Engineering Ethics (PHIL 323)

This is the official PHIL 323 web site. Here you will find the syllabus, handouts, study guides, reading assignments, written homework assignments, news, and other relevant information. I'll try to keep this thing up to date, but no guarantees! Suggestions and comments are most welcome, whether you are a PHIL 323 student or a visitor. Please email jvessel@nmsu.edu

News and Assignments (The "Living" Course Schedule):

Tues., May 6: All revisions are due today. Anyone who wishes to take the (optional) final should contact me as soon as possible.

Thurs., May 1: Liliana, Kristal, Michael Pugh, and Michael Garcia are scheduled to present. I'll say a few words about the final exam before wishing you well. Freedom's coming our way!!

Be sure to secure a hard copy of this handout on Conflicts of Interest.

Tues., April 29: Erik, Martin, and Matthew are scheduled to present. Erik and Martin: Please speak to each other prior to your presentations. I'll probably have you go back-to-back before the questioning session in virtue of the fact that each of your projects focusses upon the Fichtelberg piece. Conflicts of Interest should continue to occupy our attention. I'm still thinking about the structure of the final exam. I'm struggling to get (at least) a majority of the term papers back to you.

Here is the Study Guide for the Final Exam. It's possible that I'll add some questions regarding the phenomenon of international bribery.

Thurs., April 24: I'm digging the presentations! Steven Hopkins, Juniper, and Dillon are scheduled to present. Then we'll take on conflicts of interests. What is a conflict of interest? Are there different species of conflicts of interest? Are all conflicts of interest morally problematic? Which phenomena are responsible for generating moral trouble in conflicts of interest cases?

New Reading Assignment: Michael Davis' "Conflict of Interest" (317-326)

Tues., April 22: After Steven Berard's presentation, we'll pursue possible solutions to ethical puzzles generated by trade secrets, secrets that have become parts of engineers. Conflicts of Interest are coming up next. (I'm still working on the term papers.)

Thurs., April 17: There's a sense in which trade secrets are "inside" many engineers. This has posed considerable problems for engineers (as employees). The engineer--it seems--should be free to select her workplace on an open market. A corporation--it seems--should be able to protect valuable trade secrets developed within the corporation. These tensions can become serious. How should we evaluate cases of this type from a moral perspective? Be sure to secure a slot in this Schedule of Presentations. 20% of your grade is at stake. A short in-class quiz on the new reading may or may not take place. Also be sure to give this Employee Loyalty and Whistle-Blowing handout a close study.

New Reading Assignment: Michael Baram's "Trade Secrets: What Price Loyalty?" (279-290)

Check out this recent news on a local NMSU whistleblower. Isn't it sad?

Tues., April 15: Loyalty. What is it? Is it ever morally relevant? Should considerations of loyalty play any role whatsoever in whether we should blow the whistle? An in-class quiz on the Duska reading may or may not take place. Please start preparing for your presentation. Construct your handout. Get ready for action. Special bonuses will be awarded to anyone who jumps up to the mic this week.

Reading Assignment: Ronald Duska's "Whistle-Blowing and Employee Loyalty" (241-247)

Thurs., April 10: Aside from these exceptions (Michael Pugh, Dillon, Michael Chenoweth, Martin, Steven Hopkins, and Erik) all term papers are due by the beginning of class. We'll return to whistle-blowing controversies before taking on either conflicts of interests or puzzles regarding trade secrets.

Tues., April 8: The in-class portion of Exam 1 is scheduled to take place. Please bring a couple of good pens to class. The take-home portion of Exam 1 (which can be found in this Study Guide for Exam 1) is due by the beginning of class. Aside from these exceptions (Michael Pugh, Dillon, Michael Chenoweth, Martin, Steven Hopkins, and Erik) all term papers are due by the beginning of class on Thursday, April 10.

I dare you to check out this site that Martin brought to my attention: Online Ethics Center at the National Academy of Engineering.

Thurs., April 3: We'll complete our discussion of the possibility (and nature) of moral obligations to distant future generations before turning to a short review session for Exam 1. Note that Exam 1 is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, April 8 at 1:10 pm. Note also that the take-home portion of Exam 1 is due by the beginning of class on Tuesday, April 8. You can find the take-home portion of the exam in this Study Guide for Exam 1. Finally, it will probably do you some good to wrap your mind around the content of this handout on Moral Obligations to Future Generations. I definitely recommend that you check out this Pinto action.

