Philosophy 334 Summer Essays
Engineers may design products in a laboratory, office or workshop. In these cases it might be one engineer working solo or a team of engineers working in tandem. They could be designing a coffee machine, or even a highway that will carry millions of people annually from place or another. When people imagine what engineers do all day, many picture someone in an office with a pencil in hand pouring over equations and sketches. While this may be true that this is where many engineering begins, it is not where it ends. Because whether or not an engineer is designing a coffee machine or a highway the end result is social. Real people will be using them in their everyday lives. This is where ethical questions enter the conversation in engineering. Generally, engineers are designing things to enhance people's life's, to make them easier and better. But with that there is always the chance that a certain product could inadvertently harm people or persons who are using the product. Engineers have an obligation not just of solving the problem a certain engineering project sets out to solve, but also of solving it in a way that thinks through ever available avenue of though in ensuring safety in the us of the product.
In the case of XYZ hose co, we have a situation in which a product was harming users of the product, which in the extreme cases was leading to death. There are a few ways to look at what culpability the company XYZ Hose Co. has in this situation. They could be innocent of any guilt. They could be guilty of an accidental design flaw that was missed despite a rigorous attempt to avoid such a flaw, or they could have purposely put and inferior product on the market because of profit driven motives. Engineers design things that can bring harm to consumers. A cement mixture is an engineering marvel which enables structures to be built. Uses incorrectly though and a cement mixer could become a death trap. In the case of a cement mixer leading to injury or death, odds are the equipment was used incorrectly and the flaw is not in the design but the use of it. This is essentially the defense of XYZ hose co, that the problem in the hoses were not their fault but in consumers not using their product correctly. A court however ruled differently though and out the blame on the company, which it deemed had put out an inferior product for profit motives. In this case we come to the conclusion that the company acted unethically in their allowing profit to supersede practicality. Engineers may have found an easier way to produce a product but they failed to make a better or safer product than the current one on the market. This should be an engineer’s goal when designing a product. Placing anything before that, such as profit not only compromises and engineers ethical integrity but also leads down a slippery slope which can compromise the consumer of the product's safety.
Works Cited:
Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases 4th (fourth) Edition by Charles E. Harris Jr., Michael S. Pritchard, Michael J. Rabi
2. Assuming that the story told by Mike Daisey in the first This American Life episode was accurate, what obligations do American engineers working for Apple and consumers have to the Chinese workers? Be sure to explain the reasoning for your view by using material from several chapters of the textbook. Do engineers have an obligation to the workers that will produce their designs? Why or why not? Do engineers have an obligation to the end user of their designs?
Apple Products Essay
There is a saying in Latin America that when the United States sneezes Latin America comes down with a cold. The meaning behind this saying is that the economies in Latin America are heavily dependent on the US economy so when something happens which causes problems in the US economy the situation becomes more dire south of the border. A similar thing could be said of engineers. One engineer working on a product might end up being used by millions of people. This is certainly the case when it comes to the company Apple’s engineers, a product used by millions of people across the world.
In the This American Life episode we listened to, Mike Daisey relates his experience of traveling to China and visiting Apples production sites. He is a self proclaimed technophile who loved technology who had his whole world view changed when he saw a picture on an iPhone of people on an assembly line in China making the products. Strange as it may seem, he had never actually considered the real conditions in China where the Apple products he loved so much were being produced. It is not just Apple, but any product we use, if we trace it back far enough has human elements involved in its production. For simplicity’s sake, we can split companies into two factions, the one that treats their production people fair and equitably and provides safe working conditions and those that are companies which exploit workers and have them working in poor or unsafe conditions.
Most striking was relating suicides in one of the Apple plants where nets had been set up to catch anyone potentially thinking about ending their lives. The question posed to engineers at Apple knowing about this situation is whether or not it is ethical for them to continue to work for a company that is known to exploit workers abroad in a way that would not be acceptable in the country that Apple is based out of—the United States. Engineers should have their own code of ethics and they should work for companies that reflect these values.
Though much of what Mike Daisey’s report has since been called into question, since it has come to the surface that he fabricated some of the details of his reporting, all of this begs and important question: Why is it okay for US companies to exploit workers abroad in a way that would not be acceptable in their own country of operation. A person is not less of a person just because they happen to be from a different place. People in China deserve to have their human rights respected just as much as workers within the United States.
