
gTOUp
simply because they are members of that group. Medical ethics
ap-
plies to people in medicine (and no one else); business ethics
applies
to people in business (and no one else); and engineering ethics
ap-
plies to engineers (and no one else).l.2
The special standards that constitute engineering ethics are what
are to be taught. They have been formulated in different codes
of
ethics, in formal interpretations ofthose codes, and in the less
formal
practices by which engineers pass on the special ways they do
things
to each new generation of engineers. So, except for those
students
lucky enough to have a mother or father who is an engineer, no
one
is likely to learn much about engineering ethics except at
engineer-
ing school or while practicing engineering. Engineering ethics
is as
much a part ofwhat engineers in particular know as factors of
safety,

5. testing procedures, or ways to design for reliability, durability,
or
economy. Engineering ethics is part of thinking like an
engineer.
Teaching engineering ethics is part of teaching engineering.
II. WHY?
Why teach engineering ethics? One possible answer is the long
and familiar list of tragedies, disasters, and scandals in which
engi-
neers have been major players. Something should be done about
all
these bad things. This answer, what we can call the big
newslbad
news approach to ethics education, seems to miss the mark. Al-
though these incidents should be a matter of concern to all of
us,
and especially to engineering students, who can learn from past
mistakes, they are exceptional rather than ordinary occurrences
in
April 1996 Journal ofEngineering Education 93
r
engineering. Most engineers will never be involved in such
news-
worthy circumstances.
Big news for the media is usually bad news. This is why, when
audiences are asked to think of media coverage of ethical issues
in

6. engineering, they come up with a familiar list of disasters: the
col-
lapse of the Hyatt-Regency walkway in Kansas City, the
Challenger
disaster, the Bhopal disaster, DC-10 crashes, and so on-and on.
But
an exclusive focus on big newslbad news events may encourage
engi-
neering students to think of ethics as primarily about others--
those
relatively few engineers who have the misfortune of being
involved
in something newsworthy. And they may take comfort in the
knowledge that, despite some bad press for a few engineers,
national
surveys usually place engineers near the top ofthe list in regard
to the
public's confidence in the ethics ofthe professions. 3
However, rather than relying on media coverage of disasters or
public surveys for an answer to the question, 'Why teach
engineer-
ing ethics?," we suggest looking elsewhere. Some years ago the
Hastings Center, an ethics think tank in New York, brought to-
gether educators from a broad range of disciplines to talk about
what should be the common goals of ethics education in
colleges
and universities: One goal they identi£ed was to stimulate the
ethi-
cal imagination of students. Too often, the educators agreed,
young
professionals get caught by surprise when faced with an ethical
problem in their professional practice. Never having seriously
thought about such a problem, they may not handle it well.
Another, related Hastings Center goal is to help students recog-

7. nize ethical issues. Although a conflict of interest may be
lurking
around the corner, it may not announce itself to the involved
parties
until matters have gone too far. For example, what counts as a
con-
flict of interest in engineering practice-as well as precisely why
it is
an ethical problem-may not be obvious to the uninitiated. So, a
third Hastings Center goal comes into play: to help students
analyze
key ethical concepts and principles that are relevant to the
particular
profession or practice. Other concepts come to mind-public
health
and safety, quality, usefulness, efficiency, costlrisklbenefit
analysis,
environmental harm, truthfulness, trustworthiness, loyalty.
Many of these concepts are "messy." They resist the sort of pre-
cise definition engineering students might want. Even if there
are
paradigms for, say, "safe" or "unsafe," there are areas of
vagueness
and uncertainly. Algorithms that do justice to the ethical issues
are
hard to come by. So, yet another Hastings Center goal applies:
to
help students deal with ethical disagreement, ambiguity, and
vagueness. The trick is to acknowledge that some disagreement
and
uncertainty can be expected and should be tolerated, but to
refuse to
accept the view, "Everyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's
when it comes to ethics."

