1) Codes of Ethics:

Code of ethics" redirects here An ethical code is adopted by an organization in an attempt to assist those in the organization called upon to make a decision (usually most, if not all) understand the difference between 'right' and 'wrong' and to apply this understanding to their de cision. Ethical Codes are often not adopted by management because of some over-riding corporate mission to promote a particular moral theory but accepted by management as pragmatic necessities in running an organization in a complex society in which moral concepts inevitably play an important part. They are distinct from moral codes that may apply to the culture, education, and religion of a whole society. Of course, certain acts that constitute a violation of ethical codes may also violate a law or regulation and can be punishable at law or by government agency remedies. Even organizations and communities that may be considered criminal may have their own ethical code of conduct, be it official or unofficial. Examples could be hackers, thieves, or even street gangs A code of ethics: A code of ethics often focuses on social issues. It may set out general principles about an organization's beliefs on matters such as mission, quality, privacy or the environment. It may delineate proper procedures to determine whether a violation of the code of ethics has occurred and, if so, what remedies should be imposed. The effectiveness of such codes of ethics depends on the extent to which management supports them with sanctions and rewards. Violations of a private organization's code of ethics usually can subject the violator to the organization's remedies (such as restraint of trade based on moral principles). The code of ethics links to and gives rise to a code of conduct for employees. 1. To accept responsibility in making engineering decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment; 2. To avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist; 3. To be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data; 4. To reject bribery in all of its forms; 5. To improve understanding of technology; its appropriate application and potential consequences 6. To maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake Technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or Experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations; 7. to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to

Acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the Contributions of others; 8. to treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race, religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin; 9. To avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action; 10. To assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics

2. ENGINEERING AS EXPRIMENT:

EX: 1. The Overcrowded Lifeboat In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

3) PROFESSION:
The concept of Professional Ethics is partly comprised of what a professional should or should not do in the work place. It also encompasses a much greater part of the professionals life. If a professional is to have ethics then that person needs to adopt that conduct in all of his dealings. Computer Societies around the world such as the IEEE and national bodies in Australia, Singapore, the UK and other countries have on their websites professional codes of ethics to consider and adopt in the way professionals conduct themselves in and out of the work place. Things that are included are concepts like: professional respect, avoidance of dishonest or fraudulent activity such as plagiarism and the professional development of the individual. Another aspect of this is the enhancement of the profession and the industry within which the professional works. This concerns a professional's conduct and behaviour while carrying out their professional work. This then, is work for the good of the community and mankind. Things to Do Do return value to your customer (internal and external) in all business decisions Do return value to your community locally and globally Do deliver quality in a timely fashion Do be honest in your work by telling the client, customer, or boss that the task or project you are working on will not meet the target date. 5. Do ask for help in order to meet the project or task deadline. A professional will not feel slighted if he or she acknowledges that he or she needs help. 6. When you accept an assignment, Do start using words like we, us and ours. A professional never works at cross-purpose with the employer. 7. If the employer wants respect from employees, he/she should treat all employees as professionals in their own right. Remember, if you treat someone as a professional, they will (hopefully) treat you like one too. 8. Promote your profession i.e. Information Technology 9. Do things for the good of yourself, the customer and the profession. You are not a true professional if you don't deliver outcomes that satisfy all three of these areas. 10. Do provide respect to others. This means truly thinking of their beliefs and desires, and the contribution they make to the organization, however small. Things to Not Do 1. 2. 3. 4. Do not tell the client, customer, or boss that you can do something when you cannot. When you accept an assignment, Do not use words like me, mine, you and yours. Do not steal from your employer. Do not underestimate your capabilities 1. 2. 3. 4.

Online Behavior Companies are increasingly writing guidelines for professional ethics online. Guidelines that are specific to blogging, wikis, forums and virtual worlds. While behavior online should be guided by Things to Do and Things Not to Do there are ways to act unprofessionally online through a lack of experience or understanding of the media being used.

