Skip to main content
Log in

Philosophy of Technology and Macro-ethics in Engineering

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to diagnose and analyze the gap between philosophy of technology and engineering ethics and to suggest bridging them in a constructive way. In the first section, I will analyze why philosophy of technology and engineering ethics have taken separate paths so far. The following section will deal with the so-called macro-approach in engineering ethics. While appreciating the initiative, I will argue that there are still certain aspects in this approach that can be improved. In the third, fourth, and fifth sections, I will point out three shortcomings of engineering ethics in terms of its macro-level discourse and argue that a number of certain insights taken from the study of philosophy of technology could be employed in overcoming those problems. In the concluding section, a final recommendation is made that topics of philosophy of technology be included in the curriculum of engineering ethics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In 1997, Durbin has addressed the failure of philosophers to engage in discourses of engineering ethics [1]. The situation does not seem to have improved since.

  2. The distinction between technology and engineering is not always easy. Generally speaking, the definition of technology is broader than that of engineering. Engineering refers to more specific type of activity that has clearly defined goals and is based on natural science.

  3. Mitcham introduces some engineers who contributed to the formation of philosophy of technology such as Andrew Ure (1778–1857), Peter K. Engelmeier (1855–ca. 1941), and Eberhard Zschimmer (1873–1940) [3, pp. 20, 24–29]. Their reflection was limited to analysis of mechanical aspects of technology and Mitcham calls them “engineering philosophers of technology.” However, once established and recognized as a sub-discipline of philosophy, most discourses of philosophy of technology do not reflect on their works except in cases of historical references.

  4. Mitcham presents a detailed history of engineering ethics [4]. He explains that there are three distinct ideas developed in engineering ethics, namely those of company loyalty, technocratic leadership, and social responsibility. He notes that the idea of social responsibility has been characterized by paternalistic undertone and disputes the notion of its capacity as a democratic model of engineering design wielded by the influence of public participation.

  5. Although autonomy of technology is often confused with technological determinism, it emphasizes the complex and interconnected mechanism of our contemporary technological society, which renders human intervention to the process of technological development virtually meaningless. One should understand, however, that the autonomy of technology is advocated in the context of the critique of dehumanizing technological society. It should not be taken as a metaphysical claim, but as a plea for realization of the devastating reality [7].

  6. This new trend is called the “empirical turn” contrasted with “the classical philosophy of technology.” “The classical philosophy of technology” refers to philosophical reflection on technology by thinkers such as Lewis Mumford, Martin Heidegger, Jacques Ellul, Herbert Marcuse, Hans Jonas, and some others. Their perspectives are characterized by the distinction between traditional and modern technology, a broad understanding of technology, their diagnosis of modern technological development as autonomous, and generally pessimistic tendency concerning the future of the technological society. Those who belong to the “empirical turn” movement criticize their predecessors’ pessimism and obscurity, arguing that philosophy of technology should conduct more empirical analysis of technological phenomenon and provide concrete solutions for problems of the technological society [8, Chaps. 1 and 2].

  7. See http://www.nspe.org/ethics/code-2006-Jan.pdf; http://ieee.org/portal/pages/about/whatis/code.html; and http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=F0647595-C7FE-7720-EA17-70AC27062E0B&siteName=ieaust. And also note that the IEAust’s code of ethics adopts a different order concerning the prime goal of their activities: “welfare, health and safety” rather than “safety, health and welfare” as presented by NSPE and IEEE (Mitcham, personal communication 2007).

  8. Ellul’s notion of “techno-logical bluff” specifically refers to this problem [13]. For example funding an ethical research on a certain technology could be arranged and used in order to justify the innovation and to avoid further scrutiny.

  9. According to Code of Ethics for Engineers by the National Society of Professional Engineers, “Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public [17].”

  10. There is a subtle difference between Shrader-Frechette’s strong emphasis on the moral responsibility of individual engineer “to engage in whistle-blowing whenever the situation warrants it” [15, p. 72; 24, p. 224] regardless of the personal risk in doing so, and the IEEE Directors assurance that nobody using the new “ethics hotline” will jeopardize their job or finance [25]. Weil reports other authors of engineering ethics who refer to scientists’ social responsibility, Melanie Leitner and Ullica Segerstråle, consider “what scientists can reasonably be expected to do” [24, p. 226].

  11. Shrader-Frechette’s position is exceptional in this sense. She advocates individual scientists’ (and most probably engineers’) extensive obligation to the larger society. See footnote 10.