8. There is one more Hastings Center goal that merits attention:
to encourage students to take ethical responsibility seriously. In
one
sense, this should not be difficult for engineering students, once
they reflect on the obvious fact that engineering is not just a
techni-
cal or theoretical enterprise. Inherent in the exercise of
engineering
expertise is the provision of useful, if not essential, services to
clients, employers, customers, and the public. Usefulness,
quality,
safety, efficiency, and cost effectiveness are not secondary
features
of this activity. They are its heart. So are reliable judgement
and
trustworthiness. So, ifwe examine what engineers do, and not
sim-
ply the technical content of engineering textbooks, it is easy to
see
that ethical responsibility should be a central concern of the
engi-
neering profession and practice.
94 Journal oJEngineering Education
We believe the goals elaborated by the Hastings Center provide
good reasons for teaching engineering ethics, but there are addi-
tional goals as well. Teaching ethics can increase student
sensitivity
to ethical issues simply by making students aware that they, as
engi-
neers, will have to resolve certain ethical problems. Just being
ex-
posed to a few examples of a particular problem, having them
iden-
ti£ed and explained, will make it more likely than otherwise

9. that
the students will see a problem of that sort when it arises on the
job.
Why teaching ethics might have that effect is not hard to under-
stand. The mechanism is precisely the same as for learning to
see
technical problems. Practice sharpens perception.
Teaching engineering ethics can increase student knowledge of
relevant standards. A student who reads a code of engineering
ethics is more likely to know what is in it than a student who
does
not read it . A student who has to answer questions about the
code
is more likely to recall the relevant provisions than one who has
not.
And so on. Knowledge of standards includes more than just
know-
ing what is written in codes or handbooks. Part of knowing
stan-
dards is understanding the rationale for them (especially the
conse-
quences of departing from them). For example, part of teaching
students to take operating costs into account when designing
some-
thing is pointing out how uneconomical the design is if they
don't.
Teaching engineering ethics can improve ethical judgement.
Ethical judgement, like technical judgement, tends to improve
with
use. If a professor of engineering gives students a chance to
make
ethical judgements, explain them, and compare them with those
other students make, the student is more likely to judge well
than if

10. she gets no such experience. The classroom and laboratory
provide
a safe place to make mistakes and learn from them-ethical mis-
takes as well as purely technical ones.
Finally, teaching engineering ethics can increase a student's eth-
ical will-power. One might say, "Surely the classroom and
laborato-
ry are not the place for that." Think again. Isn't an engineer who
knows that he shares a particular standard of conduct with other
engineers more likely to follow it than one who believes himself
alone? One benefit of discussing ethics in the classroom is that
it
shows students how much consensus there is (among engineers)
on
most standards of engineering ethics. There is power in
numbers.
That is one source ofwill-power.
III. How?
There is widespread agreement that the best way to teach pro-
fessional ethics is by using cases. There are several modes of
ethical
analysis that can be useful in treating cases. We shall discuss
two of
them.(For fuller accounts, see reference 5) Both methods are
based
on concepts and even expressions that we use in
everydayexperi-
ence when we talk about moral problems.
One of these expressions is "drawing the line." We often ask
where we should draw the line between acceptable and
unaccept-
able actions . Let us consider a case that illustrates this first

11. mode of
ethical analysis, which we shall refer to as resolving a line-
drawing
problem.
Engineers often face the problem of accepting gifts from ven-
dors. On the one hand, most engineers probably believe that ac-
cepting a cheap plastic pen from a vendor is permissible. On the
other hand, all engineers believe it is not permissible to accept a
$10,000 check from a vendor to specify a product that is both
infe-
April 1996
rior and more expensive. But where do we draw the line
between
these two extremes? Suppose a vendor offers to take us to the
local
country club for golf, or to sponsor us for membership in the
coun-
try club. Suppose he invites us to a seminar in Hawaii, where
his
company and ours split the expenses. Suppose he invites us to a
seminar in Hawaii, all expenses paid. Where do we draw the
line?
In the line-drawing method, we compare the controversial case
to noncontroversial cases, i.e. to the cases where there would be
lit-
tle doubt that the action is right (accepting the plastic pen) or
wrong (accepting the $10,000 bribe). By isolating the
similarities
and differences between the controversial case and the
noncontro-

