Talk:Engineering ethics: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:41, 18 March 2010

Engineering ethics received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Philosophy: Ethics Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Engineering Unassessed

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The "History" section

This reads more like a history of technological development that one of engineering ethics. The material on James Watt is interesting but uncited. I'm expecting to yank this.

The impression this gives is that ethical development in engineering has revolved around the strucutral failures. That certainly addresses the "hold paramount the public" ethic, but it's only part of the whole story. Many case studies revolve around conflicts-of-interest and other more "business ethics" issues. There's a huge emphasis now on bribery and corruption. ASCE, NSPE, ICE, and no doubt others are all over this now. This passage will need to be addressed.

There are some spectacular failures that drove the public to demand that engineers be placed in charge. The Boston molasses flood was instrumental in moving licensure laws onto the books in New England at the time.

There's a fair amount of non-neutral tone to this as well that need to be cleaned up.

I've got to get some sleep and will be tackling this tomorrow. I'll leave the {{inuse}} tag on for a bit. Thank you for your patience. MARussellPESE 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoopee! I'm done! MARussellPESE 05:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military?

"Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties." This seems totally at odds with the vast majority of military work, which is a disturbing and significant proportion of professional engineering. This concern isn't even so much as implied in the article. Why?

--Jammoe (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Bombs? Weapons of Mass Destruction?

They are technically possible, but should they be constructed and built? Does this fall under Engineering Ethics?

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
  --[[User:Jammoe|Jammoe]] ([[User talk:Jammoe|talk]]) 07:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
+== Nuclear Bombs? Weapons of Mass Destruction? ==
+They are technically possible, but should they be constructed and built? Does this fall under Engineering Ethics?