ENGINEERING ETHICS

ENGINEERS AND
THE ENVIRONMENT

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

DEC 2010
PROFESSIONAL CODES AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
 The engineers shall
 Strive to comply with the principles of sustainable
development
 Inform clients or employers of possible consequences of
ignoring the principles of sustainable development
 Present information regarding the failure to comply with the
principles to proper authorities in writing
 Cooperate with the authorities in furnishing further
information or assistance as may be required
 The engineers should
 Seek opportunities to work for protection of the environment
 Be committed to improving the environment by adhering to
the principles of sustainable development
WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
 Sustainable development is a process of change in which
 the direction of investment,
 the orientation of technology,
 the allocation of resources and
 the development and functioning of institutions

is directed to meet the present needs and aspirations

 without endangering the capacity of natural systems to absorb
the effects of human activities and
 without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs and aspirations
FEDERAL LAW AND THE ENVIRONMENT
 National Environment Policy Act (1969)
 A national policy which will encourage productive and
enjoyable harmony between man and environment
 Assure all Americans safe, healthful, productive and
aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings
 Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970)
 Clean Air Act (1977, 1990)

 Federal Water Pollution Control Act

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976)

 Pollution Prevention Act (1990)

THE COURTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Courts interpret the laws passed by the Legislature

 US Supreme court ruled that “safe does not mean risk-
free”...the risk must be significant
 ‘When EPA could NOT determine a safe threshold for a
pollutant , it may not only take health but also technological
and economic factors into account in establishing emission
standards’
 “Employees would not be protected if employers were put
out of business”!!
Any rational criterion for a clean environment must take
into account both
 the need to protect the health of the workers and
 the need to protect the financial viability of the industries

on which workers and the general public depend

CRITERIA FOR A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT

 Comparative criterion
 Normalcy criterion

 Optimal Pollution reduction criterion

 Maximum protection criterion

 Demonstrable harm criterion

 Degree of harm criterion

 When pollutants pose a clear and pressing threat
to human health, they must be reduced below
any reasonable threshold of harm
CRITERIA FOR A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT

 Degree of harm criterion

 When pollutants pose a clear and pressing threat
to human health, they must be reduced below any
reasonable threshold of harm. Cost should not be
considered a significant factor
 Insofar as substances pose an uncertain but
possible risk to health or when threshold of danger
can not be determined, economic factors may be
considered.
 If a harm is irreversible, its prevention should be
given higher priority
ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE
ENVIRONMENT
 Sub-minimal attitude
 Do as little as possible, sometimes even less than what is
required by law
 Minimalist or Compliance attitude
 Accept regulation but without enthusiasm and commitment
 Progressive attitude
 Genuinely committed to environment protection
 Believe that it is in their long term interest
EXAMPLE OF PROGRESSIVE ATTITUDE
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURER’S
ASSOCIATION
 Promoting the safe manufacture, transportation, use and
disposal of chemicals
 Promptly giving notice of safety and environmental
hazards to the public
 Operating plants in an environmentally safe manner

 Promoting research to improve chemicals with regard to

their effects on health and safety
 Participating with the government in creating responsible
laws regulating chemicals
 Sharing with others information useful in promoting
these goals
EXAMPLE OF PROGRESSIVE ATTITUDE
CERES PRINCIPLES- OIL COMPANIES
 Protection of the biosphere
 Sustainable use of natural resources

 Reduction and disposal of wastes

 Energy conservation

 Risk reduction

 Safe products and services

 Environmental restoration

 Informing the public

 Management commitment
WHY GO BEYOND THE LAW?
ADVANTAGES OF PROGRESSIVE ATTITUDE
 It is in the self-interest of the individual and the corporate
 Gain publicity and favorable public image
 Creation of new environmentally safe products and get a good
market
 By increasing efficiency and eliminating waste, we will
preserve the resources for future generations
 Respect for Nature for its own sake, independent of its
contribution to human well –being
 Nature is awesome and it is wrong to damage it
ENGINEER’S CONCERN WITH ENVIRONMENT

 Health related concern

 Ifthe harm to the environment poses direct and clear threat to
human health
 Non-health related concern
 Even when there are no health worries, objection may be
simply because it damages the environment
WHY IS NATURE VALUABLE?

 Intrinsic value of nature

 Trees, rivers, mountains, biodiversity and so on have a value
of their own apart from their use by humans
 Instrumental value
 Natural objects have value only in so far as they are used by
or appreciated by humanbeings
ANTHROPOCENTRIC AND
NON-ANTHROPOCENTRIC ETHICS
 Anthropocentric Ethics holds that only human beings
have intrinsic value. Nonhuman natural objects including
other animals have value only as they contribute to
human well-being.
 Non-anthropocentric Ethics holds that at least some
natural objects other than human beings (animals ,
plants, and perhaps even inanimate things like rivers and
mountains) have intrinsic value
 Most engineering codes are health related and appear to
be anthropocentric in nature
ALDO LEOPOLD'S VIEW
 “We abuse nature because we regard it as a commodity
belonging to us. When we see land as a community to
which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and
respect.
 Perhaps such a shift in values can be achieved by
reappraising things unnatural, tame and confined in terms
of things natural, wild and free”
 Viewing nature as an interdependent biotic community,

Land Ethic can be stated as “A thing is right when it

tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of
the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends
otherwise.”
A MODIFIED NON-ANTHROPOCENTRIC
ETHICS
 An action is right if it preserves and
protects the natural world even if it is
not necessary to promote human
welfare
 but it is justifiable to take actions that
harm the environment, if the
production of human good is
sufficiently great.
A MODIFIED NON-ANTHROPOCENTRIC
ETHICS
 Itcan be stated that the natural world
has a right to protection and
preservation even apart from human
well-being
 But this right may be overridden if the
utility to humans is of sufficient
magnitude.
 Utility to humans includes not only
health but also economic well-being
SHOULD ENGINEERS HAVE
ENVIRONMENTAL OBLIGAIONS?
 YES
 Because engineers create the technology that is involved in
environmental degradation and also environmental
improvement..they are the causal agents
 NO
 Because judgments regarding the environmental impact fall
outside the area of expertise of an engineer
 All engineers may not share the same views on the
environment
 Employers may not accept such environmental obligations
ENGINEER’S OBLIGATIONS
TWO PROPOSALS ON NON-HEALTH
ISSUES
 Although engineers should be required to hold
paramount human health in the performance of their
engineering work ( including health issues that are
environmentally related), they should not be required as
professionals to inject non-health related environmental
concerns into their engineering work
 Engineers should have the right to organizational
disobedience with regard to environmental issues as this
is required by their own personal beliefs or their own
individual interpretation of what professional obligation
requires
 END OF CHAPTER 9

ENGINEERS AND THE ENVIRONMENT