12. versial cases, we are usually able to decide whether a
controversial
action is morally acceptable.
Now let us turn to the second mode of ethical analysis. Another
term that we often use in referring to moral problems is
"conflict."
We say that we are in a conflict over an issue, meaning that we
feel
pulled in two different directions by competing considerations.
Here we must engage in resolving a conflict problem.
The popular videotape "Gilbane Gold," produced by the Na-
tional Society of Professional Engineers, presents a classic
conflict
problem.· In the story, a young engineer, David Jackson, the
envi-
ronmental engineer at ZCORP, faces a problem. His job requires
him to sign documents certifYing that the plant discharge into
the
local sewer meets city regulations, when he suspects that it does
not.
To make matters worse, the contaminants in the plant's
discharge
are arsenic and lead, and the sludge from the water treatment
plant
is made into a fertilizer (Gilbane Gold) which is used by local
farm-
ers. Plant management does not want to spend any more money
to
treat the discharge, and David believes that he could lose his
job if
he presses the issue too far.
David's situation can best be described as a conflict problem.
His

13. major conflict is between his obligation to be a loyal employee
and
his obligation to protect the health of the public. Both
obligations
are legitimate. What should he do?
David needs to do some brainstorming. In fact, the importance
of imagination in resolving ethical problems cannot be
overempha-
sized, whether they are line-drawing or conflict problems.
David
should first think of what we call creative middle ways, i.e.
actions
that will enable him to meet all of his apparently conflicting
obliga-
tions. For example, David might try to find a technical solution
to
the problem. This would enable him both to protect the citizens'
health and to protect ZCORP. Failing this, he might suggest to
his
manager, Diane, that she, along with other managers of high-
tech
plants in the area, approach the city with the problem in a non-
con-
frontational way. He might encourage her to argue that the
plants
and the city have a mutually beneficial relationship that should
be
preserved and that the problem can be solved if they work
together.
Unfortunately, creative-middle-way solutions are not always
possible. Then more difficult choices must be made, in which
some
obligations must be given priority over others. David might
have to

14. tell his superiors that he will not conceal anything from city
author-
ities. He might even have to refuse to sign any more documents
that certifY that ZCORP'S discharges are within city
regulations.
As a last resort, he might have to resign and go public, ifhe
believes
the situation is serious enough.
There is now a considerable body of cases in engineering ethics
for case analysis. The Ethics and Values in Society (EVS)
Program
at the National Science Foundation, under the direction of Dr.
Rachelle Hollander,has funded several projects designed to
create
April 1996
cases. One, at Western Michigan University, developed a set
of33
cases, each focused on a single issue. The cases came from the
expe-
riences of practicing and retired engineering managers and
focus on
the kinds of situations a practicing engineer is likely to
encounter.
Each case is followed by discussion by a board of
commentators.7
Another project, at Texas A&M University, developed a set of
11
cases taken mostly from real-world situations.S The cases are
pre-
sented with student handouts, instructor's guides and
recommend-
ed transparencies for classroom use. Each case is specifically

15. aimed
at a particular required course (or courses) in the engineering
un-
dergraduate curriculum.
The National Society of Professional Engineers has case materi-
al available under the title, "Professional Engineers in
Education
(NSPE-PEE)."· An electronic disc containing eight cases with
guidelines is available from the Murdough Center for
Engineering
Professionalism and Ethics at Texas Tech University, directed
by
Dr. Jimmie Smith.9 Dr. Pennington Vann, also at the Murdough
Center, has developed a bibliography on engineering ethics,
includ-
ing a listing of video tapes, such as 'The T ruesteel Affair"l0
and "To
Engineer Is Human."lI Dr. Michael S. Pritchard and others at
Western Michigan University are developing cases that deal
with
the avoidance and prevention ofwrongdoing in engineering."
IV. WHEN?
We believe students should be introduced to ethics in as many
times and places inside and outside the curriculum as possible.
Guest lectures, presentations to student chapters ofprofessional
so-
cieties and many other possibilities present themselves.
Another possibility is to have a single, free-standing, non- tech-
nical elective course. At some schools, engineering departments
offer seminar courses on engineering ethics. Elsewhere, such
free-
standing, non-technical electives are offered by philosophy

16. depart-
ments. At Texas A&M, the course is taught by both an engineer
and a philosopher. The course consists of one-hour lectures on
Monday and Wednesday and a two-hour recitation section on
Fri-
day, which is devoted to case analysis. The usual format for the
Fri-
day session is to have a student act as a scribe to summarize the
re-
sults of the class discussion on the blackboard. The instructor is
then free to move around the room and encourage student
discus-
sion, in accordance with the line-drawing, conflict-resolution
and
other methods of case analysis.
Another approach is to introduce engineering ethics into
required
engineering courses. This approach has the advantage of
teaching en-
gineering ethics in a way that brings home how integral
engineering
ethics is to engineering practice. One way is to use videotapes
or
cases, such as the ones mentioned in the previous section.
Still another way is simply to enhance student awareness ofethi-
cal issues. (See reference 13.) For example, in a course on
electrical
circuits, an instructor might take a moment now and then to
point
out the practical effect of getting a problem wrong: 'These
circuits
are typically used in aircraft navigation systems; a small error
here,
combined with two common errors ofpilots, could cause a crash.

17. In
practice, your calculations will be checked many times, but
some er-
rors slip through. The easiest way to prevent disaster is to get
the
problem right the fust time. Next problem." Even a few such
com-
ments in the course of a semester can help engineering students
see
the practical context of highly abstract calculations: both the
rela-
Journal ofEngineering Education 95
tion of those calculations to such ethical concerns as safety and
the
relation of their education to what they want to do after
graduation.
Another easy way to provide information about ethics is to pass
out a code of ethics at the beginning of the term and refer to it
often
enough during the term so that students get the idea it would be
good to read it. An instructor can mention that such-and-such a
provision makes engineers responsible for the safety of what
they
help to make. It is surprising how many engineering faculty
have
not read a code of engineering ethics. Needless to say, their
students
are even less likely to have read a code. Just exposing students
to a
code is therefore a significant contribution to their ethics
education.

18. V. CONCLUSION
Engineering ethics appears to be emerging as a distinct disci-
pline, taking its place with medical, legal and business ethics.
We
believe the time is approaching when most if not all engineering
schools will have some program for introducing students to
engi-
neering professionalism and ethics. The time for thinking about
implementing such programs has arrived.
REFERENCES
1. Michael Davis, "The Moral Authority of a Professional
Code,"
NOMOS 29 (1987), pp. 302-337
2. Michael Davis, "Thinking Like an Engineer: the Place of a
Code of
Ethics in the Practice of a Professional," Philosophy and Public
AJfoirs 20,
Spring 1991, pp. 150-167.
3. The Gallup Poll Monthly,July, 1992, p. 3.
4. Daniel Calhoun, "Goals in the Teaching of Ethics," in Ethics
Teach-
ing in Higher Education. ed. by Daniel Callahan and Sissela
Bok (New
York Plenum 1980).
5. C.E. Harris, M.S. Pritchard, and M.R Rabins, Ethics in
Engineer-
ing: Concepts and Cases, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1955, pp.

19. 127 -143.
6. National Society of Professional Engineers, 1420 King Street,
Alexandria, VA 22314. Tel: 703-684-2882.
7. Michael S. Pritchard, ed., 'Teaching Engineering Ethics: A
Case
Study Approach," NSF Grant No. DIR - 8820837. Available
through the
Center for the Study of Ethics in Society, Western Michigan
University,
Kalamawo, MI 49008-5022. Tel: 616-387-4380.
8. RW. Flumerfelt, C.E. Harris, Jr., M.J. Rabins, and Charles H.
Samson,Jr., "Introducing Ethics Case Studies Into Required
Undergradu-
ate Engineering Courses," NSF Grant No. DIR 9012252.
Available from
M.J. Rabins, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas
A&M Uni-
versity, College Station, TX 77843. Tel: 409-845-2615.
9. The Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism,
College of
Engineering, Texas Tech University, Box 41023, Lubbock, TX
79409-
1023. Tel: 806-742-3525.
10. Fonlight Productions, 47 Halifax Street, Boston, MA 02130.

20. 11. Films Inc. Video, Education Department, 5547 N.
Ravenwood
Ave., Chicago, IL 60640. Tel: 800-323-4222, ext. 323
12. M.S. Pritchard, "Ethics in Engineering: Good Works." NSF
Grant
No. SBR-9320257.
13. Michael Davis, "Ethics Across the Curriculum: Teaching
Profes-
sional Responsibility in Technical Courses," Teaching
Philosophy 16, Sep-
tember 1993, pp.205-235.
96 Journal ofEngineering Education April 1996