The first image that comes to mind when thinking about the ethical implications of defense engineering is the first scene in the movie Real Genius, where several men who represent a counsel of defense are sitting around a table watching video clips of a new weapon that is being developed at Caltech University. This was an idea for the end of the 20th century. The movie was filled with ethical questions and moral imperatives that imply the ideas of ethical technology in the military.
Science, University Students, and Engineers make a significant contribution to the advancement of defense technology. Each of these groups have been under public scrutiny relating to the ethical implications of what they imagine, plan, and build for use in military action. Although the implications could be viewed as good or bad, positive or negative, ethical or unethical, it is only through a foundation of personal ethics that the engineers involved with the defense industry must ultimately choose if the production of the invention is or is not ethical.
Because of the recent attempts to change the laws and regulations of how the military would use technology to exclude or reduce the development of military technology advancement opportunities, the media has grasped the idea which would give the public ideas that all defense engineers are unethical and cruel people, who cater to the whims of warmongering military leaders. The public seems to have a fairly solid idea that defense engineers are unethical, uncaring, and inhumane. The largest concern is about weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs and weapons that not only kill whatever enemy is in the way, but also innocent people too. Although some of the people who are concerned about this probability are not the scientists. However, it would seem that small groups that are attempting to change policy regarding the creation of weapons.
The most influential group of scientists who are part of the defense industry are in the field of physics. These are the brilliant minds that researched, tested, and actualized their theories about nuclear reactions. Through their hard work, nuclear energy was possible. Nuclear weapons are possible through the same hard work of the physics field of science. Naturally, any time science is used to advance the defense program, the ethics of those scientists, and that field are brought into the picture. ("About Us | Defense Industry Initiative", 2016)
The public is only as informed about the scientific advances of military technology as far as the military will inform the media, therefore the public offers a judgement on the ethical implications of any new technology that may or may not be used in the case of war. Therefore, a set of ethics has already been established by the Department of Defense to ensure that whatever ethical issue is brought up by the public, the situation can be easily explained or handled in a way that may avoid mass hysteria.
Several groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council which 175 countries are a part of, are in place to handle the task of maintaining reasonable ethics goals for each individual country. When this many countries agree to make a change, the change must be of utmost importance. Each country is individually responsible for its defense; however, each country is also responsible to the other countries to maintain ethical standards for those defense regulations. For example, weapons of mass destruction are not acceptable for countries that threaten the welfare of other countries for reasons that implicate the country is just one big bully. That statement may sound childish, however, that is what it comes down to in simple terms. A nation that has an attitude problem does not need to have weapons of mass destruction. The scientists who created these weapons have to deal with the implications of personal ethics foundations when these types of weapons are released.
Almost any career path has a set of ethics which the members of that group are expected to live by. Engineers in the defense industry have ethical standards that are not only created and mandated by the military, they also have an ethical foundation that was created and is maintained through the group of engineers. For example, the ethics foundation for chemical engineers is about the same as a physicist. For example, according to information found on the Global Home of Chemical Engineers website, it states in the Code of Ethics that, “ Members of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers shall uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by: Being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity their employers, their clients, and the public; Striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession; Using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare.” ("Code of Ethics | AIChE", 2016) These are generalized and are not the complete code of ethics, However, the chemical engineers are expected to keep the safety of the public a priority, keep the environment safe, always disclose what the engineers are developing and any affects that the chemical may have, take personal responsibility for his or her actions, be objective, be professional, avoid conflicts, keep confidentiality a priority, avoid harassment, and be honest. That list is not complete and only represents the entire code of ethics that chemical engineers must agree to live by. The code of ethics is fairly standard for a chemical engineer whether or not he or she works in the defense industry.
The role of engineers in the defense industry may be more controversial than it is accepted. There is one opinion that scientists do not belong in any matters involving the policy that stipulates how the technology they invented is to be used. Although this viewpoint does allow for the policy makers to continue to create rules and regulations which serve the military, it does not allow the scientist the opportunity to share his or her viewpoint on the defense technology. Therefore, it would seem that the defense industry is only concerned with the facts or specifications of any new technology that is invented. Because the engineers are kept in the dark, the first directive of keeping others safe is used.
However, not all scientists will remain silent about things the defense industry would rather keep secret. These outspoken engineers speak out in an attempt to inform the public about what is occurring. They do so at the risk of alienating themselves and others. Sometimes, the whistle blowers are arrested for reasons of national security and treason. The public may or may not see the informant as a person of high integrity. The question of working as an engineer in the defense industry is actually a personal judgement that individuals choose to decide, based on their own ethical foundation. If the scientist places loyalty to country at the top of his or her personal ethic list, then he or she may see working in the defense industry as highly ethical. However, if an engineer becomes an informant, then he or she may be viewed as unethical.
