Ethics in Engineering: Why It Matters?

Introduction 

Following the Trump Administration’s administration announcement to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, profound ethical questions have cropped up about government policy. The ethical concerns are associated with climate change, environmental sustainability, public health and safety, and the duty to future generations. Ethics are moral principles or rather principles that govern the behavior of a person when conducting a given activity. Trump’s Administration ought to have thought about the ethical implication before making the announcement. The Paris Agreement is constituted within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The agreement deals with the mitigation and adaptation of greenhouse gas emissions. Also, the accord is earmarked to involve financing of related programs starting in 2020 [1]. The agreement requires each country to determine, plan, and report regularly concerning their contribution in mitigating global warming. Trump’s announcement caused a widespread condemnation in the EU as well as other US sectors. A bottom-up structure structured the agreement . The approach is characterized by standards as well as targets that are internationally set for implementation by the state. 

The accord aims [2] at maintaining the expansion in the world at controllable temperatures, the convention also looks into approaches that shall confine the increase of temperature to about 1.5°C above pre-mechanical levels. The perception would altogether reduce the dangers as well as the effects of environmental change. Secondly, the accord aims at expanding the capacity to conform to the unfavorable impacts. These impacts include environmental change. Also, the accord targets the encouragement of atmosphere versatility, and low ozone-harming substance discharges improvement in a nourishing mode to the future generation. Thirdly, the accord aspires to make fund streams predictable. In this sense, there is the realization of strong improvement in the atmosphere as a result of emanation of low ozone depleting substances. 

John Rawls Theory of Justice 

John Rawls theory of justice is considered as one of the influential works in the field of morals as well as political philosophy written in the twentieth century. Rawls denotes that Rawls attempted to formulate a justice philosophy that interrelates with a theoretical program aimed at establishing political structures [3]. The structures are hence made to treasure social justice and also individual liberty. Rawls writes in response to the prevalent utilitarianism hypothesis that characterizes equity which gives the best great to the best number of individuals. Rawls points to a hypothetical individual who is covered in a shroud of ignorance and is required to plan a just society that keeps their status. Rawls states that from this target vantage point, which he considers as first position, the individual will pick an arrangement of equity which satisfactorily accommodates people situated among most minorities in the society. The individual will do as such because they may wind up in such a burdened position and will need to be sufficiently accommodated . Rawls illustrates from prior hypotheses of logic in politics that placing a social shrink under which people verifiably consent to groups on which they are represented in any general public. Rawls presumes that a similar social contract, depicted in the first position, will ensure a just society without giving up the joy or freedom of any one person. It is evident that Rawls tends to issues of freedom , social correspondence, democracy, and the irreconcilable situation between individuals and society. 

In a theory of justice, Rawls champions for a principled reconciliation of both liberty and equality. The values hold centrally to the virtues of justice and as well as fair choice situation. Principles of justice are hence used as a guide to conducting the parties which in turn moderate scarcity. The parties are not naturally altruistic and also not purely egoistic. The principles seek to advance to an end but through cooperation and desire on mutually acceptable terms with others. In other words, Rawls denotes a hypothesis of an equitable and very much requested society that disseminates wealth, freedoms, opportunities as well as places of an expert . He considers ‘justice as fairness’ as a political cum moral origination of justice. The standards of equity are two as indicated by Rawls. They would legitimize a given school of sociality, morality and politically driven thoughts since they are harmonious to our convictions. 

In connection with his theory, Rawls rejects utilitarianism [4] since it neglects to consider the distinction present between people. Since it goes for happiness and tries to augment most prominent welfare, utilitarianism neglects to reflect individual rights. Rawls depends on contractual social custom present in its Kantian form [5] to represent a rule that would direct people's principles, secure equivalent fundamental freedoms to all, and record for social esteems and group. 

Ethical Issues in the Withdrawal 

The announcement to withdraw from the accord implicates some issues. In context are some values about the Rawls theory of distributive justice including reconciliation, social correspondence, democracy, and freedom. The withdrawal deprives the society the mentioned values in some ways and results into an ethical dilemma. According to William Galston, in a survey, 69% [6] of Americans from across the political divide acknowledged participation in the agreement. The Trump’s Administration, however, denied its people the right to remain in the accord. It violates the values of freedom and democracy and hence leads to a divided nation between individuals who support and those that reject the accord . The administration lamely inclined on the ‘unfairness’ in the accord claiming that larger polluting countries including China and India are required to do nothing until 2030. Samantha Gross continues to imply that the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement was a blunder in the foreign policy [6]. She continues to project a reverberated relationship between the US and its allies. It is evident that the US was largely involved in the negotiation process and hence the withdrawal was completely unnecessary as the country ensured flexibility in the accord. The flexibility encouraged the country’s pursuance of its policy goals. 

The withdrawal of US from the accord also poses a challenge in further negotiations in climate change mitigation, more so the clean-energy transition on an international negotiation platform. The withdrawal as well opens up geopolitical space in climate leadership. Further, the withdrawal strangles the idea of globalization to some extent owing to the compromise on the freedom that people would have achieved under the accord. The US has been a major voice advocating for transparency as well as the virtue of verification of compliance with a country’s outlined goals. In other words, the US has spearheaded the Nationally Determined Contributions throughout the process that resulted in the Paris Agreement. The withdrawal was received with a mixed reaction as some countries lacked the guidance or else the urge to further in the accord after the parent negotiation party pulled off. It can be viewed as an ethical dilemma for a country to prematurely pull off an Agreement that it had been actively advocated before the implementation phase commenced. Nate Hultman defines the decision itself as a major error [6]. He further illustrates the hurting loss of American leadership ability. He describes the president’s choice as a move to lead the country back towards a nineteenth-century energy economy that shall hence be bad for the American economy. Nate projects an unfair as well as a heavily oppressive deal that is projected to plunge the country in joblessness, economic stagnation, among other societal ills in the long run. Mark Muro elaborates the withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement as a tragic and rational judgmental error. In moral and diplomatic terms, the decision depicts a willful abdication of US’s leadership role in the globe [6]. Further, Mark points out that the US shall miss about $1.4 trillion in global business opportunity represented by the global low-economy clean energy platform [7]. Many other analysts including Timmons Roberts, Todd Stern, and Vinod Thomas continue to fault the decision. 

Recommendations Regarding the Withdrawal 

The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) should come up with measures to mitigate the effect of the withdrawal on future generations. In light to this, cooperative approaches have been designed to achieve a nationally determined carbon emissions reduction. The approaches are in line with the Paris Agreement framework. For instance, the trading systems, as well as international transfer of mitigation outcomes, should be linked . The move recognizes the rights of the parties to use emissions reductions that are available outside their jurisdiction towards their NDC. The use is compelled to be under a system of carbon trading and accounting. Another strategy or rather approach is the sustainable development mechanism. The mechanism contributes to the greenhouse gases mitigation as well as support towards sustainable development. 

Adaptation provisions in the Agreement require countries to report on their specific adaptation actions as well as making them a parallel component of the agreement with mitigation. The adaptation goals are also focused on adaptive capacity enhancement, the increment in resilience, and the limitation of vulnerability. The goals are achieved through ensuring finances to fund the climate change mitigation programme as well as addressing the loss and damage of the adopted mechanism. Enhanced transparency framework should be ensured through flexible mechanisms . With the well outlined agreement, the adoption goals are then readily achieved. 

References