4) MORAL DILEMA:
What is common to the two well-known cases is conflict. In each case, an agent regards herself as having moral reasons to do each of two actions, but doing both actions is not possible. Ethicists have called situations like these moral dilemmas. The crucial features of a moral dilemma are these: the agent is required to do each of two (or more) actions; the agent can do each of the actions; but the agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions. The agent thus seems condemned to moral failure; no matter what she does, she will do something wrong (or fail to do something that she ought to do). The Platonic case strikes many as too easy to be characterized as a genuine moral dilemma. For the agent's solution in that case is clear; it is more important to protect people from harm than to return a borrowed weapon. And in any case, the borrowed item can be returned later, when the owner no longer poses a threat to others. Thus in this case we can say that the requirement to protect others from serious harm overrides the requirement to repay one's debts by returning a borrowed item when its owner so demands. When one of the conflicting requirements overrides the other, we do not have a genuine moral dilemma. So in addition to the features mentioned above, in order to have a genuine moral dilemma it must also be true that neither of the conflicting requirements is overridden Ex: 1. The Costly Underwater Tunnel, compare: 112 men were killed during the construction of Hoover Dam on the Nevada-Arizona border (the "official" number was 98, but others had died from causes more difficult to identify -- or easier to ignore -- like by carbon monoxide poisoning): The first to die was a surveyor, J.G. Tierney, who drowned on December 20, 1922, and the last was his son, Patrick Tierney, who drowned on December 20, 1935 -- 13 years to the day after his father. The working conditions in the summer down in the canyon involved temperatures hitting highs of 119 o, with lows of no less than 95o (familiar numbers to those who have visited the cities of Needles, Blythe, or Yuma in the summer). In 1931, about the time that Hoover Dam, a federal project (with private contractors -the whole project was "stimulus" spending conceived by Hoover to alleviate the Depression), was begun, the Empire State Building, a private project, was completed. Although the rule of thumb had been that one man would die for every story built in a skyscraper, which would have meant 120 dead for the Empire State Building, in fact only 5 men died in the whole project. By comparison, in the earlier (1908-1913) building of the Los Angeles Aqueduct by William Mulholland (d.1935), it was also the case that only 5 men died (though when Mulholland's St. Francis Dam, in Francisquito Canyon, collapsed in 1928, it killed over 500 people). The Golden Gate Bridge cost 14 lives (or 11 -- the rule of thumb there was one life for each $1,000,000 of the project, with the bridge costing $35,000.000 -- workers who fell and were caught by nets joined the "Half-Way to Hell Club"). The Alaska oil pipeline, built in the 1970's, cost 31 lives. The Tunnel under the English Channel, built in the early 1990's, cost 11 lives. When the Gateway Arch in St. Louis was being planned, the prediction was that 15 workers would die, but none did. Similarly, though much earlier (1927-1941), no one died during the carving of Mt. Rushmore (though workers may have died later from the effects of breathing dust from the carved rock -- this

used to be a serious problem for miners, before they began flushing drill points with water, and in fact Gutzon Borglum provided breathing masks for the Mt. Rushmore workers). Even with such progress over time, the John Hancock Building in Chicago (1970) cost 109 lives, or, indeed, about one per floor, as predicted for the Empire State Building -- perhaps the infamous wind of Chicago made for more hazardous conditions. While it is usually ordinary workers who suffer in construction accidents, it isn't always, as was the case with the Brooklyn Bridge, whose designer, John Augustus Roebling, died from the effects of a ferry accident in 1869 while surveying the site. His son, Washington Roebling, suffered such a severe case of the bends, working in a pressurized caisson in 1872, that he supervised the rest of the construction crippled in bed, sending instructions through his wife, until the bridge was completed in 1883. Overall, 27 died on the Brooklyn Bridge, 3 from the bends (though, as with Hoover Dam, this may not count them all). It was many years before it was known what to do about this condition. Workers were still suffering from the bends when the Holland Tunnel was built in the 1920's. The chief engineer of the tunnel, Clifford Milburn Holland, died suddenly in 1924, aged 41, of "exhaustion." The tunnel, opened in 1927, was then named after him. The first tunnel under the Hudson was begun in 1874. Construction was abandoned in 1891 because of deaths (one blowout alone in 1880 killed 20 workers), restarted in 1903 by Alexander J. Cassatt of the Pennsylvania Railroad, and not completed until 1908. All such bridges and tunnels eliminate the need for ferry boats. Even in recent years, ferry sinkings and accidents are common, and they still sometimes result in the deaths of hundreds of people at a time. Even New York's famous Staten Island Ferry (started by Cornelius Vanderbilt) is not immune. On October 15, 2003, the pilot on one of the Ferry's ships passed out (he was diabetic), and it crashed into a pier at Staten Island. Eleven people were killed and 71 were injured, some with severed limbs. I had just ridden the Ferry that summer, and I noticed that many people stand right on the edge of the vessel as it approaches the dock. That was not a place to be in the accident. The captain of the ferry, who was not at his required station, in the pilot house, at the time of the accident, subsequently committed suicide. Railroad Safety fatalities billions of per year passenger billion miles passenger miles 1890 11.8 1900 16.0 24.2 15.5

