The Construction of Tetrahedral Model of Engineering Ethical Evaluation

Abstract

To achieve greatprojects, great attention should be attached to ethical issues of engineering. But endless immoralities in the field of engineering expose the lack of attention and the ineffectiveness of implementation of engineering ethical evaluation. The “Mirror” and the "Lamp" — these two metaphors used by M. H. Abrams vividly expose the differences in people's way of understanding which inspires author's study of the model of engineering ethical evaluation. With four elements of the project —artifact, engineer, user and environment, a tetrahedral model of integrity, strong restoring force and high stability is built. While their roles and responsibilities differ, each has to demonstrate a commitment to professional and ethical standards. In this model, four "Lamps" — i. e, four elements of engineering — in four corners provide light while four "Mirrors" — the result of reflection of four elements — reflect whether the tetrahedral model can truthfully evaluate the level of engineering ethics. The combination of the "Lamps" and "Mirrors" illuminates engineering ethical evaluation and leads to a plurality of evaluation standards, while simultaneously fostering both the avoidance of simple de-instrumentalization and the sustainability of ethical evaluation. Plurality of evaluation standards means the consideration of value differences in a multi-value state. The avoidance of de-instrumentalization means to prevent the engineer's expertise from fossilization. The sustainability of ethical evaluation accelerates the fulfillment of our dream, for the ultimate benefit of humankind. Ethical evaluation of the project not only helps more engineers to use expertise in pursuit of the public good, but also make more projects to meet people's short-term expectations and long-term cares.

Keywords

tetrahedral model / ethical evaluation / engineering / Lamps and Mirrors

References

[1] Abrams, M. H. (1971). The Mirror and the lamp: romantic theory and the critical tradition. New York: Oxford University Press

[2] Dearden, R. F. (1984). The Theory and practice in education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paulchap.S

[3] Dessauer,F. (1956).Streit um die technik [The Controversy Concerning Technology].Frankfurt:Verlag Josef Knecht

[4] Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming technology: a critical theory revisited. New York: Oxford University Press

[5] Georg, W.(1991). Elements of the philosophy of right (Nisbet, H.B., Trans.).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

[6] Harms A. A., Baetz B. W.,&Volti R. R. (2004).Engineering in time: the systematics of engineering history and its contemporary context. London: Imperial College Press

[7] Harris E.H.,&Pritchard M. S. (2008). Engineering ethics: concepts and cases. Stamford: Wadsworth Publishing

[8] James, Y. L. (1976).Chinese theories of literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press

[9] Keesey D.(1994). Contexts for criticism (2nd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company

[10] McGuinness, B. F. (1985). Moritz Schlick. New York : Springer

[11] Mitcham, C. (2003).Co-responsibility for research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics. 9, 278-281

[12] Plato. (2007). The Republic (Penguin Classics) (Desmond Lee, Trans.). London: Penguin Group

[13] Richard.T.,& George D. (2009).Business ethics.New York: Pearson, 27

[14] Stufflebeam D. L., Madaus G. f., &Kellaghan.T. (2000).Evaluation model:viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (2nd ed.). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers

[15] UNESCO. (2010). Engineering: issues challenges and opportunities for development. Paris: UNESCO Publishing

[16] Xing H., Liu H., & Wang Q. (2008).Analysis of the innovative ability of engineering scientists and technicians. Technoeconomics& Management Research, 5, 26-28

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2014 Zhejiang University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg