Ethics Case Review
Professional engineers are required to have the highest standards when it comes to ethics. This is because their work has a direct impact on people’s lives. In turn, a set of rules governs their standards. These principles include the requirement for an engineer to ensure the protection, quality health and welfare of the community, offer services only in areas of his or her proficiency, issue truthful and impartial public announcement, act as true representatives for their clients, avoid deceit, and conduct themselves honorably, dutifully, ethically, and legitimately (Engineering ethics n.p.). In following these ethical rules, engineers respect the important role that their profession plays in the society. However, there are the specialists who violate the standards. This paper will tackle a case study on how corruption concerns professional ethics of an engineer.
Primarily, it would be appropriate to note that bribery and corruption at all are considered as unethical activities in the majority of countries. Corruption is the compensation of the execution of an act that is contradictory to the work agreement, or the essence of the work one has been employed to do. Bribery poses a difficult moral question in deciding between what is tolerable and what is intolerable. It corrupts capitalism, acts as a sellout for the rich and promotes distrust in a community. Therefore, it is shunned as both shameful and illegal in most cultures
In turn, the Board of Ethics Review uses a method called casuistry to rule on matters pertaining bribery. This technique is ancient with origins in common law and has rematerialized in medical ethics. In common law, the judge deals with the case taking into account resolutions of previous rulings on similar cases. The decision is based on similarities and differences between the prior events and the current one. Then, a list of situations is made about the case from the most recognizable incidents of corruption, an extremely gray area in between them, and a clear case that does not involve corruption. Eventually, this approach provides judges with an opportunity to adjudicate a fair resolution.
Considering the case of a chemical engineer, an incident C-X, Tom was given the position of branch executive of a new chemical processing division. His duties include organizing the processing unit personnel, supervising the designer to ensure that the plant was planned to stand reliable, operable, and easily sustainable, and then opening up the facility after construction. While working on the project, he had discovered a new valve that was cheaper and safer for use. Thus, it prompted him to recommend the valve for purchase. After the acquisition, a salesman from the company, Jim. approached him with an invitation for a fishing excursion in South America. The confounding moral question here is whether he should accept it or not.
Such a case is placed on a list of other related incidents, for example, case c-1 where the valves are overpriced and dangerous indicating the explicit bribery and case c-10 where the salesman offered a pen worth 5 dollars after the purchase was made, which is evidently not corruption. Then, it is decided if the case is more close to case 1 or 10 based on many issues. For instance, case 10 is deemed as allowable because of the value of the pen. Even if an event has no actual corruption, it is necessary to consider the IBM test. “If you read about this in your local newspaper, would you wonder whether the gift just might have something to do with the business relationship?”. To argue against this case, one might say that the size of the tip is ethically distressing and that its information could inspire others to purchase from Jim’s side, but this does not mean that it is corruption. All these facts show just how gray areas can occur when dealing with corruption.
Indeed, the case study revealed that engineers should have the premier form of professional ethics in each action. They have a clear set of guidelines that governs them. Corruption is viewed as a vice in the society due to its negative impacts, but it poses a challenge of determining what bribe is and what is not. To solve a corruption case, the relevant body uses casuistry because of the gray areas involved, which has been effective as in the case discussed.
Reference
Engineering ethics. Accepting gifts and amenities. 2017. http://ethics.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2017/04/GiftGiving.pdf
