There Is Already Widespread Agreement On Universal Standards For Engineering Education

The application relates to whether or not a concept applies to a given situation. A request problem is (1) a disagreement over the application of an approach in a given situation that (2) is essential to solving a problem. I have just referred to the question of whether computer software should be considered as author`s works or as inventions. This is a question of application, because the question is whether the notion of author (once we have defined it) or the concept of invention (once we have defined it) best applies to software. It is important to keep in mind that many controversies that appear to be moral issues are mainly due to differences of opinion on facts. Two people may disagree on how to proceed, because they disagree on the consequences of a particular approach. Two engineers may disagree on which of two designs is more ethically acceptable, because they disagree on what is safer. They may agree on the moral parameters of the case, i.e. the safest design must be chosen, but they can be divided over the safest design. While such a disagreement could be characterized as moral or ethical disagreement, it is really a disagreement on factual issues, unless they are divided over the definition of “safe.” Engineering students often tend to say that ethics are “soft” (in cases where a factual disagreement cannot be resolved).

It is therefore important to recognize that sometimes, even if moral parameters can be agreed upon, there may be intractable differences on the facts. Alan Gewirth, a contemporary philosopher, proposed that there be three levels of rights (Gewirth, 1978). Level I, the most important rights, include the right to life, the right to physical integrity and the right to mental integrity. I would like to add to them the right to free and informed consent to acts that affect you. Level II implies the right not to be deceived, deceived, robbed, defamed or liar. Freedom of expression is one of them. Phase III includes the right to homeownership and the right to be free from discrimination. For the hosts, Phase I rights are the fundamental rights necessary for effective moral choice. Level II For casuistics to work well in a profession, the professional community must agree on acceptable and unacceptable practice paradigms.

Engineers must agree on paradigmty examples of acceptable and unacceptable practices in conflicts of interest, confidentiality and other issues. In the area of medical ethics, for example, there is now broad consensus on whether or not the measures taken in some cases made public were moral. These agreed bank marks can then be compared to more controversial cases. I think there has been less discussion about bank branding in the engineering sector. Two limitations of this method come to me at the top of my heart. First, sometimes there is no creative middle ground, even if it is desirable. In the example above, all pollutants can be so harmful to the environment that no half-measures work.