Psrc drexel

Engineering Ethics Dr. James A. Stieb

Philosophy 315-942,943,004 Hagerty Lower Level

Course Syllabus 267-909-5679

Fall 2014/5 stiebja@drexel.edu

Hours: T/Th 2-3 pm

Course Information:
Engineering Ethics, Sections 942, 943 Online BBVista, learning.drexel.edu , and section 004, PSRC 104.

image1.jpg

Required Texts:
Ethics, Technology and Engineering: an Introduction., Ninth Edition. Van De Poel

and Royakers. Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.  ISBN-10: 1444330950  ISBN-13: 978-1444330953

Deborah G. Johnson ed., Ethical Issues in Engineering. (Prentice Hall,

1991). ISBN-10: 0132905787 ISBN-13: 978-0132905787

Recommended Text:
James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy 4th, 5th or 6th Edition, 2006-2010.  ISBN-10: 0073125474 ISBN-13: 978-0073125473 (also on reserve).

*Some material will be on ereserve or available through Drexel’s databases.

Course Description: This is a philosophy course in engineering ethics. Philosophy argues for conclusions based on premises and ethics studies theories about what is good or bad, right or wrong in human conduct. Engineering is of course a kind of human conduct--the complicated story about building things. So, add philosophy and ethics, and you get engineering ethics: the study of theories about how we should conduct ourselves when building things. It is a branch of applied and professional ethics. And it has a number of problems that we may actually deal with. Here are two:

First problem: methodology. People preeminently approach EE through a “deductive” case-study method that I find question begging. Lots of case studies tell us what is the case in contemporary engineering, but I’d rather know what should be and how to get there. I think we should start with the individual herself and ask what she wants and how to get it. Starting with the person herself is perhaps the only way to actually make anyone more moral. Maybe.

Second problem: goals. Almost everyone assumes ethics means doing good for others. Engineering/business’ only purpose is to serve others. I don’t think anyone or anything’s purpose could possibly be to serve others. I argue that ethics means seeking happiness or true self-interest. But of course we will need to distinguish this from the selfishness and greed people use to vilify engineering and business.

The Rachel’s text provides a simple reflection on ethics and ethical types like egoism, utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, religion and so on. It’s good philosophy in the sense that it is, in places, either importantly right or importantly wrong. The Johnson anthology is more properly applied philosophy at its best: controversial and critical. Firmage and Greenwood battle it out over professionalism, Baron and Duska over loyalty and whistle blowing, Friedman over social responsibilities, Ladd over codes, and so on. Van De Poel

and Royakers write a “canonical” or orthodox textbook that turns out to be rather controversial in places. Meanwhile, a number of recent articles by leading researchers (many of them engineers) bring the subject up to date. This includes an additional topic on the morality of weapons engineering that I like to call “War and Peace.”

[Online class will do discussion posts not presentations] Students will present with my aid on several key topics including morality, social responsibility, codes, whistle blowing, loyalty, professionalism, safety and weapons engineering. Feel free to bring in whatever material you find useful for the topics (but also look at the assigned material). Hopefully we can have some computer/movie-aided fun while learning something too!

Course Objectives: At the end of this course students should be able to

1) Recognize and appreciate some of the most important moral and philosophical approaches to engineering ethics debacles, both in theory and in practice.

2) Understand a number of examples or case studies raising moral issues within engineering ethics.

3) Argue effectively about engineering ethics issues.

Course Requirements:
1. Class Participation, Attendance ,

2. One (min 5 page) paper (I will accept drafts for revision) 33%

3. Two brief examinations (midterm and final) 66%

1. Class Participation and Attendance. Do not miss more than 4 days (two weeks) or I will depreciate your grade by + or – for each day missed after that. Students in the face-to-face class will choose material to present in class. [Discussion Board --Online class only. I want each student to write one discussion post each week disagreeing with one of the assigned readings or with another student’s post. Please write 1 to 2 paragraphs explaining what you are disagreeing with. Then 1 to 2 paragraphs explaining why you disagree.]

2. The term paper. Choose a paper topic amongst those covered in the syllabus. The main requirement is that your paper has to do with business, ethics, and our texts. I favor taking copious notes in your texts (the bookstore doesn’t give you much back anyway), underline, doodle, scrawl, so that you have a lot of objections to turn into a paper.

In this paper you will argue your conclusion against opposition. So, get to the point right away. For example, the first couple of lines: “According to .” I disagree. In this paper I will argue: .” Above all, have and start with at least one paper you disagree with. After an explicit introduction (in this paper I will argue,etc.), spend 1-2 pgs simply explaining and QUOTING your opposition. Then start ARGUING against them. No just saying “I disagree” isn’t good enough. For this course, if you don’t know, can’t explain, or just have bad reasons for disagreeing; then you don’t disagree.

You should talk about something that is a real issue: a controversy with at least two sides. You should TAKE A SIDE, and in doing so you are not representing any given author YOU ARE REPRESENTING YOURSELF. I want YOUR ARGUMENT, though you can use whomever (even an outside source or two) to help you out. Your paper should be at least 50% in class text sources and be RELATED ESSENTIALLY TO ENGINEERING PRACTICE (even if its fundamentally on a philosophical position). An easy way to do this is to bring in a case study or two. USE ACTUAL REAL LIFE EXAMPLES (like Enron or Microsoft) in place of hypothetical examples (like suppose a Ceo…) whenever possible.

Everyone will probably have to make at least some revisions to the paper. Final copies of the term paper are due on paper and by email by the last day of class, class time.

3. The midterm and final. Each student should submit short answer questions for the midterm (weeks 2,3,4) and the final (weeks 6-9), preferably two questions per unit in that week. These should be answerable in 1-1.5 pps. For example, for the midterm, you would write questions on ethical theory, professionalism, and codes. I will select a list of questions for the midterm and final or if need be supply some questions of my own. Otherwise, I will make up the questions yourself. You should also read the texts carefully, consult with your roommate or outside faculty, or whatever you have to do (short of something unethical) to get the answers. NB: Please refer to chapter 4 of Royakkers and Van De Poel for what is meant by “evaluate an argument.” Basically, give the argument and assess its soundness and validity.