Ethics and Values in Engineering Profession: Ethics and Values in Engineering Profession

Normative Ethics:

This looks for an ideal litmus test of reasonable behaviour by providing the golden rule of doing to others as we want them do to us. This is based on the norms of reciprocity and prescribes the ideal behaviour expected in a society.

NORMATIVE ETHICAL TRADITIONS:

IDENTIFYING RIGHT AND WRONG :

Several key ethical theories from the tradition of Western philosophy are introduced. Normative ethical theories are concerned with ethical action: in other words, with what people 'ought' to do in general.  A brief overview of the main types of normative ethical theories and it introduces key, recurring terms and concepts are introduced here.

1) Western ethical theories :

We usually weigh up the rights and wrongs of small decisions fairly quickly and easily. But it isn't always easy to know what the right or wrong action is. On closer examination, even a question as apparently simple as whether or not to give aid to alleviate poverty may be fraught with difficult issues. On what ethical basis should individuals give money to charity? Is it because we have a duty to give some of our income to help people less fortunate than ourselves? Or is it because we have a duty to uphold other peoples' fundamental human right to live healthy and secure lives? Is it simply that giving money to charity makes us a good person - and, perhaps, allows us to feel better about ourselves? Whatever the reason, is it the consequences of our actions that matter? (For example, is it important to know before we donate money what percentage of our money will go to helping the needy and how much will go to paying consultants or NGO executives?) Or is it purely the action itself (in this case, the act of giving) that is intrinsically right?

These types of theories, which are concerned with how we ought to act, belong to the branch of philosophical study called normative ethics.

1.1)     Ethical paths :

When people use the words 'duty' and 'rights', they are referring (consciously or otherwise) to theories that are concerned with right action. If, on the other hand, they are discussing our ethics in terms of our 'character' or 'relationships', then they are referring to theories of being good. 'Right action' and 'being good' identify different paths on the mountain. If you look at the Figure 1, you can see that ethical theories emphasising duty or rights branch off the right action path, whereas ethical theories concerning character or relationships diverge from the being good path.

                               Figure 1

2) Deontological ethics :

2.1)Non-consequentialism :

All deontological ethics theories are non-consequentialist. This means that they place the emphasis on the decision or action itself - on the motivations, principles, or ideals underlying the decision or action - rather than being concerned with the outcomes or consequences of that decision or action. This reasoning is founded on the desirability of principle (usually duties or rights) to act in a given situation. The two main non-consequentialist theories are ethics of duties and ethics of rights and justice. Both of these are rooted in assumptions about universal rights and wrongs and responsibilities. This means that people who promote these types of ethical principles usually believe that they should be applied to everyone, everywhere in the world. If a child in one country has a right to an education, then this means that all children, everyone in the world, should have a right to an education.

2.2)Duties :

The foundation of theories of duties is the theory developed by the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Rather than relying on religion to tell us what our duties are, Kant believed that we can rely on our powers of reason to do so. At the centre of Kant's theory of duty is what he termed categorical imperatives. Some actions and decisions are founded on our personal desires. For example, you could say, 'If you want to live in a beautiful house, you ought to work hard'. However, this is not a categorical imperative, as it is based simply on fulfilling our desires. A categorical imperative tells us that we must do something, irrespective of our personal desires: for example, 'You ought to look after your parents'.

2.3) Article : The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

'Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.'

3) Teleological ethics :

3.1 Consequentialism :

Consequentialist ethics come from the teleological branch of ethical theory. You will remember that teleological theories focus on the goal of the ethical action. Consequentialist theories are those that base moral judgements on the outcomes of a decision or an action. If the outcomes of an action are considered to be positive, or to give rise to benefits, then that action is held to be morally right. Conversely, if the outcome causes harm, then the action is held to be morally wrong. The judgement of right or wrong depends on the consequences of the decision or action. The two main consequentialist theories considered here are egoism and utilitarianism.

3.1.a) Egoism

Egoism is the theory that one’s self is, or should be, the motivation for all of our actions. It is worth distinguishing between egoism as a descriptive argument (an argument that tells us how the world actually is) and egoism as a normative argument (an argument that tells us how the world ought to be). Egoism as a descriptive argument describes human nature as self-centred. In its strongest form, it argues that individuals only ever act in their own self-interest. Even where they appear to be acting in others’ interests, descriptive egoism explains that the person is really motivated by their own self-interest disguised by arguments (rationalisations) of ‘doing one’s duty’ or ‘helping others’. In fact, our motivation behind doing ‘good deeds’ may be to make ourselves feel good; to make ourselves look good in the eyes of others; or because we believe that, by helping others, others will help us. Even if we donate money to charity anonymously, we may still only really do this because it makes us feel good about ourselves. In contrast, egoism as a normative argument tells us that we should be acting in our own interests, as this is the only way that overall welfare can be improved. If everyone acts in their own self-interest, then society will become more efficient, which will be in everyone’s interest. It is therefore morally right to pursue one’s own self-interest.

