A Discussion on the Ethics in the Civil Engineering Profession

The Websters dictionary defines the word ethics short and simple. It states that ethics is the system of moral values; the principal of right or good conduct. When I began to research ethics in the civil engineering profession, I was amazed to find that it could not be defined quite as simply. I found about four pages that list the written code of ethics, fundamental canons, and guidelines to practice under the fundamental canons of ethics that a professional civil engineer is supposed to abide by, as well as in depth books on the basic concept and methods in engineering ethics, and hundreds of fascinating case studies concerning this too.

In short, I was blown away by how much information there was on a topic I considered at first to be quite simple.

The attempts of professional engineers to define proper courses of action in their dealings with each other, with their clients and employees, and with the general public, is basically what engineering ethics represents. It defines answers to questions about conduct and behavior that is morally correct, and involves the study of moral issues and decisions. In order to determine which actions are morally right and others that are morally wrong, there are four types of moral theories. They are utilitarianism, duty ethics, rights ethics, and virtue ethics.

Order custom essay A Discussion on the Ethics in the Civil Engineering Profession with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

The utilitarianism theory has great appeal to many people because human well-being seems to be such a natural human endeavor. However, in order to be used the utilitarian must define well- being. Yet people define well-being in all different ways. For some it is physical pleasure, for others financial and professional success, and so forth. In order to define what the the utilitarian means, they have come up with a term called preference utilitarianism. This consists of three basic concepts.

The first concept is to determine the audience of the action or policy in question. The second concept is that the positive and negative effects of the alternative actions or policies must be determined. The third concept is that they must decide which course of action produces the greatest overall utility. The utilitarian theory is an essential perspective in engineering ethics, where technological decisions are often made in terms of cost/benefit or risk/benefit analysis.

There are three more moral theories. The second one is called duty ethics, which is a theory that claims as we do our duties of being honest, keeping promises, and of doing well, we are performing our duties. The third moral code is called rights ethics, which is a theory that argues that humans have basic rights. When humans respect these rights, they are being ethical. The last moral code is called virtue ethics. This is a theory that says being ethical means manifesting good virtues- or habits which allow us to engage in rational activities and to reach a balance in our lives. Courage, truthfulness, and generosity are examples of these virtues.

Engineers have a duty to provide their services in a manner consistent with the "standard of care" of their professions. A good working definition of the standard of care of a professional is: that level or quality of service ordinarily provided by other normally competent practitioners of good standing in that field, contemporaneously providing similar services in the same locality and under the same circumstances. An engineer's service need not be perfect.

Since the engineer, when providing professional services, is using judgment gained from experience and learning, and is usually providing those services in situations where a certain amount of unknown or uncontrollable factors are common, some level of error in those services is allowed. The fact that an engineer makes a mistake that causes injury or damage, is not sufficient to lead to professional liability on the part of the engineer. In order for there to be professional liability, it must be proven the services were professionally negligent, that is, they fell beneath the standard of care of the profession.

The standard of care is not what an engineer should have done in a particular instance, it is not what others say an engineer would do, or what others say they themselves would have done, it is just what competent engineers actually did in similar circumstances. (Elbaz, Professional Ethics in Engineering: A Resource Guide, pg. 50)

There were hundreds of case studies I found to demonstrate this, but I decided to chose only two as examples. The first is called The Foundation Design Case.

A large condominium project was built in six phases, spread out over several years. For Phases I through III the soils engineer recommended the foundation be a drilled pier type, and that the piers be 4 feet deep. When construction of Phase IV started, he recommended 6 feet deep piers. Later, during construction of Phases V and VI, the structural engineer went back to 4 feet piers. All the buildings in all six phases were of the same design, based on the same soils report. The soils were similar in all Phases. The engineer is negligent in not carrying forward the soils engineer's Phase IV recommendations.

Management and control of information is part of diligent engineering practice. It was argued that the engineer's failure to carry forward the revised soils engineering parameters represented an error inconsistent with the standard of care. (Callahan, Ethical Issues in Professional Life, pg.98)

The second case study is called The Steel Frame Design Case. A two-story, mixed-use, wood-framed building on a corner lot incorporated two full-height moment frames, one on each of two adjacent sides facing the streets, in order to accommodate storefronts and office windows. The location was in seismic zone 4, close to a known, active fault. The engineer of record produced a set of calculations for the frames. One frame was designed based on five lines of calculations; the other frame was designed based on one line of calculations, which read, "Similar."

The calculations did not include any treatment of the vertical loads which the frame had to support, or any evaluation of earthquake-induced drift. A thorough and detailed computer-aided analysis performed during an investigation of the building showed that the frame as originally designed was adequate in terms of stiffness and strength for Code-required loads.

In fact, the analysis showed the frames were a very efficient and economical design. The calculations were not adequate to describe the design intent of the structural engineer. They did not include the evaluation of the performance of the frames under Code-required dead and live loads, or any required combinations of loads. The stresses and deflections induced by required or anticipated loads were not compared with allowable values. (Callahan, Ethical Issues in Professional Life, pg.167)

Error is fact of life: "To err is human." Some error comes from variability and uncertainty in what the engineer is dealing with: real materials, natural and man-made loads, and humans and their organizations. Error can lead to failure, which can cause injury, and result in damages. An engineer is not liable, or responsible, for damages from every error. (Firmage, D.A., Modern Engineering Practice: Ethical, Professional, and Legal Aspects, pg. 254) Society has decided, through case law, that when you hire an engineer, you buy the engineers normal errors. However, if the error is shown to have been worse than a certain level of error, the engineer is liable.

That level, the line between non-negligent and negligent error, is the "standard of care." A judge or jury, has to determine what the standard of care is, and whether an engineer has failed to achieve that level of performance. They do so by hearing expert testimony. People who are qualified as experts express opinions as to the standard of care and as to the defendant engineers performance relative to that standard. The judge weighs the testimony from all sides and decides in each case what the standard of care was and whether the defendant met it.

The question of an engineer's performance relative to the standard of care arises when errors occur, or when there is a failure of a constructed facility to achieve its intended safety, durability, serviceability or utility.

There are many different components to the ethics in the civil engineering profession. In this essay I covered the moral issues, case studies and consequences of those ethics. In the back of this essay I have also included the American Society of Civil Engineers Code of Ethics. I will apply what I have learned about ethics when I become a professional engineer, and use it to define the proper courses of action I will take in dealing with others, clients and employees, and with the general public. I will make sure to use the proper conduct and a behavior that is morally and ethically correct.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer