There Is Already Widespread Agreement On Universal Standards For Engineering Education
Ethics. First, both perspectives can often be useful for identifying and sorting out different types of arguments and recognizing that different types of arguments have deep moral roots. For example, in arguments for and against strict intellectual property protection, it may be useful to know that some arguments are utilitarian. From a utilitarian point of view, the protection of intellectual property promotes the prosperity of technology and thus the well-being of society. Utilitarian arguments can also be made that strong IP protection limits the exchange of new ideas in technology, which harms the general welfare. Arguments from the point of view of respect for people often focus on the right of the individual to control the fruits of his own labor and to reap the fruits of it, regardless of the impact on the wider society. The simplest bottom-up method might be called balancing or weighing. The reasons for an alternative assessment are taken into account or “weighed”, and the alternative for the most convincing reasons is chosen. We study the reasons for and against the universal registration of the engineer and, overall, we find a number of reasons more convincing than the others. If we find the reasons equally convincing on both sides, each option is morally permissible. Most ethics and professional responsibility training relies heavily on case studies. This applies to medical, legal, nursing, veterinary, dental and professional ethics.
This also applies to engineering ethics. Students in my large engineering ethics courses (about 600 per semester) often tell me that their favorite part of the course are the case studies that reflect the practical orientation that characterizes all professionals. The ethical and professional concerns of people who defend clients in court, treat the sick, run businesses, fill their teeth, operate pets and design bridges can best be addressed by cases focused on activities relevant to their usual activities. From a utilitarian point of view, the harm suffered by one person may be justified by a greater benefit to another person. In the ethics of respect for people, there are certain things that you cannot do to one person, even for the good of others. The fundamental idea in the ethics of respect for people is that you must respect every person as a free and egalitarian moral agent – that is, a person who has goals and values and who has the right to pursue those values as long as he or she does not violate the similar rights of others. . . .