Reading and Discussion Questions – Heinz C. Luegenbiehl, “Codes of Ethics and the Moral Education of Engineers”

1. In this article, Luegenbiehl argues both that current codes of engineering ethics “should not be utilized as a set of ethical rules” and “that the attempt to provide such a set of rules is not justifiable.” (41)  What are the chief reasons he offers in support of each contention?  Evaluate these reasons.

2.  Lugenbiehl also proposes that codes of ethics be replaced by “a set of guides for ethical engineering decision-making.” (41)  Evaluate this suggestion.  Note:  he discusses his proposal and the reasons for it in the section “Replacing the Function of the Codes” starting on page 51. 

3.  Lugenbiehl also offers suggestions for replacing or eliminating what he sees as some current functions of the codes:  “fraternal obligations, ideals of the profession, regulative rules, and fundamental moral beliefs.” (54)  Do you agree that these are key functions of the current codes?  How do you evaluate his suggestions?

4.  Lugenbiehl begins his piece with sections on “Background” and “Historical Context”.  Why are these sections important to his overall argument?   How does he interpret the reasons for adoption of the codes sociologically and historically?  

5.  Lugenbiehl claims that the current codes “potentially create moral conflicts for engineers, such that engineers will be unable to justify univocally their actions if they consider themselves individual autonomous agents as well as professionals governed by a code of ethics.” (43)  How does he substantiate this claim in the rest of the article?    

a.  What does he see as problems with analogies between engineers and doctors and lawyers affecting the codes?   With “weaknesses” inherited from other codes? 

b.  What problems does he see arising both from both the principles and rules that are part of many of the codes?   Does he give an accurate diagnosis?  

c.  Why is he focused on engineers as “individual autonomous agents”?  On “moral autonomy”? What does his focus on autonomy suggest about his views on the nature of morality?

d.  What conflicts does he see arising between personal morality and professional morality?  (see especially 50-51)  He contrasts obeying an external set of rules with behaving morally as autonomous decision-makers. (51) Is this a realistic and helpful contrast or a false dichotomy? 

e.  In his final summary he criticizes current engineering codes as legislating morality and contrasts this with his proposed solution: educating engineers “to apply a rationally chosen ethical foundation to specific engineering situations.” (57)    Do the codes legislate morality?  If they do so, is this bad?  It seems hard to object to philosophers and engineers teaching engineering students to act on a moral foundation and to apply this foundation to their work. (Not least of which it gives philosophers a role!)  What pluses and minuses do you see with this view?

6.  Luegenbiehl begins by suggesting that engineers don’t actually use the codes.  Have you found this to be the case?  What do you think the reasons for this might be?  Is it a lack of awareness that the codes exist, for example?  Or, the unhelpful structure or nature of the codes?  This is speculation, but may open alternative ways of looking at the notion and nature of codes.