Engineering Ethics essay

Engineering Ethics essay Engineering Ethics essay Engineering Ethics essayIn this case it would be better to discuss the problem with the design engineer to see what he suggests (option 3). The design engineer of the company is responsible for any technical services that are necessary to complete the project. I believe that the design engineer will be able to find the new component of the machines to meet the required deadline. In case he fails to solve this problem, it would be ethically to ask Parker to extend its deadline. Ethical decision making in engineering practice is crucial to satisfy the needs of clients. The pressure of deadlines should not affect the quality of work.Question 2Tim is aware of his responsibility to solve the issue and find the right solution, but he needs experience. It would be better for Tim to call Arnold because this person is competent in quality control issues. He can help Tim to find the most suitable solution in order to provide the product that meets minimal safety and durability standards. Tim should not resolve the problem by himself because Arnold Peterson, the Vice President of Product Engineering, can help him to keep up the company’s reputation. Anyway, Tim should not disregard Arnold’s advice because he holds a higher position and he is more competent in quality control issues than Tim. Besides, Tim has the potential to become competent in these issues in the future.Question 3 (Version 1) In the first scenario, Tim should be ready to find the proper solution to the existing problem by himself. He should use the old components in place of the new ones in order to meet the deadlines. In the second scenario, Tim should do the same. He can use the old components in place of the new ones. He will be able to keep this information in secret because the customers should not know about this problem. In the second scenario, Tim should break up and regrind the remaining supply of the old component. He will be able to meet the deadlines.Tim should say that he had to approve substituting the old component in place of the new one because he did not want to inform his customers of the existing problems. He should add that he wanted to keep the company’s reputation. Actually, Tim is responsible for quality control. He knows that using the old component does not affect the functioning of the product. Besides, Tim should explain Arnold that it would be unlikely that the clients would ever detect the substitution. Tim should use his professional skills to give a clear and concise explanation because of engineering ethics that lies in the basis of engineering profession. Tim’s actions are regulated by â€Å"ethical standards, embodied in the code of ethics† (Catalano 1).Tim should be prepared to give a clear and concise explanation of the process of replacement. The major goal of Tim is to prove the fact that substituting the old component in place of the new component does not affect the functioning of the product because of si milar characteristics of the components. Tim should be ready to demonstrate the functioning of the product based on the knowledge and experience he has got in the process of work. Anyway, Tim should be confident in his actions. To avoid conflicts, Tim should offer compensation if Parker continues complaining. Tim should promise to replace these components.If Tim substitutes the old component for the new one, and neither Parker nor anyone else outside of Ruskin ever finds out, this fact means all parties are satisfied and Tim acted appropriately. There are several factors that explain his appropriateness. First, he managed to meet deadlines. Second, he did not tell his clients about any problems. Third, he managed to keep the company’s reputation. In general, Tim demonstrated his professionalism in terms of engineering ethics. He determined his personal approach to solving engineering ethics problems. He was focused on the principles of â€Å"duty ethics†, â€Å"virtue ethics† and â€Å"rights ethics†, which help to respond to various situations. Engineering Ethics essay Engineering Ethics essay Engineering Ethics essayIt is possible to analyze Marvins response from the utilitarian perspective. Utilitarian ethics relies on the evaluation of positive and negative consequences for all stakeholders (Frederick, 2008). Immediate stakeholders in this case are Marvin Johnson, Edgar Owens and plant employees. Other stakeholders are people in the area and tourists. Ignoring the problem would lead to positive consequences for Edgar Owens and plant employees since the plant will not lose money and will be able to remain competitive. However, there will be minor negative consequences for the tourists and for the people living in the area due to the excess pollution. In the short-term perspective, however, the positive consequences from ignoring the increased level of pollution would overweigh potential negative consequences.At the same time, in the long-term perspective ignoring the problem would be unethical from the perspective of utilitarianism. Indeed, any external check of pollutio n would indicate that the plant exceeded legal limitations. The plant would have to pay expensive fines and remodel its equipment. Furthermore, the cumulative effect of the pollution on people is not known, and there is a high risk of adverse health consequences for the tourists and for the people living in the area. The harm done to the fish might destroy the ecosystem and lead to larger environmental issues. Therefore, considering the long-term consequences, Marvin should refuse to ignore the problem and report the real data.The stakeholders related to the considered case are: Marvin and Edgar, other employees of Wolfog, senior management of Wolfog, the plants shareholders or investors, local government, people living in the area and tourists. According to Kantian theory, it is important to treat all these people as ends in themselves and respect their interests (Crane Matten, 2010). Therefore, from the perspective of Kantian theory it is inadmissible to ignore the problem and to adjust the data.Deboras work responsibilities include checking the compliance of industry reports and anti-pollution requirements. From the position of virtue theory, it is possible to state that she ensures that every company would maintain the balance and demonstrate the virtue of temperance (Guha, 2008). In other words, Debora ensures that companies do not use the environment over the limits provided to them. From Deboras point of view, the plant managers idea to view the excess pollution as a mere technicality is unethical; moreover, such occasions should be prohibited and fined to eliminate further occurrences of such behavior.The position of parents of local children swimming in the lake can be viewed from the point of view of Kantian theory. It is unfair to expose the lives of children to risk in order to save some money for the plant. In this case, plant manager was willing to treat people as means and not ends in themselves. Such approach is deemed as unethical in Kantian ethics (Boylan, 2013).Ethical analysis of the situation can also be performed using the Categorical Imperative. If a decision or choice is universalizable, non-controversial in the universal perspective and desirable as a universal rule, then it is ethical (Bredeson, 2011). In the considered case, if there were several plants which exceeded the limit on pollution and adjusted their pollution reports, the emissions will quickly exceed the acceptable level and harm the health of all people. Such tendency might even harm the well-being of the whole mankind. Therefore, the considered decision is not universalizable and is not desirable as a universal rule. Hence, the idea to adjust the results of the report is unethical and should be rejected.The analysis of the situation at Wolfog was performed from several perspectives: utilitarian (in section 1), deontological (section 2, 4 and 5) and virtue theory perspective (section 3). Each of these ethical theories applied to the situation shows that the idea suggested by the plant manager is unethical and potentially harmful, so Marvin should refuse to adjust the results of the report.