Chapter 2 : RESPONSIBILITY IN ENGINEERING
8 likes8,044 views
The document discusses the responsibility of engineers, emphasizing their obligation to adhere to ethical standards and regulations while ensuring public safety and welfare. Key points include the expected accountability for harms caused, the definition of 'standard of care,' and the impact of collective responsibility in engineering practices. It also identifies impediments to responsible behavior, such as self-interest and groupthink.
Chapter 2 : RESPONSIBILITY IN ENGINEERING
- 1. ETIKA PROFESI RESPONSIBILITY IN ENGINEERING Faqih Fadilah A 151611009 M.Daddy MR 151611015 Nur Fita Widiastuti 151611018 TEKNIK REFRIGERASI DAN TATA UDARA POLITEKNIK NEGERI BANDUNG
- 2. Acuan Utama
- 3. CHAPTER 2 RESPONSIBILITY IN ENGINEERING Oleh: Faqih Fadilah A 151611009 M.Daddy MR 151611015 Nur Fita Widiastuti 151611018 Supervisor: M. Arman
- 4. INTRODUCTION ENGINEERING STANDARDS THE STANDARD OF CARE DESIGN STANDARDS LIABILITY BLAME- RESPONSIBILITY AND CAUSATION THE RANGE OF STANDARDS OF PRACTICE THE PROBLEM OF MANY HANDS IMPEDIMENTS TO RESPONSIBLE ACTION CHAPTER SUMMARY Bahasan Materi
- 5. • Responsibility has to do with accountability, both for what one does in the present and future and for what one has done in the past. • The obligation-responsibilities of engineers require, not only adhering to regulatory norms and standard practices of engineering but also satisfying the standard of reasonable care. • Engineers can expect to be held accountable, if not legally liable, for intentionally, negligently, and recklessly caused harms. • Responsible engineering practice requires good judgment, not simply following algorithms. • A good test of engineering responsibility is the question, ‘‘What does an engineer do when no one is looking?’’ • Impediments to responsible practice include self-interest, fear, self-deception, ignorance, egocentric tendencies, narrow vision, uncritical acceptance of authority, and groupthink. Main Idea in this Chapter
- 6. 1. INTRODUCTION • Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession, engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity. • Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. • Engineers must perform under a standard of professional behavior that requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.
- 7. 2. ENGINEERING STANDARDS • One way in which engineers can try to gain the trust of those they serve and with whom they work is to commit themselves to a code of ethics that endorses high standards of performance. Standards of responsibility expressed in engineering codes typically call for engineers to approach their work with much more than the minimalist dispositions mentioned previously.
- 8. 3.THE STANDARD OF CARE • Engineers have a professional obligation to conform to the standard operating procedures and regulations that apply to their profession and to fulfill the basic responsibilities of their job as defined by the terms of their employment.
- 9. Codes of ethics of professional engineering societies are the result of efforts of their members to organize in a structured way the standards that they believe should govern the conduct of all engineers. Engineering codes of ethics typically make statements about engineers being required to conform to accepted standards of engineering practice.
- 10. An engineer is not liable, or responsible, for damages for every error. Society has decided, through case law, that when you hire an engineer, you buy the engineer’s normal errors. However, if the error is shown to have been worse than a certain level of error, the engineer is liable. That level, the line between non-negligent and negligent error, is the ‘‘standard of care.’’ Joshua B. Kardon
- 11. The collaps Kansas City Hyatt Regency hotel Citicorp Center Two well-known cases are instructive
- 12. 4. BLAME-RESPONSIBILITY AND CAUSATION Now let us turn to negative concept of responsibility. When the Columbia Accident Investigation Board examined the Columbia tragedy, it was focused on the “physical cause” and the “organizational cause”. The physical cause led to the broken left wing of the tank. And the organizational cause were the defects in the organization and culture of NASA that led to the concern for safety. It also made reference to the individual who were responsible for the accident. The board, however, did not consider about the individual because its not the primary mission of the board. Some theorists believe that the organization cannot be blamed. After all, the organization are not human. On the other hand, according to Black’s Law Dictionary said, “Corporations, like persons, can be passed away and also be fined.”
- 13. 5. LIABILITY • The engineers and their employers might try to excuse the failure to provide the safety and quality by pointing out that they have met existing regulatory standards, the courts will not necessarily agree.
- 14. 6. Design Standart • As previously noted, most engineering codes of ethnics insist that, in designing products, engineer are expected to hold considerations of public safety paramount.
- 15. 7. THE RANGE OF STANDARDS OF PRACTICE • Some standards of practice are clearly only local in their scope. The New York City building code requirement that high-rise structures be tested for wind resistance at 90-degree angles applied only within a limited geographic region. Such specific code requirements are local in their origin and applicability. Of course, one would expect somewhat similar requirements to be in place in comparable locales in the United States, as well as in other high- rise locales throughout the world. This sug- gests that local codes, particularly those that attempt to ensure quality and safety, re- flect more general standards of safety and good engineering practice
- 16. 8. THE PROBLEM OF MANY HANDS • Individuals often attempt to evade personal responsibility for wrongdoing. Perhaps the most common way this is done, especially by individuals in large organizations, is by pointing out that many individuals had a hand in causing the harm. A similar principle can apply to collective action. Let us call it the principle of responsibility for action in groups: In a situation in which harm has been produced by collective action, the degree of responsibility of each member of the group depends on the extent to which the member caused the action by some action rea- sonably avoidable on his part. Again, the reason for the qualification is that if an action causing harm can only be avoided by extreme or heroic action on the individ- ual’s part (such as taking his own life, sacrificing his legs, or harming someone else), then we may find reason for not holding the person responsible, or at least holding him less responsible.
- 17. 9. IMPEDIMENTS TO RESPONSIBLE ACTION • What attitudes and frames of mind can contribute to less than fully responsible action, whether it be intentional, reckless, or merely negligent? In this section, we discuss some impediments to responsible action
- 18. Self Interest
- 19. Self Deception
- 20. Fear
- 21. Ignorance
- 24. uncritical acceptance of authority
- 25. Group Think
- 26. THANK YOU