A Review of Ethics Cases: Gaps in the Engineering Curriculum
A Review of Ethics Cases: Gaps in the Engineering Curriculum
复制标题
道德案例回顾：工程课程中的差距
DOI：
10.18260/1-2--31988
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Wallace
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chris Swan;Alexandra Kulich;R. Wallace
从1970年到2018年8月，关于工程伦理的文献检索产生了171个案例研究。从国家专业工程师协会（NSPE）伦理审查委员会（BER）收集了154例。从多个数据库中提取了另外17例非BER病例。仅对明显违反NSPE道德守则的案例进行了分析。这些案例是根据日期和工程学科安排的。然后根据存在的特定代码违规对每个案例进行排序。然后分析这些违规行为，看看它们是否属于伦理理论的三个主要分支之一：功利主义，义务论和美德伦理学。此外，108篇文章和会议论文，在高等院校的工程伦理教育进行了审查，产生了41个出版物，可以根据相同的三个分支的伦理理论进行排序。研究结果表明，虽然工程伦理教育强调功利主义和道义论显着超过其他伦理理论，代码违反几乎完全属于基于规则的道义论。结果还表明，随着时间的推移，案例研究的重点发生了明显的变化，这可能导致《道德守则》的变化。正如所审查的文章所指出的，现在似乎更多地关注更普遍的宏观伦理“最佳做法”，而较少关注具体的微观伦理困境。工程道德规范通常被视为道德教育的入门要素。然而，该守则可以被视为一种狭隘的道德表达;它主要是个人或微观道德的静脉，并遵循更道义论的理论框架。此外，随着时间的推移，道德守则不断修订，没有为道德教育提供明确的、基于共识的指导方针。也许需要与其他学科更好的跨专业合作，以确定可以在工程教育中不断支持的关键道德变量。
A literature search concerning ethics in engineering from 1970 through August of 2018 yielded 171 case studies. One hundred fifty-four cases were gathered from National Society of Professional Engineer’s (NSPE) Board of Ethical Review (BER). An additional 17, non-BER cases were extracted from several databases. Only cases that presented a clear violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics were analyzed. The cases were arranged based on date and engineering discipline. Each case was then sorted based on the specific code violations present. These code violations were then analyzed to see if they fell within one of the three main branches of ethical theory: utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. Additionally, 108 articles and conference papers on engineering ethics education in institutions of higher learning were reviewed and yielded 41 publications that can be sorted based on the same three branches of ethical theory. The findings show that while engineering ethics education emphasizes utilitarianism and deontology significantly more than other ethical theories, the code violations fall almost entirely under rule-based deontology. The results also demonstrate noticeable shift over time in the focus of the case studies, as a possible result in changes in the Code of Ethics. As indicated by the reviewed articles, there now appears to be more of a focus on more generalized, macroethical “best practices,” and less on specific microethical dilemmas. The Code of Ethics in engineering is often seen as an introductory element for ethics education. However, the Code can be seen as a narrow expression of ethics; one that is mostly in the vein of personal or microethics and follows a more deontological theory framework. Additionally, continual revisions in a Code of Ethics over time provides no clear, consensus-based guidelines for ethics education. Perhaps better inter-professional collaboration with other disciplines is needed to identify the critical ethical variables that can be espoused continually in engineering education.