Good Essay About Code of Ethics for Engineers

Complete Name of Professor

Scenario #1

There are six fundamental cannons imposed by the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) that the engineers all over the world must adhere to as for the reason that the said profession is learned and very important. The title and profession is not easily earned, as well as the license to practice (Engineering Ethics 2005). The profession, in its largest sense, is a form of public service. The ethical issue in scenario #1 is whether to ship out the coils or not even if they do not meet the minimum standard and the fact that the specifications were performed by an inexperienced engineer.

The stakeholders in this scenario are the potential customer(s) and the company itself. They are the ones who are mainly affected by the decisions made by the engineers whether to send out the ordered materials or not. If, for example, in this case, the engineer did not approve the ordered materials to be shipped as for the reason that these are substandard and he does not want to jeopardize his license—there is a huge potential that a particular stakeholder would be disappointed. However, it is the most efficient and most logical decision to make. The engineer is not doing his duty blindly, but he is actually adhering to the first code of conduct which states that engineers should “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public” (NSPE 2007). His decision was not only for the purpose of protecting his license, but also to put the welfare of the stakeholders into account. In addition to this, The Royal Academy of Engineering (2011), states that “professional engineers have a duty to ensure that they acquire and use wisely and faithfully the knowledge that is relevant to the engineering skills needed in their work in the service of others”.

The sixth fundamental cannon states that engineers should “conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully, so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession” (NSPE 2007). This serves as the backbone of the presented alternative solution that the metal coins should not be certified, and then present the test results to the customer so as to show them the consequences if the metal coils are certified and shipped afterwards, since one of the professional obligations of engineers is to advise their clients and/or employers when they believe that a project will not be successful. Also, by not certifying the ordered materials, the engineer adheres to the second fundamental cannon that they should perform services only in the areas of their competence, wherein they are only allowed to accept assignments and assume responsibility for coordination of a project and sign and seal the engineering documents for the entire project. The second alternative presented is to keep the coils in tack until another need arises that requires a lower strength for the particular project. It might be costly for the company, but what is more important in this situation is the professionalism—which includes being honest about level and areas of competence, and never settling to work areas in which you do not fully grasp or you are not able to reach easily with competency—and the adherence to the code of conduct.

Given this particular situation, personally, I might have a hard time in weighing the options. If I were an inexperienced engineer, there is a possibility to be swayed easily by reasons from other people, hence, the indecisiveness. However, if the code of conduct is deeply rooted in me, I might have a hard time persuading my client and/or employer why I would not certify a certain project, but I would have a firm decision of not certifying the metal coils to be shipped out. Of course, the part that I do not want my license hanging by a thread is always there, but I have to consider my employer and company’s reputation as well. Above all, if, for example, the project is said to be for the benefit of the public, the more reason I must not certify the materials because I cannot put the welfare of the public to stake.

The analysis presented in the case study serves as an empirical evidence that the metal coils are sub-par and therefore should not be sent out. The statistical analysis proves that the risk of endangering consumers is too high, thus the engineer responsible for the certification of the metal coils shout make a sound decision whether to allow the shipping or not as they should only approve documents that comply in applicable standards.

Works Cited

"Code of Ethics for Engineers." July 2007. National Society of Professional Engineers.

"Engineering Ethics." 25 July 2005. engineering.missouri.edu.

"Engineering ethics in practice: a guide for engineers." August 2011. The Royal Academy of Engineering .