CENG 291
LECTURE EIGHT
CODE OF ETHICS FOR
ENGINEERS
DR. JUSTICE OWUSU AGYEMANG
READING ASSIGNMENT
Skim Briefly through the Canons Code of Ethics of The Professional
Disciplines and note parts where the topics discussed can be applied.
NSPE (National Society of Professional Engineeers):
https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
Inc: https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-
8.html#:~:text=To%20treat%20all%20persons%20fairly,and%20to%20avoid%
20injuring%20others.
ELEMENTS OF THE CODE OF ETHICS (NSPE)
• Preamble.
• Fundamental Cannons.
• Rules of Practice.
• Professional Obligations.
FUNDAMENTAL CANONS
Engineers in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in their areas of competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to
enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
ABUSE OF CODES
• When codes are not taken seriously within a profession, they amount to a
kind of window dressing that ultimately increases the public's cynicism
about the profession.
• The worst abuse of engineering codes is to restrict honest moral effort on
the part of individual engineers in the attempt to preserve the profession's
public image and protect the status quo.
• On rare, occasions, abuses have discouraged moral conduct and caused
serious harm to those seeking to serve the public.
LIMITATIONS OF CODES
1. Most codes are restricted to general wording and so contain substantial areas of
vagueness. Thus, they may not be able to straightforwardly address all situations.
2. Usually codes provide little guidance as to which entry should have priority when
different entries in codes come into conflict with each other.
3. A further limitation of codes results from their proliferation. Andrew Oldenquist and
Edward Slowter point out how the existence of separate codes for different
professions can give members the feeling that ethical conduct is more relative and
variable than is actually is.
4. Despite their authority in guiding professional conduct, codes are not always the
complete and final word. They can be flawed both by omission and commission.
ETHICAL RELATIVISM
• Stephen Unger writes that codes "recognize" obligations that already exist.
• In the view of Michael Davis however, codes are conventions, established within
professions in order to promote the public good. As such they are morally
authoritative. The code itself generates obligations.
• In our view, Unger and Davis are partly correct.
ETHICAL RELATIVISM
Unger is correct in stating that many of the entries in codes of ethics state
responsibilities that would exist regardless the code. For example, to
protect the safety, health and welfare of the public.
Davis is correct that some parts of codes are conventions arrived at by mutual
agreement within the profession, and they create moral responsibilities
because of the mutual commitments within the profession to abide by
them.
JUSTIFICATION OF CODES
• A sound professional code will stand up to three tests:
1. It will be clear and coherent.
2. It will organize basic moral values applicable to the profession in a systematic and
comprehensive way, highlighting what is most important.
3.It will provide helpful guidance that is compatible with our most carefully considered
moral convictions about concrete situations.
JUSTIFICATION OF CODES
Any set of conventions, whether codes of ethics or actual conduct, should be open to
scrutiny in light of wider values. At the same time, professional codes should be taken
very seriously.
They are proper starting place for an inquiry into professional ethics.
ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH
INTEGRITY
DISCUSSION
What are some of the links you can make between the
topics discussed and the entries in the code of ethics?
THANK YOU
