UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY LAHORE

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING

ENGINEERING

Social & Ethical Aspects in Engineering

Topic
Problem based learning #4
Submitted to
Mr. Muhammad Umar Farooq
Submitted by
Na Reg
me d.No
.
Mas 2019-
ood R/201
Azha 8-IM-
r 12
 Contents
Key Terms.............................................................................................................................................3
Public health, Safety and Welfare.........................................................................................................3
Conflict of Interest.................................................................................................................................3
Bribery...................................................................................................................................................3
Extortion................................................................................................................................................3
Confidentiality.......................................................................................................................................3
Trade Secret...........................................................................................................................................4
Loyalty...................................................................................................................................................4
Case Study 1(Public health, Safety & Welfare)....................................................................................4
Q #1 Does Jim worriedness about Public health is correct or not?.......................................................5
Q #2 Do you think that Jim point of view about safety is correct?.......................................................5
Q#3 Does Jim satisfy the condition of Welfare?...................................................................................5
Case Study 2(Conflict of Interest).........................................................................................................5
Solutions................................................................................................................................................5
Key Terms
Public health, Safety and Welfare
In ethics, sometime we give highly importance to public health, safety and welfare and
sometimes we give little importance but we cannot neglect. For example, if we are
building a chemical industry in city then off course it creates water pollution and
air pollution etc. in that area which is harmful for public health but on other hand
making industry in city will open the employment opportunity for unemployed
people.
Now, we talk about safety feature then for example if we are making an aero plane
engine or then we don’t compare safety than cost although we will see cost in
different aspects because it is case of human lives. But if we suppose making car
body then our cost priority high as compare to safety.
Now if we talk about welfare then we make decision on patriotic, loyalty and human
importance way and we neglect cost and we totally concern to human benefit.
Conflict of Interest
Conflict of interests means difference of interests. Two people have different opinions,
different thinking vision, even after knowing known and unknown facts or relevant
and irrelevant facts, weighing of importance will occur sometimes due to conflict
ogf interest.
For example, one person interested in to adding new feature in a model for safety but
others not. One person is interested in less cost while other person is interested in
public health and welfare.
Bribery
Bribery means corruption. For example, in an industry one person is on high seat, he
takes bribery ante others. He makes decisions as outsider/insider people say from
which he receives money. In that case, he will not consider other workers opinion
although workers are correct. In that case person has no concerns about human, he
just takes decision which cause dangerous results many times. One solution to stop
this is that a team should organize which search all industries progress and their
system.
Extortion
Extortion meaning is black mailing. Sometimes, the person from outside blackmail the
manager and hence because of his own safety, he makes decision as blackmailer
say. It causes because decision makers are different in an industry which make
decisions and hence their decisions reveal which cause these problems. Its one but
not least solution is that we make our engines capable that they can make decisions
and hence they make decisions secretly. Other solutions are also available for
example government make sure safety for industries etc.
Extortion is very dangerous issue because an honest man wants to make honest and his
own rules decisions but he is helpless against blackmailer.
Confidentiality
Confidentiality meaning is in strict privacy or security and showing confidence. It’s a
good value in ethics. A confidential person is the person who will not reveal the
secrets and hence many problems like bribery, extortion which we discussed above
will reduced.
You can take example in a way that for example Pakistan made Atom Bomb secretly
 even many political parties also don’t know about that. So here confidential person
was present. If they were not then this project was not fulfilled. You can take other
daily life examples also to understand.

Trade Secret
Trade secret meaning you can say that one country wants to buy product from you. So,
you give product to them but you show as a good, ethical person and don’t share
the formula for making that product, so this is trade secret. For example, recipe of
Coca Cola, WD-40 formula etc.
Trade secret is very important for any industry/country value. Otherwise everyone will
start making that product and hence you will fall down.
Loyalty
Loyalty meaning is patriotism. Patriotism with the3 place where you work is very
important and in code of ethics. A loyal person always works hard. He follows
that: “Give your best and forget the rest”. A loyal person always works for the
betterment for the place as he/she can which is very good.
Remember that there is a difference between loyalty and integrity. In integrity you
have certain values, rules and principals which you follow and you are honest. So,
I prefer integrity.

Case Study 1(Public health, Safety & Welfare)

Jim: Tom, I admit that the evidence that exposures to benzene between 1 and
10 ppm are harmful is weak at best, but this doesn’t really end the matter. I’ll go back to one
of my original points: Human life is involved. I just don’t believe we should take a chance
on harming people when we aren’t certain about the facts. I think we ought to provide a safe
environment for our work- errs, and I wouldn’t call an environment ‘‘safe’’ when there is even
a chance that the disputed benzene levels are harmful.
Tom: Here we go again on that old saw, ‘‘How safe is safe?’’ How can you say that something is not
safe when you don’t have any evidence to back up your claim?
Jim: I think something is unsafe when there is any kind of substantial health risk.
Tom: But how can you say there is any substantial health risk when, in fact, the evidence that is
available seems to point in the other direction?
Jim: Well, I would say that there is a substantial health risk when there is some reason to suspect
that there might be a problem, at least when something like carcinogens are involved. The
burden of proof should rest on anyone who wants to expose a worker to even a possible
danger.
Tom: I’ll agree with you that workers shouldn’t be exposed to substantial health risks, but I think
you have a strange understanding of ‘‘substantial.’’ Let me put the question another way.
Suppose the risk of dying from cancer due to benzene exposure in the plant over a period of
30 years is no greater than the risk over the same period of time of dying from an automobile
accident while driving home from the plant. Would you consider the health risk from ben-
zone exposure in this case to be ‘‘substantial’’?
Jim: Yes, I would. The conditions are different. I believe we have made highways about as
safe as we can. We have not made health conditions for workers in plants as safe as we
can. We can lower the level of benzene in the plant, and with a relatively moderate
expenditure. Furthermore, everyone accepts the risks involved in auto travel. Many of the
workers don’t understand the risk from benzene exposure. They aren’t acting as free
agents with informed consent.
Tom: Look, suppose at the lower levels of benzene exposure—I mean under 10 ppm—the
 risk of cancer is virtually nil, but some workers find that the exposure causes the skin on
their faces, hands, and arms to be drier than
usual. They can treat this with skin lotion. Would you consider this a health problem?
Jim: Yes, I would. I think it would be what some people call a ‘‘material impair- mint’’ of health,
and I would agree. Workers should not have to endure changes in their health or bodily well-
being as a result of working at our plant. People are selling their time to the company, but not
their bodies and their health. And dry skin is certainly unhealthy. Besides, there’s still the
prob- elm of tomorrow. We don’t really know the long-range effects of lower levels of
exposure to benzene. But given the evidence of problems above 10 ppm, we have reason to
be concerned about lower levels as well.
Tom: Well, this just seems too strict. I guess we really do disagree. We don’t even seem to be able to
agree over what we mean by the words we use.

Q #1 Does Jim worriedness about Public health is correct or not?

Ans
Jim worriedness about public health is not correct because complying with the new regulations is going to cost the
company. Tom is correct because there is no scientific evidence that exposure to benzene below 10ppm has any
harmful effect. So public health will mot have any issue and Jim worriedness is like Chicken littles worry that sky is
falling. Risk from benzene is not substantial if we compare dying from automobile accident. Furthermore, for
example if we accept Tom opinion but after accepting, we we find that some workers find the exposure causes face,
hands, and arms skin to be drier. So, it’s a health problem cause. Hence Jim is not correct in that’s ensue. Also using
new method will be difficult for workers and increase cost.
Q #2 Do you think that Jim point of view about safety is correct?
Yes, here Jim is correct here. Because in this case human life is at stake because because benzene dangerous a lot
specially in the area where benzene exposure is an issue. Off course nobody wants his relative to be subjected to it.
Although there are scientific evidences but 1 ppm can be easily monitored, at that level cost a bit more to handle but
it is better to be safer than to be sorry. Because we are dealing with the carcinogen’s material. Suppose if we accept
the Tom opinion it means we are burying our heads in the sand until we are hit from behind. So, for safety we have
to accept Jim opinion.
Q#3 Does Jim satisfy the condition of Welfare?
Yes, because Jim Jim prefer is to public health and safety which is necessary here as compare to cost and he is ready
to sacrifice cost factor for human lives here. Because benzene is dangerous like effect on bone marrow, which can
reduce in red blood cells even it causes death due to very poisonous. So, for society welfare viewing all safety and
health points, Jimi’s right.

Case Study 2(Conflict of Interest)

In the automotive industry, for example, two engineers might agree that the evidence indicates
that introducing another safety feature in the new model would most likely result in saving a
few lives during the next 5 years. One engineer might oppose the feature because of the ad-
dictional cost, whereas the other thinks the additional cost is well worth the added safety. This
raises questions about acceptable risk in relation to cost. One engineer might oppose the feature
because he thinks that the burden of responsibility in the automotive industry, for example, two
engineers might agree that the evidence indicates that introducing another safety feature in the
new model would most likely result in saving a few lives during the next 5 years. One engineer
might oppose the feature because of the ad- dictional cost, whereas the other thinks the additional
cost is well worth the added safety. This raises questions about acceptable risk in relation to cost.
One engineer might oppose the feature because he thinks that the burden of responsibility should
be shifted to the consumer, whereas the other thinks that it is appropriate to protect consumers from
their own negligence.

Solutions
Here is actually problem is conflict of interest. Both engineers have different interests and here
the engineer which want to in traduce safety feature in model is correct due to these reasons
1- This person is following code of ethics. He knew importance of safety and additional
feature. He knew that cost does not matter on safety for sensitive product because
automotive industry product here uses by every person and mostly accident occur.
2- This person believes on known and unknown facts which is code of ethics.
3- This person understands the problem and if someone understand the problem then half
problem already solves.
4- This person is interested in Utilitarian type of Act Utilitarian approach in which product
is safer and good as compare to other person which is using Cost benefit approach. And
here Act Utilitarian approach is best which we3 already discuss.
5- This person wants to make workers expert. And face the problem.