  12. See footnote 6.

  13. His suggestion has been more concretized by Sclove [27].

  14. Traditional ethical theories do not pay much attention to why one should be ethical. Their primary concern is how to demarcate being ethical and how to justify ethical principles. Even for utilitarian approach, the principle of “greatest happiness of greatest number” justifies a certain act as ethical, but it is not clear whether this explains the reason to be ethical. Kant’s ethics takes a clearer stance in this respect. He contrasts hypothetical imperative that is conditional and categorical imperative that is unconditional. According to Kant’s moral theory, norms of engineering ethics and other applied ethics could be classified as hypothetical imperatives.

References

  1. Durbin, P. T. (1997). Engineering ethics and social responsibility: Reflections on recent development in the USA. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 17(2–3), 77–83.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Harris, C. E., Jr., Pritchard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (2005). Engineering ethics. In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics. Macmillan Reference (Vol. 2, pp. 625–632).

  3. Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: Chicago U. P.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mitcham, C. (1994). Engineering design research and social responsibility. Ethics of Scientific Research. Shrader-Frechette (1994), 153–168.

  5. Ellul, J. ([1954]1964). The technological society (trans: Wilkinson, J.). New York: Vintage.

  6. Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. Massachusetts: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  7. For the detailed interpretation of this concept, see: Son, W. (2005). Autonomous technology. In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics. Macmillan Reference (Vol. 1, pp. 152–155); Vanderburg, W. H. (2004). The autonomy of technique revisited. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24(6), 515–517; Winner, L. (1995). The enduring dilemmas of autonomous technique. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 15(2), 62–72.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Son, W.-C. (2005). Modern technology and democracy. Doctoral Dissertation. Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. Concerning the empirical turn, also see: Achiterhuis, H. (Ed.) ([1999]2001). American philosophers of technology: The empirical turn (trans: Crease, R. P.) Bloomington: Indiana U. P.; Kroes, P., & Meijers, A. (Eds.) (2000). Research in philosophy and technology vol. 20: The empirical turn in the philosophy of technology.

  9. Herkert, J. R. (2005). Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving: Microethics and macroethics in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 373–385.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Varma, R. (2000). Technology and ethics for engineering students. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 20(3), 217–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wulf, Wm. A. (2004). Engineering ethics and society. Technology in Society, 26, 385–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Winner, L. (1990). Engineering ethics and political imagination. In P. T. Durbin (Ed.), Philosophy of technology vol 7: Broad and narrow interpretations of philosophy of technology (pp. 53–64). London: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ellul, J. ([1988]1990). The technological bluff. Michigan: Eerdmans. See also Son, W. (2004). Reading Jacques Ellul’s The Technological Bluff in context. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24(6), 518–533.

  14. Hudspith, R. (1991). Broadening the scope of engineering ethics: From micro-ethics to macro-ethics. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 11, 208–211.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Shrader-Frechette, K. (1994). Ethics of scientific research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littelfield.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Textbooks for engineering ethics often referred to are: Harris, C. E., Jr., Pritchard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (2000). Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases (2nd ed.). New York: Thomson Learning; Martin, M. W., & Schinzinger, R. (1983). Ethics in engineering. New York: MacGraw-Hill; Mitcham, C., & Duvall, R. S. (2000). Engineer’s toolkit: A first course in engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; Schinzinger, R. & Martin, M. W. (2000). Introduction to engineering ethics. New York: MacGraw-Hill; Whitbeck, C. (1998). Ethics in engineering practice and research. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.

  17. National Society of Professional Engineers. (2003). NAPE Code of ethics for engineers.http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html.

  18. Hudspith, R. (1993). Macro-ethics in an engineering program. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 13, 268–272.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bird, S. J. (2002). Editorial: Science and technology for the good of society? Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(1), 3–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Heidegger, M. ([1954]1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: Chicago U. P.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Herkert, J. R. (2001). Future directions in engineering ethics research: Microethics, macroethics and the role of professional societies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(3), 403–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mitcham, C. (2003). Co-responsibility for research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(2), 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Weil, V. (2002). Making sense of scientists’ responsibilities at the interface of science and society: Commentary on ‘Six Domains of Research Ethics’ by K. D. Pimple. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(2), 223–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Unger, S. H. (1995). Engineering ethics: What’s new? IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 14(3), 4–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sclove, R. E. (1995). Democracy and technology. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Carl Mitcham and Sung Soo Song read this manuscript and gave useful comments. I also appreciate comments by participants at the 2006 IASTS conference, in particular, those from Willen H. Vanderburg.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wha-Chul Son.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Son, WC. Philosophy of Technology and Macro-ethics in Engineering. Sci Eng Ethics 14, 405–415 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9066-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9066-5

Keywords

Navigation