Teaching Ethics Through Examples
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Teaching Ethics through Examples David Meredith, P.E. Penn State Fayette, the Eberly campus, Uniontown, PA 15401 Email: [email protected] Abstract All four ABET Commissions include a student learning outcome related to “an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.” Over the past decade, there have been numerous papers and sessions at ASEE meetings devoted to how, where and when to teach this topic. This paper will discuss the approach taken for an associate degree program in Engineering Technology that is accredited by TAC of ABET. To respond to the last two issues first, we believe it is important to incorporate ethics into a number of technical courses throughout the curriculum. As students mature, their ability to perceive ideas at a deeper level grows. By revisiting the tenants of the Engineering Code of Ethics several times, we think the students are more likely to retain the lesson. This paper will discuss three specific activities that can each be incorporated in a single lecture and distributed to core courses across the curriculum. First is an introduction that uses a Venn diagram of “Cultural Ethics”, “Legal Ethics” and “Moral Ethics” to discuss a variety of societal problems from teenage drinking and premarital sex to plagiarism and copying homework. The goal is to have students recognize that they make ethical decisions every day and to give them a method to process their thoughts. The second session is to play an “ethics game” by using a series of mini-cases located at this URL: http://temp.onlineethics.org/corp/graymatters/martin.html. These could be taken individually followed by team discussion to prove the wisdom of group thinking as a secondary objective. The third session was presented to us just recently by a guest speaker and was too good of a topic to not be included here. Introduce the Code of Ethics for Engineers and compare the key phrases with the Code of Ethics for Doctors, Lawyers and Politicians. The basic premise is that Engineers are held to the highest level of ethics. That discussion was followed by several classic engineering disasters, which could now include the BP oil spill and the Japanese nuclear disasters of 2011. Ethics: A matter of perspective There are at least three perspectives on ethics. The first is the legal perspective. Certain activities (speed limits, drinking, marriage, drug use) have legal rules with associated punishments for violators. The second viewpoint is morality, generally guided by religious principles (abortion, premarital sex). The third perspective is the cultural – what peers feel is acceptable behavior. The behavior that is most acceptable is at the intersection of the three circles. But to find that “sweet spot,” students need to raise their awareness of all three viewpoints. This exercise does that. To get students thinking about the issue of ethics from all three perspectives, I start with some general examples (under-age drinking, abortion, drug use) that have clear boundaries that most Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE North Central Section Conference 1 Copyright © 2012, American Society for Engineering Education students will agree with. Then I redirect the discussion into more academic areas (copying homework, internet plagiarism). That discussion provides an opportunity for me to discuss University policy and sanctions for violators. Most students are surprised to learn that students who are dismissed for academic integrity issues have a hard time getting admitted to other institutions. LEGAL MORAL CULTURAL Typical issues discussed using the Venn Diagram above A =Under-aged drinking B = Abortion C = Pre-marital sex D = Marijuana use E = Exceeding the speed limit F = Keeping extra change when shopping clerk makes mistake in your favor G = Studying last year’s exam to practice solving that type of problems H = Studying last year’s exam because you know the professor will use it again I = Submitting a paper that you have downloaded from the web for a grade J = “Adjusting” laboratory data so your results appear to be better than they are K = Copying homework problems and turning them in for a grade The Ethics Game About 1993, George Sammet at Martin Marietta invented “Gray Matters,” an ethics game with up to 55 scenarios related to ethics. Today 22 of these scenarios are available on line at http://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/workplace/workcases/Lockheed.aspx In each scenario students must choose among four possible solutions. Each solution has a predetermined point score ranging from –10 to +10. By breaking the class into teams, it becomes a competition to see which team has the best understanding of ethics. Combining these two activities together provides enough material to fill one classroom period, but we seldom get through all 22 scenarios. The most important aspect of the game is not the final score. It is the discussion that students have while arriving at their decisions. Engineering students seldom “let down their guard” and open up about social issues in technical classes. This is an opportunity for that to happen without the students realizing it. Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE North Central Section Conference 2 Copyright © 2012, American Society for Engineering Education By walking around the room while these 2-5 minute discussion are happening, it is often possible to find a teaching moment that transcends just an ethics discussion. For example, in one scenario, my only female in the class disagreed with her male peers (and happened to have the better answer). That provided an opportunity for me to emphasize why diversity is so important to the engineering profession. While a similar opportunity might arise related to race, religion or ethnicity, I have not experienced that opening yet. Another experiential activity that this game can provide is for each student to record their personal response before discussing the options with teammates. In most instances, the decision of the team will yield more points than the average of the individual selections. This provides real-time data that supports the value of team decisions – another teaching moment. It also provides a starting point for discussion on why it is important to discuss ethical choices with others before making a final decision. Students – especially engineering students – tend to not want to discuss personal choice matters. But once they find out that their peers are dealing with similar issues, it becomes easier for them to “open up.” From a faculty member’s perspective, it is sometimes difficult for those of us who spend most of our time with equations, simulations and spreadsheets to feel comfortable discussing these “soft” skills with students. All of us have “war stories” that we tell in class. If you can think of a couple that relate to ethics, share them (in general) with the students. That openness demonstrates that ethics is a topic that all engineers think about and have experienced. It makes students more receptive to broadening their viewpoint and considering how decisions might appear from other perspectives. Comparing Codes of Ethics Last semester, one of our part-time engineering instructors brought a retired former colleague to the campus to discuss engineering ethics. His presentation focused on two interesting topics. His first premise was that by their Code of Ethics, engineers are held to a higher standard than any other profession. His second topic focused on some examples where failures to practice by the Engineering Code of Ethics lead to disasters. As shown in the table below, the Code of Ethics for NSPE and each of the professional engineering societies shown specifically state our professional concern for the “safety, health and welfare of the public.” NSPE, ASCE, ASME, AAES: Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public. (Fundamental Canon) <> AIChE: Members shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public . <> IEEE: We, the members of the IEEE . , do hereby . agree to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public . Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE North Central Section Conference 3 Copyright © 2012, American Society for Engineering Education <> AIAA: The AIAA member will have proper regard for the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties. If we compare the intensity of those words with the word selection in the Code of Ethics for other professions, the impact in other professions is not as definitive. In Canon 1 of the 2004 Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct1, the AIA asks that its members to “thoughtfully consider the social and environmental the impact of their professional activities.” One can thoughtfully consider the impact of their actions, but then choose a path that might put the public in danger or at least at risk. AIA: “Members should . thoughtfully consider the social and environmental impact of their professional activities…” The speaker’s data for the American Bar Association (ABA) is shown in the box below. This data is from the previous ABA Model Code of Professional Ethics, most recently published in 1980. The current ABA publication is a Model Rules of Professional Conduct2 most recently updated in 2004 and is 32 pages long. Generally the word “shall” has been replaced by “shall,” which does strengthen the intent of the directive. But the words “reasonable” or “reasonably” appear 95 times. So it appears that as long as a lawyer makes a claim that is “reasonably” accurate, they are within the bounds of their profession. Translated into an engineering scenario, we should not get sued if an airplane we design is “reasonably” safe. Fortunately, that will never happen in a profession that takes public safety as paramount. <>ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility: Canons: 1. A lawyer should assist in maintaining the integrity and competence of the legal profession.