It is true that engineers are not in control for the most part of the working conditions of the assemblage of the products that they design, but they do have control over what sort of companies they work for. If the best engineers banded together and made commitments only to work for companies that observe human rights in every aspect of their operation, than the burden of creating these conditions would be on the companies in order to get the talent of the best engineers. There is a certain threshold beyond which regardless of compensation people should not cross. Engineers especially have responsibilities as was discussed in the previous essay to design products which do not harm consumer and in the same way they have responsibilities to work for companies that respect the dignity of people.
Like Mike Daisy, I too love technology and think that Apple has some of the most innovative products out there. I choose to use their products because I believe they are better than the competition. I however, when I look down at my Apple product, don’t want to think of exploited workers who made the product. As only one consumer, there is not a lot that I can do, but there is a little. Hearing about this situation has prompted me to write a letter that I will send to Apple about my concern for their workers. One person’s voice can be amplified when combined with others. The bad PR that Apple has gotten as a result of word of the dire working conditions in China has already caused the company to make some changes. One of the largest I noticed while watching a keynote for the new Power Macs, which are going to be produced in the United States and not China. This will be good for the US economy as it will keep jobs here and also cause Apple to provide working conditions that are compatible with the laws here which are much stricter than the working codes in China.
Works Cited:
Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases 4th (fourth) Edition by Charles E. Harris Jr., Michael S. Pritchard, Michael J. Rabi
- Do you believe that the environment as a whole or parts of the environment (e.g. animals or plants) can have rights? If so, why? If not, does this mean we have no moral obligation to the environment? If we do have a moral obligation to the environment, what justifies that obligation? Do you believe engineering codes of ethics should have a clear statement outlining an engineer’s obligation to the environment or would such a statement be unnecessary or outside the scope of engineering codes of ethics? Explain in detail your answers to these questions.
Environment Essay
I’m a firm believer that one’s physical environment defines one’s interior environment. Meaning that our surroundings affect us in deep ways, some of which is subconscious. I’m also a believer that our actions and choices define who we are on a profound level. I believe this on a personal level and also on a societal level.
I believe that the environment should both be protected as an entity and it’s individual components, animals and plants, should also be protected from harm. We live in a world where some species such as the Dodo bird have become extinct due to human meddling. It is sad to think that these species will never return to the world again. We have made mistakes in the past, but that does not mean that we need to continuing making them in the future. It is not just “the environment” it is “our” environment and just as we protect ourselves we should protect our “home” that is the environment.
We as people within societies within the world have a moral obligation to the environment. This is justified in the same way that we have a moral obligation to each other. Our freedoms only extend as far as they do not harm others. There is in philosophy something called “natural law” which refers to the law of nature that governs the world. John Locke wrote extensively on this and his writings influenced the US constitution.
Locke stated that nature has a law to govern it (Locke, 637). This law comes from nature. Under Locke’s observation things in natural, left to be how they were meant to be tend to thrive. Just as Locke would see the natural state of a trout would be to be happy and free in some idyllic stream, he see humankind’s natural state of affairs in a state where people are able to have freedom to do with their lives, their livelihoods, and the products of both as they want to do. He calls this a ‘state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and person, as they think fit.” (Locke, 637).
This natural law is broken when environments are tainted do to humankind’s actions. It is important to remember that we are simply one species of millions and just as our number one priority as a species is our own preservation, so too we should make it a priority to protect the environment that created us.
I believe that engineering codes of ethics should have a clear statement that outlines an engineer’s obligation to the environment. It is necessary because the environment is necessary for our livelihood and lives and peace of mind. Something so important should not simply be left to chance. Instead engineers should very clearly state before taking on products how far they are willing to go, and if a particular project involves the destruction of parts or the whole of the environment, the engineer should seriously consider whether or not they can in good conscience take such a job.
There is a saying people use sometimes when referring to not dating someone that they work. The saying is that you should not “crap” where you eat. The same goes for the environment. Harming the environment, be it parts of it or the whole in the long run is only harming ourselves. We live in a world where humans emit gasses which are destroying the atmosphere, there is in the ocean a floating island of garbage the size of Texas. These are both examples of humans doing things to harm the environment. If the people who did this had a code of ethics that they followed which forbid such things, then we might not have these problems in the first place. This is why it is so important for not just engineers, but all people to have a code of ethics which outlines how they will live their lives and for them to follow it.
Works Cited:
Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases 4th (fourth) Edition by Charles E. Harris Jr., Michael S. Pritchard, Michael J. Rabi
John Lock on Property.
.