One of the most famous normative egoists was Adam Smith, one of the pioneers of neo-classical economic theory. He argued that self-interested behaviour is right if it leads to morally acceptable ends. Smith argued that if everyone followed their self-interest, then society as a whole would be improved. (Importantly, he also argued that if egoism led in fact to the worsening of society, then it should be abandoned.) The theory of egoism is at the heart of capitalist arguments that a corporation's sole responsibility is to its shareholders.

3.1.b)Utilitarianism

The modem form of the consequentialist theory of utilitarianism derives from 19^th century British philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, and it has been particularly influential in areas of the world influenced by British culture. Rather than maximise individual welfare, utilitarianism focuses on collective welfare and it identifies goodness with the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people: the ‘greatest happiness principle’. So maximising benefits for the greatest number of people involves net assessments of benefit: utility is the net result of benefits and ‘disbenefits’ – or costs. Utility has entered modern economics as a key quantitative concept. The concept of trade-offs is specifically embraced and social and environmental cost-benefit analyses are explicit utilitarian tools for assessing the goodness of an action. A simple balance sheet of costs and benefits can be drawn up to assess the overall utility of a decision.

Utilitarianism has three essential elements:

• Whether an action is right or wrong is determined solely by its consequences.
• The value of the consequences of an action is assessed in terms of the amount of happiness or well-being caused.
• In assessing the total happiness caused to a number of people, equal amounts of happiness are to have equal value, no one person’s happiness having greater value that another’s.

4) Limitations of traditional normative theories :

Overview of the normative ethical theories which are influential in ethical thought are introduced here. The pros and cons of each theory could be examined in much more detail, and further examples of how these theories are used in policy debates and in constructing arguments could be given. Nevertheless, for now, you should have gained a clear enough overview of these theories to understand what some of the key terms refer to, and perhaps also to recognise some of these principles in use. However, it is useful to look at some general criticisms of these normative ethical theories. The ethical theories presented in this section are from the Western philosophical tradition; they are based on varied assumptions; and together they provide a pragmatic framework for judging right and wrong in decision-making. Yet they have been criticised for being too 'neat and tidy' - and perhaps too contrived or calculating - for the real world. Crane and Matten (2007) sum up the critiques of these theories in five related points. In their view, traditional ethical theories are limited because of the following:

• They involve a high level of abstraction from reality: the real world is complex and such a ‘principled’ approach to resolving day-to-day dilemmas about behaviour is unhelpful and ignores the real-world context of decision-makers.
• They may be narrow in their application: the ‘reductionist’ critique suggests that the focus on one particular aspect of ethics, such as rights or duties, reduces the complexity of ethical issues to one narrow parameter of reality when all are important.
• They are overly academic: perhaps the abstraction and narrowness are a reflection of theoreticians who live in a world - perhaps the ‘rarefied’, ‘ivorytower’, academic environment - that gives undue value to the ‘wisdom’ of such specialists as the arbiters of what is right and wrong and of how to decide between the two.
• They are inhuman: again, the principles are enunciated in an impersonal context in which decision-making becomes ‘formulaic’ and human relations, instincts, and emotions are absent.
• They involve prescriptive approaches: the principles and their application suggest that ethical dilemmas can be solved by living by a given set of rules, whereas true decision-making requires a high involvement of individuals and ‘ownership’ through using their own discretion and judgement.

If you are preparing for GATE and ESE, avail BYJU'S Exam Prep Online Classroom Program to get unlimited access to all the Live Structured Courses and Mock Tests from the following link :

• ESE and GATE ECE Online Classroom Program (24+ Live classes and 150+ mock tests)

• ESE and GATE EE Online Classroom Program (24+ Live classes and 193+ mock tests)

• ESE and GATE CE Online Classroom Program (24+ Live classes and 180+ mock tests)

• ESE and GATE ME Online Classroom Program (24+ Live classes and 161+ mock tests)

Thanks 
Sahi Prep Hai Toh Life Set Hai!