Reading and Discussion Questions: Michael Davis - "Thinking Like an Engineer: The Place of a Code of Ethics in the Practice of a Profession"
(Not Required, but helpful: Albert Flores, "The Philosophical Basis of Engineering Codes of Ethics" also on e-reserve)
Below are some specific questions to guide both your reading and our discussion. When you are done, however, try to answer the following general questions:
General Questions
A. Why does Davis think a code of professional ethics is desirable and/or required for engineers as professionals?
B. Are Davis' reasons for supporting a code of ethics primarily prudential or ethical in nature? You'll need to define "prudential" and "ethical" in considering this.
C. What are the key definitions offered? How do they shape his argument? What are his key assumptions? How do they shape his argument?
D. Davis uses a number of analogies and examples, especially the Challenger Disaster example. How do you evaluate the analogies? Can you think of counter-examples or offer different analyses, especially different analyses of the Challenger example?
E. Overall, what were the most and least persuasive aspects of Davis' argument?
Specific, Detailed Questions
1. What is Davis' thesis?
2. What questions does Davis use the Challenger Disaster example to pose in Section I?
3. In Section II. "The Possibility of Engineering Ethics," Davis suggests that "a code of ethics is primarily a convention between professionals" (153). How does he define a profession? According to Davis, why does understanding a code as a convention between professionals, explain why "engineers cannot depend on mere private conscience" (154-55)? Do you find the definitions and his conclusions convincing? Why or why not?
4. In Section II. Davis also suggests that "A code is a solution to a coordination problem." (154) Why is it such a solution? He also compares a code to the rules of a game. Why? In what ways is this a good analogy? A bad analogy?
5. On pages 155-56, Davis reintroduces the Challenger Disaster example. What for?
6.Section III discusses "Why Obey One's Professional Code?" What two alternatives does Davis dismiss? Why does he dismiss each? Why does he dismiss both as "formal"?
7. In Section III Davis goes on to suggest: "That supporting a code of ethics with a certain content is rational because supporting any code with a content of that sort is rational." (157) Why is Davis bringing in "rationality" as a test?
\8. What is the function in Davis' argument of the thought experiment he introduces on p. 158
9. Why should we care about "benefits"? How is a profession different from a government?
10. On pp. 159-60, Davis returns to the Challenger example again. What appeals could Lund not make according to Davis? Why? How does the principle of fairness factor in? What distinction is Davis making being "ethical" and "moral"? Do you find Davis' analysis of Lund's position convincing? What assumptions does Davis make? Why does he say that the recommendation of Lund's engineers is itself evidence that the code corresponds to a living practice"? (160) Why was what Lund did wrong on Davis' account? Are you persuaded by Davis' argument so far?
11. Section IV "Interpreting a Code of Ethics", considers "whether engineering ethics actually forbids Lund to do what it seemed he did, that is, weigh his own interests, his employer's, and his client's against the safety of the seven astronauts." (162) Davis asks whether engineering ethics allow us "to give special weight to those close to us" (162). He then goes on to talk about interpreting codes. What strikes you as central elements of his general theory of interpretation of codes? He also specifically offers four definitions of "public". How do these play in to his analysis of the Challenger example and into engineering ethics in general?
12.Section V. "Professional Responsibilities" assumes that engineers should act "as their profession's code of ethics requires." (166) It also asks whether "professional responsibilities go beyond the code." (166) Davis gives four reasons engineers should support their profession's code by doing as it requires and "by encouraging others to do as it requires and by criticizing, ostracizing, or otherwise calling to account those who do not." (162) Are you persuaded by these four reasons?