An ethical code for scientists that work in the defense industry may sound like a load of manure to some, however, most engineers do not seem to go into the field with their focus on the idea of building better ways to kill people. Instead, it would seem that they do their best to protect people. For example, the engineers who improve on armor and protective gear are not looking to make sure the invention kills. Instead it is meant to protect life.
Another example is the engineer who may work for Boeing. This person may not have gone into the field of engineering with the idea that he or she would end up contracted to improve on military fighter jets. However, if that scientist can find a way to justify what he or she is inventing, then the matter of individual ethics that he or she may struggle with is mute.
These are examples of the old saying ‘The end justifies the means’ and may or may not be an issue of ethics. As long as the end result is intended to protect people, then the invention is justified. This viewpoint may seem unethical because the invention is part of a bigger picture that is focused on war and in war, people are killed. ("Code of Ethics | AIChE", 2016)
There may not be a definite code of ethics that are acceptable for scientist involved in research for the military. However, when engineers take an ethical stand for what they independently agree is ethical and unethical, they have the opportunity to choose if their separate research is for the greater good of all. For example, the physics students portrayed in the movie Real Genius were not aware that they were building a power source that could be used as a focused laser beam from high altitudes to kill people one at a time. They were excited by the challenge and able to meet and exceed the expected result. They invented their energy without an ethical issue. When they realized what the plan was for their invention, they had a serious ethical concern. Because that was a film, the reality of the situation was dramatized. However, in real life an engineer must deal with the realization of the ethical consequences on a personal level. ("Code of Ethics | AIChE", 2016)
In reality, a simple private ethical foundation must be in place. This could mean a simple set of statements about integrity, honesty, and protection for the environment and all living things. The individual ethical foundation could be a complex set of checks and balances that the distinct uses to base all of his or her decisions on. Basically, there are several types of ethical belief systems that people may rely on. The ethical relativism belief is a system that says that a person’s moral code is based on the individual and his or her self-interests, religion, and customs and that person will act in a way that is in line with this belief system. Next, is the utilitarianism belief that says the individual will weigh the cost versus the benefits of any decision and choose the best outcome for the greater good. The universalism belief states that the person will treat every living thing with respect to its right to live and base all choices on that belief system. Then there is the belief that every living thing has a right to maintain and pursue freedom of happiness, speech, free choice, and self-respect. The person with this belief system does not question if something is right or wrong in the eyes of the public, only if it is right to someone else and not restricting the right of others to live. Last, there is a belief that through fairness and equality all ethical issues can be resolved and create an equal world. The five ethical belief systems can be interchanged, combined, or used individually depending on how a person was raised, his or her culture, religion, or self-interests.
If an individual looks at an engineer who works in the defense industry through the lens of the Ethical Relativism, he or she may see the science of building a fighter jet as unethical because the scientist works in an industry that serves to destroy others. On the other hand, the person who uses this ethical viewpoint may consider that the scientist is ethical because he or she is inventing something that can be used to protect the people. The viewpoint is open for personal interpretation.
Equally, the individual who uses Utilitarianism for his or her ethical case may justify the engineer’s actions through a series of checks and balances that allow for the benefits to outweigh the costs of the invention. The person may similarly use this same means of ethical justification to say that the engineer who works in the defense industry is ethically wrong for doing so because the end result is the death of other people and the cost of millions of dollars that were spent on the fighter jet was a small price to pay for many human lives because you cannot put a price tag on a human life. Additionally, This ethical viewpoint allows for more moral value to be placed in the hands of the person who does the killing, than the individual who created the weapon.
This brings the next viewpoint in focus, where the Universalism ethical code states that all things have the universal right to be respected for its basic ability to just be a living thing. The person who uses this particular ethical code will most likely say that the engineer is ethically wrong for working in the defense industry. It may be nearly impossible for the individual who uses the universalism ethical code to justify the engineer’s participation in the invention of a fighter jet or any other weapon used in war.
The individual who uses the Rights ethical code may have the same moral issue with the engineer as the universalism ethics will, because he or she will look at the engineer who is employed by the defense industry as taking part in the whole through the invention that the engineer develops. In this way, the argument may be rough to justify the end result through the means that it was created. The argument may not pay any attention to the defense part of the equation and judge the engineer through a lens that does not allow any sort of justification for the invention.
Likewise, the man or woman who uses the Justice ethical code will not have the ability to allow the engineer the opportunity for employment that follows his or her field of study if that employment will take away the rights or opportunities of others to peruse a life of happiness and equality. This individual may only see through a jaded and smoky lens that only justifies the equal treatment of all living things.
The ethical judgement of one person to another based on personal bias and individual ethical codes is based on his or her cultural, religious, and other group affiliation. For example, although a person may belong to a group that uses relativism as the code of ethics, he or she may not agree with everything and may occasionally borrow ethical codes that fit the situation.
The customs of any country enable an individual to form his or her code of ethics that may or may not follow him or her during a lifetime. The code of ethics may take advantage of others in order to gain wealth or power as an individual. A business may use the implication of doing what it does for the greater good, and still have an ethical code of conduct that benefits individuals.
Although the human rights ethics belief system may sound like a fair and just way to determine the ethical validity of the engineer’s actions, this is also a filmy lens that does not allow the scientist to base his or her career on modifying the defense industry’s technology. It would seem that the engineer is guilty before he or she justifies the action. ("Summary of Five Ethical Decision-Making Principles and StakeholderAnalysis", 2016)
However, the justice viewpoint may be the fairest because the scientist is allowed to justify his or her involvement with the defense industry through a balanced set of individual ethics. For example, if a terrorist group blows up a building and kills hundreds of innocent people, the scientist may help create a way to not only detect an explosive device, but to actually stop the terrorists. The terrorists may or may not be injured in the process, however the engineer is not responsible for that action. Through the set of Justice ethics, the engineer cannot be held responsible for the death of anyone as a result of the use of the technology that he or she developed. ("Ultimate Guide to Engineering Ethics | Ohio University", 2016)
When considering what ethical code to stand by, and how to judge if the career choice another person is ethical or not, an individual must consider the critical points of each ethical system. For example, the engineer who uses his talent, skills, and education to design a better guidance system for a fighter jet may not feel as if his or her design is unethical. However, the neighbors, friends, or family of that engineer may feel differently depending on their ethical perspective. ("Statement of Defense Industry Ethics", 2016)
The person who has built his or her ethics foundation on the relativism perspective may draw his or her judgement about the engineer on the culture and religion that he or she believes. This is flawed because there is no personal responsibility for the judgement. It is easy to blame the ethical judgment on religion or cultural beliefs. ("Ethical and religious foundation and perspectives of society and religiology in context of modern education", 2016)
The utilitarian view point has no foundation for judging what is good and who should decide that. There is no way to determine the right or wrong parts of any action, however, it does have consequences for any action that can be judged. The end result is that the individual rights and principles of justice are ignored through this belief system.
Through the ideas of the human rights ethical foundation men or women may pretend to be interested in advocating for human rights. During this, the individual will hide that the action is personal and intended to create a gain on the part of the person interested. The personal rights of an individual or group may be ignored for the greater rights of another group. The extent of damage outweighs the benefits in this ethical belief system.
Justice ethics allow an individual to make mistakes, however, the end judgement is based on the law of the land instead of the private ethical belief system. What is right and what is wrong is based on the outcome, not the cultural, religious, or self-serving ethical system. This ethical foundation may be a system that science works under, if there could be a generalized system in place. ("Different ethical perspectives - theoryofknowledge.net", 2016)
The only person who has the right to judge if working for the defense industry is ethical or not, is the scientist him or herself. Anyone else who has an ethical issue with this engineering opportunity may wish to look in the mirror and decide if his or her job is ethical. Possibly aslo consider why it is of any importance to the betterment or protection of humanity. The ethical implications of working in the defense industry is a personal judgement and only for the engineer him or herself. ("The Role of Ethics in 21st Century Organizations - Leadership Advance Online, School of Business & Leadership, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia", 2016)
References
175 Countries Sign Paris Agreement and Many Announce They Will Formally Join This Year. (2016). NRDC. Retrieved 27 April 2016, from https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jake-schmidt/175-countries-sign-paris-agreement-and-many-announce-they-will-formally-join
About Us | Defense Industry Initiative. (2016). Dii.org. Retrieved 26 April 2016, from http://www.dii.org/about-us
Different ethical perspectives - theoryofknowledge.net. (2016). theoryofknowledge.net. Retrieved 27 April 2016, from http://www.theoryofknowledge.net/areas-of-knowledge/ethics/different-ethical-perspectives/
El-Zein, A. (2013). As engineers, we must consider the ethical implications of our work | Abbas El-Zein. the Guardian. Retrieved 26 April 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/05/engineering-moral-effects-technology-impact
Ethical and religious foundation and perspectives of society and religiology in context of modern education. (2016). Videolectures.net. Retrieved 27 April 2016, from http://videolectures.net/promogram_bojan_zalec_eng/
Statement of Defense Industry Ethics. (2016). Nationaldefensemagazine.org. Retrieved 26 April 2016, from http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/March/Pages/StatementofDefenseIndustryEthics.aspx
Summary of Five Ethical Decision-Making Principles and StakeholderAnalysis. (2016). Paws.wcu.edu. Retrieved 27 April 2016, from http://paws.wcu.edu/gjones/Five_Ethical_Perspectives.html
The Role of Ethics in 21st Century Organizations - Leadership Advance Online, School of Business & Leadership, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. (2016). Regent.edu. Retrieved 27 April 2016, from http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/lao/issue_11/brimmer.htm
Ultimate Guide to Engineering Ethics | Ohio University. (2016). Onlinemasters.ohio.edu. Retrieved 27 April 2016, from http://onlinemasters.ohio.edu/ultimate-guide-to-engineering-ethics/