Now in 2010, there has been another accident with this ferry, in fact with the very same ship. On May 8, the ferry crashed into the dock on Staten Island, as in 2003. This time, however, the problem (so far) looks like a mechanical rather than a human failure. 40 people were taken to the hospital, fortunately with mostly minor injuries. In 1954 a typhoon sank 5 ferries in the Tsugaru Strait between the Japanese islands of Honshu and Hokkaido, killing 1430 people. A tunnel was begun in 1964 to eliminate the ferries, although it took 25 years to complete. The idea for the tunnel under the Hudson may have been inspired by the St. Gotthard Tunnel in Switzerland, which was begun in 1872. It was only a mile under the Hudson, while the St. Gotthard would be 9.25 miles long. Nevertheless, the St. Gotthard tunnel was finished in ten years, though at a cost of 310 lives.

1910 32.3

10.0

total deaths, 1890-1917: 230,000; during World War I, the railroads were run by the Federal Government 1920 47.4 1930 26.9 1939 22.7 1943 87.9 4.8 2.3 1.8 3.2

In the table we see the rate of fatalities on American railroads over time. The 230,000 deaths between 1890 and 1917 averages out to about 8500 per year -- for instance in 1897 1950 31.8 0.6 there were 6500 deaths, 1700 of them railroad workers, but most of the rest from people being hit on the tracks. This seems excessive 1970 10.8 0.07 and appalling, but we might compare it with recent traffic fatalities for automobiles, which have been above 40,000 per year for every year since since 1962, except for 1992. Between 1966 and 1974, deaths were actually above 50,000 a year. This constant absolute rate of fatalities nevertheless reflects improvement, since the population of the country has grown greatly during the period, and the vehicle miles travelled have increased from 805,000 in 1963 to 2,880,000 in 2003. So the rate of fatalities has fallen significantly. Meanwhile, railroad fatalities have become rare -- although the occasional wreck can be spectacular. Part of that is the circumstance that the number of railroad employees has fallen from some 2 million in 1920 to only 177,000 in 2004. A train that used to require a large crew (including multiple brakemen) now may only be driven by two (with one recent fatal wreck caused by the lonely engineer ignoring red lights because he was texting). Lest we think that in its time the railroads were unusually dangerous, of linemen working on the new electrical systems in the 1890's, no less than half of them were killed on the job.

deaths increase during World War II with the temporary return of obsolete equipment

8) ETHICAL THEORIES OF RIGHT ACTION:

Ethical theories are based on the previously explained ethical principles. They each emphasize different aspects of an ethical dilemma and lead to the most ethically correct resolution according to the guidelines within the ethical theory itself

Beneficence
The principle of beneficence guides the ethical theory to do what is good. This priority to "do good" makes an ethical perspective and possible solution to an ethical dilemma acceptable. This principle is also related to the principle of utility, which states that we should attempt generate the largest ratio of good over evil possible in the world . This principle stipulates that ethical theories should strive to achieve the greatest amount of good because people benefit from the most good. This principle is mainly associated with the utilitarian ethical theory found in the following section of this paper. An example of "doing good" is found in the practice of medicine in which the health of an individual is bettered by treatment from a physician.