Thurs., March 13: Pintos. Your Take-Home Term Paper Quiz is due by the beginning of class. Anyone who fails to submit a term paper quiz on time fails the course.

Tues., March 11: A quiz on the Pinto reading will take place at the beginning of class. After a final foray into the codes, we'll turn our attention to Pintos, whistle-blowing, and moral responsibility in large corporations. The study guide for Exam 1 will be appearing soon. Please get to work on your Take-Home Term Paper Quiz.

Thurs., March 6: We will not be meeting as a class today at the usual time and location. Instead, the Philosophy Department and Sophia--the NMSU Philosophy Club--cordially invite you to attend Mark Walker's "Designer Babies " scheduled to take place at 4:00 pm on Thursday, March 6 in Hardman Hall 208.

Abstract: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) refers to procedures to test genetically embryos in vitro. One means to create “designer babies” is to produce several embryos in the lab and then use PGD to select a candidate (or candidates) for implantation. Those embryos not selected for implantation are typically destroyed or cryogenically preserved. Presently, PGD is used mainly for ‘negative selection’: assaying for genetic abnormalities associated with monogenetic diseases like Huntington’s disease, and chromosomal irregularities such as Robertsonian translocations. Increasingly, PGD is employed for ‘positive selection’, for reasons other than attempting to detect genetic abnormalities, e.g., it is has been used to select embryos for tissue matching to save an elder sibling, and for gender selection. In the near term, there is the distinct possibility that it could be used to select for genes associated with the potential for increased muscle mass, perfect pitch, or high IQ. Clearly there are a number of important moral questions and issues that arise from the use and prospective expansion of positive selection. This paper considers one objection: since embryos are persons, and positive selection involves the destruction of so many embryos, positive selection harms persons. This paper argues that even if we grant the (contested) claim that embryos are persons, positive selection does not harm the persons created through this process. That is, this paper has the counterintuitive conclusion that a policy that permits positive selection cannot be said to harm those persons created, even if it is foreseeable that tens of thousands of persons will be killed through this process. The argument is an application of Parfit’s famous ‘non-identity’ problem. Time permitting, I will show that there is a contradiction in some of the best-known applications of the non-identity problem.

I know that you all are salivating at the prospect of writing a philosophical term paper for me. In order to submit a term paper, you must receive a satisfactory grade on your Take-Home Term Paper Quiz. Otherwise, I simply won't accept your work. And this little document should prove to be quite handy: The Official Term Paper Document. Your Take-Home Term Paper Quiz is due by 1:10 pm on Thursday, March 13. The term paper itself is due by 1:10 pm on Thursday, April 10. Per usual, no late assignments will be accepted. Please utilize these Presentation Guidelines in the construction of your presentation projects. If you are having trouble choosing an attractive topic, please see me as soon as possible. I can help--but, again, I won't be accepting any late quizzes.

Tues., March 4: Codes. An in-class quiz on the Pinto piece will likely take place.

New Reading Assignment: De George's "Ethical Responsibilities of Engineers in Large Organizations: The Pinto Case" (175-186)

Thurs., Feb. 28: More utilitarianism. More investigation of the codes.

The Philosophy Department and Sophia--the NMSU Philosophy Club--cordially invite you to attend Neil Delaney's "Love's Contours" scheduled to take place at 4:30 pm on Tuesday, February 26 in Hardman Hall 208. Delaney's "Romantic Love and Loving Commitment: Articulating a Modern Ideal" will serve as the backdrop of his presentation. Here's the official abstract of his talk: This talk offers a substantial romantic ideal for modern Westerners, and makes explicit both the psychological needs people commonly expect romantic love to service and the robust yet conditional commitment it demands. The basic ideas are the following: People regularly want to form an intimate union with another, to be loved for properties of certain sorts, and to have this love generate and sustain a distinctive sort of commitment to them. I close with a detailed account of what I term a "loving commitment."

Tues., Feb. 26: The Engineer's Creed, the Code of Ethics for Engineers, and Classical Utilitarianism. Several fundamental portions of the Code of Ethics for Engineers seem to rely upon the plausibility of an ethical theory like Classical Act Utilitarianism. Be able to state AU and define the terms 'hedonic utility' and 'maximizes'. Here's my handout on Popular Theological Approaches to Morality just in case any interested parties are lurking about.

Thurs., Feb. 21: The Hippocratic Oath, the Engineer's Creed, and Classical Utilitarianism. I double-dog dare you to locate some respectable source containing information about utilitarianism. Try to identify the utilitarian standard of moral rightness; that is, be able to explain the features that utilitarians believe make morally right actions morally right.

Tues., Feb. 19: Investigation of another moral theory or two will transpire prior to our examination of the Hippocratic Oath, the oldest extant expression of concern for professional ethics in Western civilization. If time permits, we might even take a look at the Engineer's Creed, focussing primarily on how moral justification might be mustered for the various clauses.

Thurs., Feb. 14: We'll tussle with the Golden Rule before turning our attention to the Hippocratic Oath. Consider thinking about these questions: Why were professional codes of ethics ever introduced? Are they problematic in certain respects? Which portions--if any--of the codes might be justified on moral grounds? An in-class quiz on some feature of the Engineer's Code of Ethics may or may not take place. If I were you, I would be able to identify a controversial feature of the code and present a criticism against it by classtime. Learn to PEE. Learn to love to PEE. Master the PEEing Procedure.

Sophia--the NMSU Philosophy Club--cordially invites you to attend Brian Tackett's "A Discussion of Omniscience" scheduled to take place at 4:30 pm on Tuesday, February 12 in Hardman Hall 208. Abstract: Can God know everything? Interesting puzzles arise if we assume that any being might know all true propositions. Brian will discuss a number of these issues, ranging from arguments by Paul Grim to Cartesian objections and the liar's paradox.

Tues., Feb. 12: We'll start PEEing together. We might jump into an investigation of professional codes of ethics. It's more than likely that an in-class quiz on logic, the fundamental concepts of the normative ethics of behavior, and the Hippocratic Oath will take place.

NMSU is attempting to establish a new chapter of Engineers Without Borders. I don't know too much about the program, but if you might be interested in it, you can learn more about it at http://www.ewb-usa.org. Associate Professor Thomas W. Jenkins seems to be running the action here on campus, so if you're interested in checking it out or being included on the group's email list, you should write to him at tjenkins@nmsu.edu.

Thurs., Feb. 7: After we complete our investigation of the fundamental concepts of the normative ethics of behavior, we'll submit some popularly endorsed ethical theories to critical scrutiny. It's likely that I'll teach you how to PEE. An in-class quiz on the baby logic and this Background on NEB handout will very likely take place on Tuesday, February 12. Please secure a hard copy of the ancient Hippocratic Oath, then attempt to construct a criticism against some clause(s) in the Oath. It could be worth 15 quiz points to you.

Tues., Feb. 5: More logic, then we'll tussle with the fundamental concepts of the normative ethics of behavior. Please bring a hard copy of this Background on NEB handout to class.

New Reading Assignments: The first three selections in Chapter 9 of Johnson's Ethical Issues in Engineering: "Engineer's Creed" (97), "Code of Ethics for Engineers" (98-104), and Stephen H. Unger's "Codes of Engineering Ethics" (105-129).

Thurs., Jan. 31: We'll continue on with the logic before turning to the fundamental concepts of the normative ethics of behavior. Please bring a hard copy of this Background on NEB handout to class.

Tues., Jan. 29: Logic. Please bring a hard copy of this Baby Logic handout to class. An in-class quiz related to the Ladd reading assignment will likely take place near the beginning of class.

Thurs., Jan. 24: Your Take Home Quiz on the Philosopher's Index is due by the beginning of class. We'll continue to discuss the nature of philosophy--moral philosophy in particular--before turning to logic. Please give your first reading assignment a close and careful read. It's likely that it will be the subject of an in-class quiz on Tuesday, January 29.

Here's your Take Home Quiz on the Philosopher's Index. Quizzes should be typed. No quizzes will be accepted after 1:10 pm on Thursday, January 24.

Tues., Jan. 22: What is Philosophy?

First Reading Assignment: John Ladd's "Collective and Individual Moral Responsibility in Engineering: Some Questions" (26-39)

Welcome Students! Please get down to the NMSU Bookstore (second floor) and pick up a copy of Ethical Issues in Engineering (by Deborah G. Johnson).

Please take a look at the Baby Logic handout below. Try to get a grasp of the concepts of validity and soundness. Become familiar with the basic forms of valid inference. Memorize the definition of 'valid'.

Please read through Bruce Aune's "Punctuation and Syntax". (You should probably print out a copy of it.) Contained within the document are style constraints that must be adhered to if you hope to succeed in this class. It's long, dry, and not all that philosophical--but I know you can get through it.

Philosophy 323: Engineering Ethics

News and Assignments (The "Living" Course Schedule):

Handouts:

Engineering Ethics Resources: