Engineering Ethics
ENGR001-20871
Assignment-4
Name: Ahmad Shhadi
ID: 201500514
Instructor: Dr. Walid Shatila
Case of Risk in Engineering Work:
Is the professional obligation of engineers regarding risk? One answer is that engineers
should continue to follow the risk expert’s approach to risk and let public debate take care of
the wider considerations. We believe there is some validity to this claim, and in the next
section we return to a consideration of issues in typical engineering approaches to risk.
However, as we have argued in Chapter 5 and elsewhere, we believe engineers have a wider
professional obligation. Engineers have a professional obligation to participate in democratic
deliberation regarding risk by contributing their expertise to this debate. In doing so, they
must be aware of alternative approaches and agendas in order to avoid serious confusion and
undue dogmatism.
Engineers, in communicating risk to the public, should be aware that the public’s approach to
risk is not the same as that of the risk expert. In particular, ‘‘risky’’ cannot be identified with
a measure of the probability of harm. Thus, engineers should not say ‘‘risk’’ when they mean
‘‘probability of harm.’’ They should use the two terms independently.
Engineers should be wary of saying, ‘‘There is no such thing as zero risk.’’ The public often
uses ‘‘zero risk’’ to indicate not that something involves no probability of harm but that it is a
familiar risk that requires no further deliberation.
Engineers should be aware that the public does not always trust experts and that experts have
sometimes been wrong in the past. Therefore, engineers, in presenting risks to the public,
should be careful to acknowledge the possible limitations in their position. They should also
be aware that laypeople may rely on their own values in deciding whether or not to base
action on an expert’s prediction of probable outcomes.
Engineers should be aware that government regulators have a special obligation to protect the
public, and that this obligation may require them to take into account considerations other
than a strict cost–benefit approach. Although public policy should take into account cost–
benefit considerations, it should take into account the special obligations of government
regulators.
Professional engineering organizations, such as the professional societies, have a special
obligation to present information regarding technological risk. They must present information
that is as objective as possible regarding probabilities of harm. They should also acknowledge
that the public, in thinking about public policy regarding technological risk in controversial
areas (e.g., nuclear power), may take into consideration factors other than the probabilities of
harm.
Case of Safety in Engineering Work:
Safety engineering is a specialty within the engineering field that encompasses many
disciplines, such as ergonomics/human factors, electrical engineering, mechanical
engineering, civil engineering, fire protection, product safety, structural engineering, system
safety, and others. Safety engineers recognize that each human being has his/her own
physical and mental capabilities which come into play when using a product, operating a
machine, shopping in a retail store, or working on the job. Other factors such as fatigue,
illness, inattentiveness, or distractions make the human being an unreliable "system" when it
comes to recognizing and avoiding hazardous conditions. Eliminating the hazard altogether
or providing a safety device is therefore a much more reliable approach to preventing
injuries.
The first priority is to eliminate the hazard by engineering design. Examples of this include
eliminating pinch points in machinery or equipment, specifying mechanical handling
equipment instead of manual lifting, or eliminating sharp edges on a product.
Safety devices are provided when the hazard cannot be eliminated. Examples of this include
guards placed over dangerous areas of machines, tools, or products. In some cases, warnings
and special safety procedures may be used in conjunction with safety devices. Warnings and
special procedures are the last resort when there are no viable design alternatives or safety
devices.
The selected case citations presented in this paper fall within a number of areas such as
machinery, residential construction, occupational safety, premise defects, retail stores, power
tools, facility safety, and product design. The first case involves an unguarded power takeoff
shaft which resulted in a truck driver losing his arm. The next case involves the construction
of a guardrail and stairway railing which resulted in a very severe injury to the homeowner.
There are several case studies which involve occupational safety. One of these cases involves
stocking shelves at a warehouse super store and the other involves the operation of a crane
near electric power lines. A case study is presented on the design of power tools (miter saws)
and another involving a ladder. One case study in particular involving the care and
maintenance of underground storage is an example of how the environment can be damaged
if safety practices are not followed.