Utilitarianism
The utilitarian ethical theory is founded on the ability to predict the consequences of an action. To a utilitarian, the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the most people is the choice that is ethically correct. One benefit of this ethical theory is that the utilitarian can compare similar predicted solutions and use a point system to determine which choice is more beneficial for more people. This point system provides a logical and rationale argument for each decision and allows a person to use it on a case-by-case context (1,2). There are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism adheres exactly to the definition of utilitarianism as described in the above section. In act utilitarianism, a person performs the acts that benefit the most people, regardless of personal feelings or the societal constraints such as laws. Rule utilitarianism, however, takes into account the law and is concerned with fairness. A rule utilitarian seeks to benefit the most people but through the fairest and most just means available. Therefore, added benefits of rule utilitarianism are that it values justice and includes beneficence at the same time As with all ethical theories, however, both act and rule utilitarianism contain numerous flaws. Inherent in both are the flaws associated with predicting the future. Although people can use their life experiences to attempt to predict outcomes, no human being can be certain that his predictions will be true. This uncertainty can lead to unexpected results making the utilitarian look unethical as time passes because his choice did not benefit the most people as he predicted . For example, if a person lights a fire in a fireplace in order to warm his friends, and then the fire burns down the house because the soot in the chimney caught on fire, then the utilitarian now seems to have chosen an unethical decision. The unexpected house fire is judged as unethical because it did not benefit his friends.

Another assumption that a utilitarian must make is that he has the ability to compare the various types of consequences against each other on a similar scale. However, comparing material gains such as money against intangible gains such as happiness is impossible since their qualities differ to such a large extent. A third failing found in utilitarianism is that it does not allow for the existence of supererogation or heroes. In other words, people are obligated to constantly behave so that the most people benefit regardless of the danger associated with an act. For instance, a utilitarian who sacrifices her life to save a train full of people is actually fulfilling an obligation to society rather than performing a selfless and laudable act. As explained above, act utilitarianism is solely concerned with achieving the maximum good. According to this theory an individual's rights may be infringed upon in order to benefit a greater population. In other words, act utilitarianism is not always concerned with justice, beneficence or autonomy for an individual if oppressing the individual leads to the solution that benefits a majority of people. Another source of instability within act utilitarianism is apparent when a utilitarian faces one set of variable conditions and then suddenly experiences a change in those variables that causes her to change her original decision. This means that an act utilitarian could be nice to you one moment and then dislike you the next moment because the variables have changed, and you are no longer beneficial to the most people . Rule utilitarianism also contains a source of instability that inhibits its usefulness. In rule utilitarianism, there is the possibility of conflicting rules. Let us revisit the example of a person running late for his meeting. While a rule utilitarian who just happens to be a state governor may believe that it is ethically correct to arrive at important meetings on time because the members of the state government will benefit from this decision, he may encounter conflicting ideas about what is ethically correct if he is running late. As a rule utilitarian, he believes that he should follow the law because this benefits an entire society, but at the same time, he believes that it is ethically correct to be on time for his meeting because it is a state government meeting that also benefits the society. There appears to be no ethically correct answer for this scenario .

Rights
In the rights ethical theory the rights set forth by a society are protected and given the highest priority. Rights are considered to be ethically correct and valid since a large or ruling population endorses them. Individuals may also bestow rights upon others if they have the ability and resources to do so (1). For example, a person may say that her friend may borrow the car for the afternoon. The friend who was given the ability to borrow the car now has a right to the car in the afternoon. A major complication of this theory on a larger scale, however, is that one must decipher what the characteristics of a right are in a society. The society has to determine what rights it wants to uphold and give to its citizens. In order for a society to determine what rights it wants to enact, it must decide what the society's goals and ethical priorities are. Therefore, in order for the rights theory to be useful, it must be used in conjunction with another ethical theory that will consistently explain the goals of the society. For example in America people have the right to choose their religion because this right is upheld in the Constitution. One of the goals of the founding fathers' of America was to uphold this right to freedom of religion. However, under Hitler's reign in Germany, the Jews were persecuted for their religion

because Hitler decided that Jews were detrimental to Germany's future success. The American government upholds freedom of religion while the Nazi government did not uphold it and, instead, chose to eradicate the Jewish religion and those who practiced it.

