Code of Ethics for Engineers Essay

In his essay, â€Å"Thinking Like an Engineer†, Michael Davis argues that: engineering is a profession which requires a code of ethics, and that the engineers must abide by the code of ethics. He argues that engineering is a profession which requires a code of ethics so that engineers can be expected to follow specific normative patterns in carrying out their profession. This is for the benefit of the engineer himself, for other engineers and for the public in general. Having a set of normative patterns to follow as guidelines in exercising the engineering profession helps the engineer weigh different factors in making decisions. It lessens the possibility of being effectively influenced by outside considerations. The engineer can choose to abide by what the code of ethics provides and he will still avoid the shame and disrepute in case the decision he made based on his code of ethics will ultimately turn out to be wrong. His fellow engineers are also benefited because they will have a right to expect that an engineer will do according to what the code provides. They can trust that their colleagues will not adopt any conduct inimical to the profession and will not cut them short because of competition. They could reasonably expect that they can perform what engineers are ethically bound to do without the risk of being overruled by other engineers in the ethical aspects of their work by any high-handed method. They need not succumb to the pressure to do the things that an engineer should not do. Also, they could generally criticize the work of other engineers which are more or less opposed to what the code requires of them. The protection to the public afforded by this code of ethics for engineers is generated by giving them the right to expect that engineers will follow what the code requires of them so that the general public could reasonably object to any work done by an engineer which may seem unethical. The public can also be assured that the engineers will apply their expertise for the common good and will not take advantage of the public. The argument that the engineers must abide by the code of ethics is also for the good of everyone including the engineer himself. It is interesting to note here that Davis said that all engineers are obliged to follow their code of ethics whether they have read it or not. Indeed, the ethics they are to follow is inherently embedded into their profession. The engineer must abide by the code for the simple reason that he has chosen that profession and, therefore, must vow to abide by the rules and conventions set out by such profession. As a professional, he also has an obligation towards society to seek the common good and not only his personal aggrandizement. And more practically, he must abide by the code to avoid the shame and embarrassment in case something wrong happens with his work or with its results. He can fall back to the code to justify his decision. In fact, if his decision is totally done by the â€Å"book†, then the â€Å"book† itself will do the explanations for him. What is more, he can trust his colleagues to come to his defense with claims that â€Å"the engineer was just doing his job. † All in all, an engineer must abide by the code of ethics because it is his duty and it is also for his own protection. In conclusion, Davis went further to say that the responsibilities of an engineer goes beyond than just abiding by the code ethics. An engineer must also support it and require his fellow engineers to adopt a conduct which is in consonance with what the code provides.