Section of the Code
The section of the code PART II Section 1 a-c is considered as being an important part of the ethical conduct of engineers, as it seeks to reflect on their obligation. The section highlights that the primary obligation for engineers revolves around factors such as safety and the general welfare of the public; thus, meaning that any activities that they undertake must be in consideration of this obligation. In some cases, engineers find themselves working on projects that are likely to have serious implications on the public based on the element of safety and health. Consequently, this highlights the value placed on this section of the code of ethics, as it builds on the understanding that engineers should always be ready to enhance safety and health of the members of the public at all times.
The section can also be justified as being important when compared to the entirety of the code of ethics, as it highlights what is expected of engineers when their judgment is overruled. Overruling of an engineer’s judgment is likely to result in a situation where the public finds itself being exposed to danger concerning their health, safety and general welfare. Specifically, the section indicates that engineers should engage in the provision of necessary information to the relevant stakeholders such as the employers or the clients. The ultimate outcome is that this works towards ensuring that the public is well protected from the possibility of danger. The section also reflects on the fact that engineers should only work towards approving documents that conform to acceptable standards. That means that they do not seek to approve any documents that they believe would result in endangerment of the public.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Facts of the Case Study
An engineer, Engineer XY, is hired by a company that specializes in software engineering with the aim being towards designing a specialized software that would help in controlling operations of facilities concerned with the safety and protection of the public. The operations affected by the software will include the quality control of air and water. Engineer XY engages in conducting extensive testing under the current standards but remains aware of the new standards being developed. The design software is considered as being safe under the current standards but may not meet the new standards. Although the client is time-bound, is likely to spend a significant amount of money, and may face competitive disadvantage, Engineer XY makes the decision to present concerns regarding the designed software to the client. The engineer informs the client of the reasons for having to engage in further testing of the software, as well as, provides relevant recommendations that ought to be taken in a bid to enhance effectiveness in meeting the requirements regarding the new standards.
Justification of the Inclusion of the Part of the Code
The section of the part of the code reflects on the need for engineers to hold ensure that they uphold safety, health, and welfare of the public at all times by ensuring that the documents they approve conform with appropriate standards. In this case, Engineer XY is well justified in his engagement in extensive testing of the designed software before approving the same considering that the software will affect different operations regarding facilities that capitalize on the protection of the. From the onset, Engineer XY is testing the software on its conformity to current standards, as well as, using understanding of new draft standards to determine the safety of the software design.
The new draft standards only seek to build on further expectations in ensuring that safety and health standards and improved to help protect members of the public. The part of the code also indicates that engineers should ensure that their employer or the clients have adequate information in cases where their judgment is overruled. In this case, Engineer XY understands that although the designed software meets the current standards, the new standards may not be met. That means that the software may not be as safe as may be expected; thus, exposing the public to serious safety and health risks. That leads to the engineer’s decision to recommend further testing providing reasons for these tests while recommending actions to be undertaken. Basically, this reflects on the fact that the part of the code was utilized effectively in this case to help towards improving the safety and health expectations for the public.
Con Argument
From the argument, presented above, it can be argued that Engineer XY’s decision not to approve the documents may be ethically justified considering that the designed software is likely to affect the public. However, it can also be argued that Engineer XY’s decision is not justified considering that the design software conforms to the current standards. Engineer XY is working under the assumption of new draft standards that have not been adopted. At its current position, the designed software can be considered as being safe for the public based on the current standards. Consequently, this means that it is within the obligations for Engineer XY to approve the designed software with the aim being towards paving the way for the client to implement the same.