9) MORAL OBLIGATION:

To be under an obligation signifies being tied, required, or constrained to do (or from doing) something by virtue of a moral rule, a duty, or some other binding demand. There are also familial or parental obligations deriving from a role or relationship. Obligations are normally understood to form a subset of the moral factors which impinge on a person; there are other moral concerns such as to be kindly or generous which are not usually thought of as obligations. Kant , however, called these latter broad obligations, allowing some latitude in their execution, in contrast to, for example, the strict obligation (as he saw it) always to tell the truth. Kant thought all moral requirements were categorical obligations. Obligations oblige one to do something in a way analogous to the way, for example, a closed road obliges one to find another route: they force or demand a course of action. Obligation is sometimes contrasted with value, as being what is peremptory and demanding rather than enticing and attractive

MORAL RESPONSIBILITY:

When a person performs or fails to perform a morally significant action, we sometimes think that a particular kind of response is warranted. Praise and blame are perhaps the most obvious forms this reaction might take. A comprehensive theory of moral responsibility would elucidate the following: (1) the concept, or idea, of moral responsibility itself; (2) the criteria for being a moral agent, i.e., one who qualifies generally as an agent open to responsibility ascriptions (e.g., only beings possessing the general capacity to evaluate reasons for acting can be moral agents); (3) the conditions under which the concept of moral responsibility is properly applied, i.e., those conditions under which a moral agent is responsible for a particular something (e.g., a moral agent can be responsible for an action she has performed only if she performed it freely, where acting freely entails the ability to have done otherwise at the time of action); and finally 4) possible objects of responsibility ascriptions (e.g., actions, omissions, consequences, character traits, etc.).

10) ETHICAL RIGHTS:

What rights do or should engineer employees have? Within the context of an engineer employee (unlicensed as a Professional Engineer) working for an employer, what rights do engineer employees have, or should have, for each responsibility in Codes of Ethics? If this same engineer employee were a licensed/registered/chartered Professional Engineer in good standing, what additional or different rights would or should the engineer have? Readers are invited to submit their views FOR or AGAINST the proposition that: A person, by virtue of practicing as an engineer and exercising the duties and responsibilities which go with such a professional position in employment, has certain rights, which should correspond with ethical responsibilities, when engaged in an engineer employee capacity. Background on Individual Rights in the United States

On Dec. 20, 1787, Thomas Jefferson said the following when it became apparent that the new Declaration of Independence was flawed in that it lacked protections of individual rights: A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse. Out of this climate came the Declaration of Independence, a blueprint for self-government by the new United States, with a strong executive branch, a representative legislature and a federal judiciary. But its flaw was that it lacked a specific declaration about individual rights, including the prohibition against slavery, which the country corrected much later at great human costs. The new Constitution specified what the government could do, but did not say what it could not do. Four years later, the United States adopted the American Bill of Rights which Jefferson inspired and James Monroe drafted. In 1791, the Bill of Rights, containing the first 10 amendments, became the law of the land. The Bill of Rights was necessary to protect individuals from the perceived abuses that could result from the new government. This view was based upon the experience the British Americans had experienced under the rule of the British. As such, the founders of the nation=s AEs believed that containing the new government AEs power and protecting liberty was their most important task. They declared a new purpose for government: the protection of individual rights. Rights Today

At the time they formed the new government of the United States, the founding fathers

viewed the new system as being the only threat to individual rights. They had no idea back then the amount of power corporations today would have, some of which exceeds government power. The America Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has written that: Today, most Americans are more vulnerable to having their rights violated by their employers than the early Americans were to having their rights violated by the government. Yet, because the Constitution does not limit their authority, private employers are freed to violate the civil liberties of their employees. Nationwide, the ACLU receives more complaints about abuses by employers than about abuses by the government.

What are Rights, Anyway?

One definition of a right is Aa justified constraint upon how others may act.@ AMoral philosophers have recognized that there is a close relationship between the duties we have toward others, and the rights others have relative to us.@ There is the concept of Amoral rights.@ i.e., A rights that are held to exist prior to, or independently of, any legal or institutional rules@. Amoral rights are entitlements to certain treatment that all people in a group have equally by virtue of the fact that each group member has a certain status.@. In the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, there is the phrase A inalienable rights. What this means, according to Webster AEs Dictionary, are rights which cannot be transferred or surrendered. In 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which all people are entitled. We understand this declaration less as a description of actual rights but more as a list of ideals to which we aspire.

KUMARAGURU COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS ASSIGNMENT II

NAME

: R.KAUSHIK SIDDARTH

ROLL NO : 08BCS16

DATE: