“Ain't No One Here But Us Social Forces”: Constructing the Professional Responsibility of Engineers [Book Review]

Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (1):13-34 (2012)
Abstract
There are many ways to avoid responsibility, for example, explaining what happens as the work of the gods, fate, society, or the system. For engineers, “technology” or “the organization” will serve this purpose quite well. We may distinguish at least nine (related) senses of “responsibility”, the most important of which are: (a) responsibility-as-causation (the storm is responsible for flooding), (b) responsibility-as-liability (he is the person responsible and will have to pay), (c) responsibility-as-competency (he’s a responsible person, that is, he’s rational), (d) responsibility-as-office (he’s the responsible person, that is, the person in charge), and (e) a responsibility-as-domain-of-tasks (these are her responsibilities, that is, the things she is supposed to do). For all but the causal sense of responsibility, responsibility may be taken (in a relatively straightforward sense)—and generally is. Why then would anyone want to claim that certain technologies make it impossible to attribute responsibility to engineers (or anyone else)? In this paper, I identify seven arguments for that claim and explain why each is fallacious. The most important are: (1) the argument from “many hands”, (2) the argument from individual ignorance, and (3) the argument from blind forces. Each of these arguments makes the same fundamental mistake, the assumption that a certain factual situation, being fixed, settles responsibility, that is, that individuals, either individually or by some group decision, cannot take responsibility. I conclude by pointing out the sort of decisions (and consequences) engineers have explicitly taken responsibility for and why taking responsibility for them is rational, all things considered. There is no technological bar to such responsibility
Keywords Engineer  Responsibility  Liability  Accountability  Causation
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 10,316
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Kenneth D. Alpern (1983). Moral Responsibility for Engineers. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 2 (2):39-48.
Michael D. Bayles (1979). A Problem of Clean Hands. Social Theory and Practice 5 (2):165-181.
Louis L. Bucciarelli (1985). Is Idiot Proof Safe Enough? International Journal of Applied Philosophy 2 (4):49-57.

View all 18 references

Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Michael C. Loui (1998). The Engineer's Responsibility for Quality. Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (3):347-350.
Richard T. De George (1982). The Moral Responsibility of the Hospital. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 7 (1):87-100.
Michael J. Phillips (1995). Corporate Moral Responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly 5 (3):555-576.
Helmut Danner (1998). Existential Responsibility - The Civic Virtue. Studies in Philosophy and Education 17 (4):261-270.
Garrath Williams, Moral Responsibility. Oxford Bibliographies Online.
Maureen Kelley (2005). Limits on Patient Responsibility. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (2):189 – 206.
Garrath Williams, Responsibility. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-11-18

Total downloads

17 ( #91,956 of 1,096,449 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

5 ( #44,086 of 1,096,449 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.