ETHICS, TECHNOLOGY & ENGINEERING

Ibo van de Poel and Lamber Royakkers

Leestips:
De structuur van het boek is aangehouden door de paragraafnummers van de
samenvatting hiermee overeen te laten komen.
De onderstreepte termen zijn begrippen uit het boek die beschreven worden in de
definitielijst op pagina 329 339 van het boek.
In de samenvatting zijn opmerkingen uit de college sheets gentegreerd, dit wordt
speciaal aangegeven en is cursief gedrukt.
Aan het einde van de samenvatting zijn een aantal voorbeeld examenopgaven uit de
sheets toegevoegd.

Carla de Koning 2012

2


1. The responsibility of Engineers
1.1. Case Challenger
1.2. Responsibility
Reponsibility = being held accountable for your actions and for the effects
Active responsibility: before
Passive responsibility: after

Responsibility is often linked to the role that you have. In a role you have a relationship with
others. Each role brings with it certain responsibilities. Since a person often has different roles in
life, he/she has various role responsibilities. These can conflict to each other.

Roles and their responsibilities can be formally laid down in a contract or in (professional or
corporate) codes of conduct. It can be informal too (obligations within a family).

Although role define responsibilities, moral responsibility is not confined to the roles. It arise from
moral considerations (obligations, norms and duties).
can extend beyond roles.
can limit role responsibilities because with some roles immoral responsibilities may be
associated.

Professional responsibility is not just passive, but they also contain an active component.
1.3. Passive responsibility
Typical for passive responsibility is that the person who is held responsible must be able to
provide an account why he/she followed a particular course of action and made certain decisions.

Types of passive responsibility
Accountability
Blameworthiness, four conditions need to apply
o Wrong-doing: individual/institution violated (moral) norm or did something wrong,
ethical frameworks can be applied in judging the moral rightness or wrongness.
o Causal contribution: must have made a causal contribution to the consequences
for which he or she is held responsible (action or failure to act).
o Foreseeability: must have been able to know the consequences of his or her
actions. We do expect that people do everything that is reasonably possible to
become acquainted with the possible consequences.
o Freedom: must not have acted under compulsion. Question is what exactly counts
as coercion.
Sheet: Negative consequences could have been foreseen & person should have had
the opportunity to act differently.
Liability
1.4. Active responsibility and the ideals of engineers
Active responsibility is not primarily about blame but requires a certain positive attitude or
character trait (virtues) of dealing with matters.

3


Mark Bovens mentions the following features of active responsibility
Adequate perception of threatened violations of norms
Consideration of the consequences
Autonomy (the ability to make ones own independent moral decisions)
Displaying conduct that is based on a verifiable and consistent code
Taking role obligations seriously

One way in which active responsibility of engineers can be understood is by looking at the ideals.
Ideals cannot be entirely achieved but are strived for. These can be
Personal (desire to earn a lot of money) or
Social/moral ideals (wanting to implement technological ends to improve the world).
Professional ideals are part of professional responsibility in as far they stay within the
limits of what is morally allowed (sheet: motivating or inspiring aim as an engineer).
1.4.1. Technological enthusiasm
Technological enthusiasm in itself is not morally improper. The inherent danger lies in the
possible negative effects of technology and the relevant social constraints being easily
overlooked. Example = google earth.

Wernher von Braun: fascinated by rocket technology, major role in Nazi Germany (V2 rockets).
Lecture:
wanting to develop new technological possibilities and take up technological challenges.
1.4.2. Effectiveness & Efficiency
Effectiveness & efficiency is an attractive ideal for engineers because it is so neutral and
objective. It does not seem to involve any political or moral choices (which is experienced as
subjective and therefore wished to avoid). It is also often quantifiable.

Frederick W. Taylor: published the principles of scientific management.

Efficiency is an ideal that endows engineers with authority because it is something that one can
hardly oppose and can be measured objectively. If it is morally worth pursuing depends very much
on the ends (goals can be value-laden). Example: Nazis.
Lecture:
Efficiency as guiding principle for organizing society
Engineers as managers on basis of scientific insight
1.4.3. Human welfare
Ideal of contributing to or augmenting human welfare. Relevant values will differ somewhat
depending on the engineering specialization. One of most important values: safety, health and
sustainability Johan van Veen (father of the Delta works).

Ideal confirms that the professional practice of engineers is not something that is morally neutral
and that engineers do more than merely develop neutral means for the goals of others.
4


1.5. Engineers versus managers
Conflict: responsibility to the company in which they work versus professional responsibility as
engineers including responsibility for human welfare.

Three models of dealing with the tension and potential conflict between engineers and managers:
1.5.1. Separatism:
Separatism is illustrated by the tripartite model which include three segments
1) Politicians & manager who establish the objectives and make available resources,
2) Engineers take care of designing, developing, creating and executing of projects,
3) Users make use of the technologies
Assumption: responsibility of engineers is confined to the engineering choices that they
make and limits itself to the professional responsibility (creation of products)
Example: Von Braun states engineer as hired gun
Lecture:
Tripartite model: engineers only responsible for technical decisions not value decisions.
1.5.2. Technocracy:
Technocracy: Engineer take over the role of managers and politicians (proposal Taylor)
Problematic, because
1) Its not clear what expertise permit to legitimately lay claim to role of technocrats,
2) It is undemocratic and paternalistic (denies people have right to shape own lives,
clashes with the peoples moral autonomy which is considered as moral value).
1.5.3. Whistle-blowing:
Acceptation of subordinate role as engineer, but endeavour to find channels to air his grievances
on safety. This may lead to conflicts with the employer.
Richard de George has proposed guidelines when whistle-blowing is morally required:
1) Organization do serious and considerable harm to the public,
2) Whistle-blower has identified threat of harm, reported it and concluded that the
superior will do nothing effective,
3) Whistle-blower exhausted other internal procedures,
4) Whistle-blower has (or has accessible) evidence,
5) Whistle-blower has good reason to believe that revealing the threat will (probably)
prevent the harm at reasonable cost.
Whistle-blowers may be unavoidable, but it forces people to make big sacrifices and the
effectiveness is often limited.
More constructive if at earlier stage concerns were addressed. This demands a role model
in which engineer as professional is not necessarily opposed to the manager.
1.6. Social context of technological development
Apart from managers and engineers there are other actors that influence the direction taken by
technological development and the relevant social consequences.
Developers and producers of technology
Users: diverse group, including both companies and citizens (consumers)
Regulators: formulate rules and can stimulate certain technological advances
Other: professional associations, educational institutes, interest groups and trade unions

5


Actors have certain interests (things they strive for) and influence the direction of technological
development. On contrary, stakeholders also have a stake, but cannot necessarily influence.
However, stakeholders may become actors.

Tools as Technology Assesment (TA) are developed to deal with the unpredictable character of
technology development.
Con: It is often not possible to predict consequences of new technologies already in early
phases of technological development
Pro: Once the (negative) consequences materialize, the technology has become deeply
embedded in society and its design is more or less fixed (Collingridge dilemma).
Approach to overcome Collingridge dilemma = constructive technology assessment
(CTA) to broaden the design process (in terms of actors involved and interests),
considerations and values taken into account in technological development.

Implications of social context of technological development for responsibility of engineers:
1) It diminishes responsibility of engineers because it makes clear that engineers are just
one of the many actors involved,
2) It extends the responsibility of engineers because they cannot just as technocrats decide
in isolation, but need to involve other stakeholders and engage in discussions.
Lecture: engineers responsibility

Classical view:
Loyally executing assignments
Fulfilling demands of company & its
customers
No individually determining whats
good or bad for the public


Reaction to classical view:
Respect rights of all those suffering
consequences to participate in
decision making
Do best to inform on consequences
and risks
Execute to best of ability, as
approved by all involved



6


2. Codes of conduct
2.1. Introduction: Bay area rapid transport projects (BART)
2.2. Codes of conduct
Codes of conduct are often intended as an addition to requirements of law. Usually enforced by
organization that formulated the code. Two types are professional codes and corporate codes.

Codes of conduct are formulated for variety of reasons (example: increasing moral awareness
and to stimulate responsible behavior). Depending on exact objective, types can be distinguished:
1) Aspirational code
2) Advisory code
3) Disciplinary code
Most professional codes for engineers are advisory.
Corporate codes of conduct are more often disciplinary.
Lecture Codes of conduct:
Formulated by professional association or company
Regulates individual professional and company as a whole
2.2.1. Professional code
Professional codes are guidelines for the exercising of a profession and are formulated by a
professional society. A profession is an occupation with specific characteristics.

Professional codes for engineers provide content to their responsibility. Most relate to 3 domains:
1) Conducting a profession with integrity and honesty, and in a competent way:
Practitioner must be competent and professional practice must be conducted skilfully.
Conflicts of interests do not necessarily lead to immoral behaviour, but avoid them.
2) Obligations towards employers and clients
Keep secret confidential information
3) Responsibility towards the public and society (safety, health, environment, welfare)
Limited: engineers must inform public about technology in which they are involved
Lecture functions professional codes:
Description of acting responsibility
Support in moral judgement
Promoting responsible behaviour of entire profession
Production of individuals in acting responsibly
2.2.2. Corporate codes
Corporate codes are voluntarily commitments. Usually more recent than professional codes.
Assumption: companies have a corporate social responsibility.
Classical view (Smith): responsibility of company is limited to making profit within limits of
law. Invisible hand of market makes everyone better off if all only pursue own interests.
New view (Friedman): companies only have responsibilities towards their shareholders
and not to any other stakeholders, society or environment.
Arguments:
o Money spent on CSR is of shareholders and conflicts with goal to maximize profits
o If limits on corporate behaviour desirable, it have to be formulated by government
7


Objections:
o Not always in conflict with shareholders interest, may have positive effect,
o Laws are not always adequate of effective in preventing immoral behaviour.

Components in corporate codes
Mission statement as strategic objectives
Core values as integrity & honesty, passion for customers, openness & respectfulness, etc
Responsibilities to stakeholders and stakeholder principles as transparency and honesty
Norms and rules contain guidelines how to act in situations as fraud and discrimination
2.3. (Possibilities and) Limitations of codes of conduct
Codes of conduct may have different objectives. Objections are given, but it is stated that none of
them is strong enough to conclude that codes of conduct as such are undesirable.
2.3.1. Codes of conduct are a form of self-regulation
CoC may be formulated for reasons of self-interest. Prevent this by including range of
stakeholders to avoid the code becoming one-sided.
Danger of window-dressing (especially in aspirational codes cause tend to be vague)
2.3.2. Vagueness and potential contradictions
Vague concepts and rules need interpretation which result in contradictory recommendations.
Uncritical loyalty may be misguided: what are the interests of the employer? Should
interest of company always override other concerns? Propose notion of critical loyalty.
2.3.3. Can ethics be codified?
Three arguments why ethics cannot be codified
1) Ethics requires individual moral judgement and a certain uncritical way of using CoC. It
may be sound in case of disciplinary codes because the code is strictly adhered to.
2) Codes of conduct are not morally binding.
3) CoC presuppose that morality can be expressed in a set of universal moral rules, but
engineering is too diverse. It always requires to take into account particular situations.
Arguments are merely directed against disciplinary codes. They are less convincing in
case of advisory and aspirational codes.
1 + 3 suggest that it is not possible nor desirable to avoid all room for interpretation, one
needs to accept some degree of vagueness and some potential conflicts in CoC.

3 Explanations why codes of conduct (and also corporate codes) are morally binding:
1) CoC can be seen as an implicit contract between a profession/company and society
2) Coc as an implicit contract between employees of a company (create level playing field)
3) CoC express moral responsibilities and obligations a company and its employees have on
other grounds (common morality)
2.3.4. Can codes of conduct be lived by?
Objection: CoC sometimes contain provisions that are difficult/impossible to follow in practice.
Professional codes can justify or require actions that go against interest of employer.
Example: Duty to inform public may conflict with confidentiality duty engineer also has
Aim: Confidentiality required to protect competitive position and to avoid employees to
disproportionately damaging the company.

8


Limits to confidentiality duties:
1) Freedom of speech is legally protected in many countries
2) Legal requirements to make public certain information
3) Professional duty based on professional CoC to make public certain information
4) In public interest that certain information is made public
2.3.5. Enforcement
Enforcement is only an objective in case of disciplinary codes. Reasons why professional codes
are often not enforced:
Lack legal status
Enforcement requires sanctions (example loss of membership is sanction with less effect)

Corporate codes also usually lack a legal status. However, enforcement or at least monitoring is
more common. It offer more possibilities for enforcement than professional codes, because:
companies influence daily practice to much larger extent than professional associations
corporate codes can be enforced externally (external auditing)
Advantage: helps to stop corporate CoC being interpreted & enforced at will, increases
credibility (image) of company and can be carried out by branch organisations
Companies are more sensitive to external criticism than professional associations
Lecture: Why is a code of conduct morally binding?
Contract between profession and society
Shared moral ideal of professionals
Common morality
2.4. Codes of conduct in an international context
2.4.1. Global codes for multinationals
1970s Many national governments had sought to regulate, because companies were widely
criticized for their behaviour in developing countries.
1980s Decade of deregulation since regulation had been unsuccessful. Increasing influence of
multinationals on prospects of developing countries.
1990s Proliferation of corporate CoC and an increased emphasis on CSR. The triple bottom line:
People, planet and profit. Development of a global code of conduct that multinationals
can use as a guide to develop and/or revise their CoC.

UNGC offers framework for businesses that are committed to aligning operations and strategies
with 10 principles in areas of human rights, labour standards, environment and anti-corruption.
2.4.2. Global codes for engineers
Globalization increased the working space of engineers. Engineering has become a global activity
and increasingly requires a global approach and acceptable global guidance.

Guidelines that apply to multinational companies cannot be applied to engineers, because they
have a lesser scope of responsibility and they do not make management decisions (have little
decision-making power).

US codes are based on professional autonomy Main challenge of global code of engineers is to
create consistency in spite of cultural differences (not all value autonomy to same degree).
9


Ethical principles for engineers in a global environment (Luegenbiehls)
Principle of public safety
Principle of human rights
Principle of environment & animal preservation
Principle of engineering competence
Principle of openness and honesty

Harris: engineers have a responsibility to:
Refuse to engage in direct, international harm
Refrain from participation in technology that produces more harm than good
Participate only in technology that promotes countrys development
Not to participate in violation of human rights
Respect host-country (lesser developed country) culture in their professional work

10


3. Normative ethics
3.1. Case: the Ford Pinto
The role of ethical theories is to provide certain arguments or reasons for a moral judgement.
They provide a normative framework for understanding and responding to moral problems.
3.2. Ethics and Morality
Morality: the totality of norms and values that actually exist in society. Where ethics reflects on
questions and arguments concerning the moral choices people can make.

Ethics can be both of a descriptive or prescriptive/normative nature. Descriptive ethics studies
the morality found in certain subcultures or during certain periods of history. On the contrary,
normative ethics is not value-free; it judges morality.
3.3. Descriptive and normative judgements
Descriptive judgements are true or false. Sometimes the truth of a descriptive statement has not
yet been determined because testing is impossible (God exists).

Normative judgements are value judgements often refer to moral norms and values.

The distinction is not always easy. A statement (taking bribes is not allowed) can be both a
normative (it should be forbidden that) and a descriptive judgements (if the law declares that).
3.4. Points of departure: value, norms and virtues
Points of departure for the three primary normative theories (discussed in 3.7 3.9):
3.4.1. Values
Values help us determine which goals or states of affairs are worth striving for. Moral values are
lasting convictions or matters that people feel should be strived for in general (distinguish from
preferences or interests, those are only for themselves). Two types of values:
Intrinsic value: an objective in and of itself
Instrumental value: a means to realize an intrinsic value

Distinction between instrumental & intrinsic values suggests 2 ways to attempt to justify privacy:
Common justification: privacy has instrumental value (offer us protection against harm)
Justification of privacy would be more secure if we could show that it has intrinsic value.
Lecture: intrinsic versus instrumental values
Intrinsic: valuable for their own sake
Instrumental: valuable because they contribute to something else that is valuable
3.4.2. Norms
Norms are rules and agreements about how people are supposed to treat each other. Types:
Moral norms are indications for responsible action.
Legal norms (traffic rules),
Precepts of decorum (you should not talk when your mouth is full)
Rules of play.
Some moral laws are translated into legal norms (thou shalt not kill).
11



Values are often translated into rules. Norms are the means to realize values. They are concrete,
specific rules that limit action. On the contrary, norms have no meaning or are ineffective if the
underlying value is unclear or lacking.
3.4.3. Virtues
Virtues have five features:
1) They are desired characteristics (express a value that is worth striving for)
2) They are expressed in action
3) They are lasting and permanent
4) They are always present, but only used when necessary
5) They can be influenced by the individual (people can learn virtues)

Types:
Intellectual virtues focus on knowledge and skills,
Moral/characteristic virtues are the desirable characteristics of people (what action is
required, permitted or forbidden to make people good).

Many characteristics we qualify as moral virtues are also values (integrity). Difference is that the
notion of virtue mainly refers to someones character development to truly realize those values.
Lecture value versus norms:
Value:
A quality on basis of which you can
evaluate a state-of-affairs, thing or
people in terms how good they are.
Values are more general than norms
Norms without values are
meaningless

Norms:
Prescribe, forbid or recommend
actions.
Norms often help to realize values
Values without norms are
powerless


3.5. Relativism and absolutism
Two extreme theories to form moral judgement
Normative relativism
Absolutism
3.5.1. Normative relativism
All moral points of view (values, norms & virtues) are relative. Moral judgement is a personal
opinion (subjective and random). We have to respect all values and norm systems.

Three problems of normative relativism
Contradiction: there are no universal norms, but at the same time it uses a universal
norm; everybody has to respect the moral opinions of others.
It makes any meaningful moral discussion totally impossible (you can always appeal on
freedom of opinion).
It can lead to unworkable or intolerable situations (system allows to disregard the rules
based on personal values, which other people have to respect).
12


3.5.2. Absolutism
Absolutism is a rigid form of universalism. Most types of universalism allow for possibility that not
all norms and values are universal. BUT: absolutism does not make any exceptions: rule = rule.

Three problems of absolutism:
We cannot work with the notion that an universal norm prescribed the best action in all
situations (killing someone out of self-defense is justifiable),
It gives no answers for conflicting norms (in case of the whistle-blower),
It offers no room for an independent moral judgement, which is central to the philosophy
of Enlightenment: allow man to design his own rules of behaviour.
3.6. Ethical theories
Distinguish ethical theories by their approach to the structure of human action and the primary
focus they use to theorize ethics evaluate each moral action from 3 perspectives.
Actor Action Consequences
Theory Virtue ethics Deontology Utilitarianism
Points of departure Virtues Norms Values

Actor: If we look to the actor and his/her characteristics to pass moral judgement on an action,
Action: it is your moral obligation to ensure that your actions agree with an applicable norm,
Consequences: you ought to choose the action with best outcomes, focus on realizing goals.
3.7. Utilarianism
In consequentialism, an action in itself is not right or wrong; it is only the consequence of action
that is morally relevant. Utilitarianism measures the consequences of actions against one value
(monistic type of consequentialism): human pleasure, happiness or welfare.
3.7.1. Jeremy Bentham
Founder Bentham: an action is right if it is useful and wrong if it is damaging. The purpose has to
be something that has intrinsic value (it has to be good in itself). The value theory is hedonism.

The only moral criterion for good and bad lies in the utility principle the greatest happiness can
be determined quantitatively. Use the moral balance sheet to determine the utility of action.

Find out which action leads to the most happiness for the greatest number of people. However,
pleasure cannot be measured objectively. Since this is not clear, making moral judgements about
human actions becomes hard.
Lecture Classical utilitarianism
Happiness as the utility to strive for
Greatest happiness for the greatest number
End justifies the means
3.7.2. Mill and the freedom principle
Mill: qualities must be taken into account as well. We must choose the action that provides the
most pleasure, but does not conflict with human nature and dignity.

Freedom principle: everyone is free to strive for his/her own pleasure, as long as they do not deny
or hinder the pleasure of others. Also known as the no harm principle.
13


3.7.3. Criticism of utilitarianism
Major points of criticism:
1. Consequences cannot be foreseen objectively and often are unpredictable & unknown
2. Problem of distributive justice: utilitarianism can lead to unjust division of costs & benefits
Sidgewick: Choose situation with most equitable distribution of happiness due to
decreasing marginal utility and inequality of income leads to jealousy and pain (should
be avoided)
3. Utilitarianism ignores the personal relationships between people and that it is specific
individuals that want to be happy and that it really depends on who is made happier.
4. Act utilitarianism (traditional view): the end justifies the means. Certain actions are
morally acceptable even though they do not create pleasure and the other way around.
Rule utilitarianism recognizes existence of moral rules. It looks at consequences of
rules (in contract with actions) to increase happiness (close to duty ethics).
3.8. Kantian Theory
Two important points of difference between various duty ethics theories
1) Ones are monistic duty ethics and other are pluralistic.
2) The foundation or origin of the moral rules

Kant: moral laws and normative ethics cannot be based on happiness. He argued duty ethics was
a better guide. Core notions:
Autonomy: man should be able to determine what is morally correct through reasoning.
Good will: We should place a moral norm upon ourselves and should obey it: it is our duty.
We can speak of good will if our actions are led by the moral norm.
Moral norm is unconditionally applicable to everyone in all circumstances
hypothetical (conditional) norm is in contrast with a categorical norm
3.8.1. Categorical imperative
Categorical imperative: imperative is a prescribed action or an obligatory rule.
Universality principle: act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.
Maxim is a practical principle or proposition that prescribes some action. Kant: the
maxim should be unconditionally good
Equality postulate: implies a postulate of equal and universal human worth. Human
beings are all equal, but that does not mean having to treat them identically.

Reciprocity principle: act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of
any other, in every case as an end, never as means only.
Rational nature of humans is free, intelligent, self-directing (respect and do not
misguide rationality of another). To use people is to disrespect their humanity.
Strongly anti-paternalistic by nature
Treating someone as a mere means is not always clear-cut (treat someone as an end
does not simply mean doing what he or she wants).
3.8.2. Criticism of Kantian Theory
Kant: there is no such thing as bending a rule, he does not allow for any exceptions in his theory.

Solution by Ross. Pluralistic theory of moral obligation: good is often situated on two levels,
14


1) what seems to be good at first (prima facie norms) and
2) that which is good once we take everything into consideration (self-evident norms)

Duty ethics (like Kantian theory) often elicits the objection that a rigid adherence to moral rules
can make people blind to the potentially very negative consequences of their actions.
3.9. Virtue ethics
Virtue ethics is a mixture of ethics & psychology with an emphasis on developing character traits.
Peoples characteristics (virtues) can be shaped by proper nurture and education.
3.9.1. Aristotle
Final goal of human action is to strive for the highest good: the good life (eudaimonia).
Each moral virtue holds a position of equilibrium (middle course between 2 extremes,
depends on circumstances of situation (practical wisdom to make the right choices).
3.9.2. Criticism of virtue ethics
Not all obligations to act can be reduced to virtues and vice versa. So, virtue ethics does not give
concrete clues about how to act while solving a case in contrast with utilitarianism and Kantian
ethics.
3.9.3. Virtues for morally responsible engineers
General virtues are reliability, honesty, responsibility and solidarity. Pritchard lists a number of
virtues especially for engineers:
Expertise/professionalism
Clear and informative communication
Cooperation
Willingness to make compromises
Objectivity

Stipulations in professional codes of conduct often refer to some of these virtues. However, this
list does not say exactly how they are expressed in engineering practice.
3.10. Care ethics
Basis of care ethics is that people learn norms and values within specific contexts and by
encountering concrete people with emotions. Focus on living and experienced reality of people in
which mutual relationships can be viewed from different perspectives and where peoples
abilities and limitations impact moral decision-making.
3.10.1. The importance of relationships
Relationships are coupled to special responsibilities and moral obligations. The recognition of
vulnerability and dependence play an important role in relationships, especially when
asymmetrical. Roles determine to what degree we can expect care from each other.

Grounds in common with virtue ethics: places the relationships central together with the attitude.
Lecture Care ethics basic assumptions
Interdependence between people
Vulnerable people deserve extra consideration
Context need to be taken into account (not just application general moral principles)
15


3.10.2. Criticism of care ethics
Criticism of care ethics
Philosophically vague (abstract). It is unclear what care exactly entails.
It is not very normative. Care ethics like virtue ethics does not give concrete indications
how one has to act in particular situation (in contrast with utilitarianism or Kantian ethics).
3.10.3. Care ethics in engineering
Care as for safety and sustainability. The ideas of care ethics can work for companies: they can
contribute to the vision and mission of a company and have influence on practice of CSR.

Norms as competency, democratic teams, diversity and creativity are understood at the level of
group processes and social arrangement. Emphasize procedural criteria for dealing with moral
problems in a group rather than applied by individuals.
3.11. Applied ethics
Application of general moral principles or theories to particular situations. Problematic because
no moral theory is generally accepted, can be solved by further elaboration of distributive justice.

16


4. Normative argumentation
4.1. Case: Golden Gate Bridge suicide barrier
4.2. Valid arguments
Recognize argumentation scheme to check whether an argumentation is sound. Argumentation
theory is study how humans can, do and should reach conclusions based on premises.

An argument is a set of statements. A statement is a descriptive or normative judgement.
Premises are the statements which support for accepting the conclusion of an argument.

Arguments can be judged on their effectiveness by
1) The rhetorical analysis: is the argument persuasive?
2) The logical analysis: is the argument valid?

Purpose of an argument is to provide evidence for a conclusion use logic in argumentation.
Aim of logic is to investigate, develop and systematize principles and methods that can be used to
distinguish valid and invalid arguments.

Modus Ponens: Conditional statement if, then. An argument is valid when its premises, if
true, do provide conclusive ground for the truth of its conclusion. The premises are hypothetical.
If p, then q [p = antecedent, q = consequent]
P
So, q

Fallacy of affirming the consequent.
If it rains, I will stay at home
I will stay at home
It rains

Modus tollens:
If p then q
Not q [denies consequent of first premise]
So, not p [denies the antecedent]

Fallacy of denying the antecedent
If it rains, I will stay at home
It is not raining
I will not stay at home

So, that the premises are true does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Conclusion can be
challenged in two ways: 1) show that a premise is false or 2) show that the argument is invalid.

All premises are true Some premises are false
The argument is valid Conclusion cannot be challenged Conclusion can be challenged
The argument is invalid Conclusion can be challenged Conclusion can be challenged

*argument is invalid when some premises or conclusion has not been explicitly stated, because there is some common
knowledge or background which must be assumed as part of the context.
17


Lecture: validity of an argument
An argument, consisting of certain premises P1, P2 Pn and a conclusion C is valid if, and only
if, it is the case that whenever the premises are true the conclusion is also true.
4.3. Deductive and non-deductive arguments
Valid arguments are of a deductive nature: the conclusion is enclosed in the premises
monotonic: add new premises cannot change anything in logical validity of conclusion

In non-deductive argument (non-monotonic): conclusion is logically stronger than premises =
premises (if true) give a limited amount of support to the conclusion.
Accepting conclusion is based on considerations making use of plausibility principle
Form of non-deductive argumentation: inductive argumentation
Check the degree of plausibility of conclusion with critical questions. If these are
answered positively, we speak of a sound argumentation instead of valid.

So, only in case of deductive argumentation we can speak of valid argumentation. Due to the
indirect nature of non-deductive argumentation, there always is a small degree of uncertainty.
Lecture deduction and induction
Deductive argument: conclusion logically contained in premises
Inductive argument: extends beyond what is contained in premises, drawing a general
conclusion from limited number of cases.
Lecture deductive reasoning
Problematic about deductive reasoning:
Assumption of inborn knowledge
No new knowledge
Lecture induction
Reasoning most used in (natural) science
Inductive argument are not valid
Lecture How to justify induction?
Attempt 1: We should think that inductive arguments lead to the truth since past experience
shows that inductive argument are successful in leading to the truth (circularity problem: based
on induction!)

Attempt 2: Inductive argument should be regarded as deductive arguments with a hidden
additional premise: the Uniformity Premise (which states that the as yet unobserved
resembles the observed). Circular again: Uniformity Premise can only be justified inductively.
Lecture Empirical cycle (de Groot)
Induction Deduction
New knowledge + -
Logical validity - +

Hypotheses Deduction observation/evaluation Induction Hypotheses
18


4.4. Arguments in ethical theories
Assesment of arguments that are used in three ethical theories, on the basis of the underlying
argumentation schemes of the pragma-dialectical approach.
4.4.1. Argumentation by analogy
Argumentation by analogy: reach a moral assessment of an unknown/new situation by basing
that assessment on a situation in which moral assessment is clear and comparison is sufficient.
Non-deductive nature, because we draw a conclusion on the basis of comparison
Using critical questions we can determine how plausible the assumption is and whether or
not the argumentation is sound
4.4.2. Arguments in a utilitarian plea
Assumption utilitarianism: determine whether an action is acceptable. In a utilitarian plea, the
means-end argumentation is at forefront.
Non-deductive, because there may be other means to realize the end.
End in a utilitarian argument: the greatest happiness for the greatest number
Causal argumentation: causal link between action and the expected consequence

X (the end)
Carrying out action y (means) realizes the end x [means-end premise]
So, do Y

Fallacies in causality argumentation occur if the means does not lead to the end.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (afterwards, so therefore): causal relationship is derived from
the fact that two events occur after each other
Slippery slope: wild argumentation is involved: far-reaching consequences are derived
from a small cause.
4.4.3. Argumentation in Kantian reasoning
An action is morally acceptable if the action meets the first or second categorical imperative
First: universality principle. Defend that an action h is morally right by proof from the absurd
Take negation of that action (not-h) and thus not doing that action
Show action not-h is unacceptable by showing the maxim of that action leads to a
contradiction as soon as you make a general law of it
The indirect proof from the absurd is a deductive form of argumentation.
Assuming A leads to p
Assuming A leads to not-p
Not A

Criticism: Works good in formal languages as mathematics, but when we convert languages of
content into a formal language, negation and particularly double negation can be very difficult.

Second: reciprocity principle. We should always respect our personal freedom and that of others
to make well-considered choices.
Use ends-means forms of argumentation. The end it the respect for the freedom to make
well-considered choices (different than in the ends-means argumentation).
19


4.4.4. Argumentation in virtue-ethical reasoning
A virtuous person is one who acts virtuously, that is , one who has and exercises the virtues.

Determine whether an action is morally acceptable:
not all virtues are equally relevant because this is determined by position someone has
determine whether he/she would act that way if he/she was a virtuous person
use characteristic-judgement argumentation (non deductive)

X has the characteristics s1, s2 sn
Characteristics s1, s2 sn are typical of A [characteristic judgment premise]
So, A applies to X
4.5. Fallacies
Fallacy seems to be correct but proves, on examination, not to be so.
4.5.1. Common fallacies in ethical discussions
Formal fallacies are determined solely by the form (hence the name) or structure of an argument.
Any invalid argument is a formal fallacy.

Informal fallacies are based on considerations of the context and content of the arguments
Attack on the person (ad hominem): discredit by bringing the presenter into question
Confusion of law and ethics: if it isnt illegal, it is ethical
Straw person: miss-state a persons actual position
Wishful thinking: interprets facts according to what he would like to be the case
Naturalistic fallacy: deriving ought from is (Lecture: if a normative conclusion is drawn
from a set of (only) factual premises).
Privacy fallacy: if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about
Ambiguity: play with the meaning of words
4.5.2. Fallacies of risk
Debates on acceptability of technological risks identifies fallacies as:

Sheer size fallacy (based on a false analogy)
X is accepted
Y is a smaller risk than X
So, Y should be accepted

Fallacy of naturalness (normative statement is derived from a descriptive statement)
X is unnatural. So, X should not be accepted

Ostrichs fallacy: as long as a risk does not reveal, the risk does not exist (asbestos)

Delay fallacy: may be better to make an early decision on incomplete information than to
make a more well-informed decision at a later stage (problem may get worse)

Technocratic fallacy: reflection on risk requires not only technological knowledge, also
ethical competence

20


The fallacy of pricing: many things we cannot easily value in terms of money (human lives)

Lecture: resolution of moral disagreement
Get the facts clear
Get clear on which moral principles and values you agree and on which disagree
Try to formulate the used terms as clearly as possible
Look for examples and counterexamples for different positions
Analyse arguments used

21


5. Ethical Cycle
5.1. Case: Gilbane Gold
5.2. Ill-structured problems
Rational foundationalist approach is unnecessarily reductive and therefore misleading. She holds
that moral philosophy should be tolerant towards different approaches.

Ill-structured problems have no definitive formulation of the problem. Thinking about possible
solutions will further clarify the problem and possibly lead to reformulation of the problem.
Several alternative solutions, which are not easily compared with each other
No single criterion exists
Not possible to make a definitive list of all possible alternative options for action
Whitbeck: synthenic reasoning is practical problemsolving about analysing the
problems and also finding new soltutions.
5.3. The ethical cycle
Ethical cycle: systematic approach to problem-solving that does justice to complex nature of
moral problems and judgement. It is an iterative process with feedback loops (p. 139).

Aim: improvement of moral decision-making and tries to avoid shortcuts. Ultimately, moral
problem solving is directed at finding the morally best, or at least a morally acceptable, action in a
given situation in which a moral problem arises.
5.3.1. Moral problem statement
Moral problem: clearly state what problem is, who has to act and the moral nature of the problem.
Two or more positive moral values or norms that cannot be fully realized at the same time.
Moral dilemma: all possible actions are morally unsatisfactory.
5.3.2. Problem analysis
Three elements: the stakeholders and their interests, the moral values that are relevant in the
situation and the relevant facts.

Disputed, uncertain or unknown facts are certainly not irrelevant for the analysis. One way to deal
with this is to make explicit assumptions about them (can be in a hypothetical form).
5.3.3. Options for actions
Black-and-white strategy: often a moral problem is formulated in terms whether it is acceptable to
engage in a certain action or not.

Strategies to solve moral problems
By thinking out new options for action
Strategy of cooperation: often win-win situations are not self-evident.
Whistle-blowing brings large costs, but sometimes it is required.
5.3.4. Ethical evaluation
The moral acceptability of various options for action are evaluated on basis of moral frameworks:
Formal: codes of conduct, theories like utilitarianism, Kants theory and virtue ethics
Informal: intuitivist framework (straightforward) and common sense method.
22


In determining which value is dominant, certain guidelines can be followed as dominant values
are usually intrinsic values and not merely instrumental values. Once the dominant value is
selected, the option can be chosen.

Judgements need not to be the same, because different frameworks can result in different
preferred options for action in a given situation.
5.3.5. Reflection
Aim: come to well-argued choice among options for action, using outcomes of earlier steps

Approach: wide reflective equilibrium, three types of moral beliefs
1) Considered moral judgments
2) Moral principles
3) Background theories (ethical, but also psychological and social)

In this way, our various considered moral judgements become connected to achieve coherence
between different layers of our moral believes
5.4. Example
5.5. Collective moral deliberation and social arguments
Emphasis in ethical cycle is on individual judgement. However, other people will be involved in
and affected by your choices.

Moral deliberation and discussion with others is useful as tool to improve ones moral judgement.

Overlapping consensus: people often agree on moral issues even if they disagree on how their
moral judgements are exactly to be justified.
This is different from a compromise because it requires that each of the discussants
can justify the overlapping consensus in terms of his or her own reflective equilibrium.

Overlapping consensus on certain moral issues is more likely if social arrangements in which we
develop technologies, meet two procedural criteria:
1) Learning: first order (by people involved) and second order (with respect to goals) learning
Makes more likely that actors change their opinion (reflective equilibrium) so that an
overlapping consensus may become achievable
2) Inclusiveness and openness: inclusiveness is all relevant perspectives are included in the
debate and openness means that new considerations and parties can enter debate
Avoid circumstance where consensus is achieved by leaving out certain relevant
considerations

Both the perspectives of Habermas (moral deliberation) and Rawls (overlapping consensus)
stress importance of procedural criteria for arriving at a moral judgement and both require social
arrangements that meet certain norms.

23


8. Ethical aspects of technical risks
8.1. Case Coal mining & DC-10 Disaster
8.2. Definitions of central terms
Risk is a specification of the term harzard. Risk is product of probability and the effect.
probability is often taken to be the relative frequency of an undesirable event.
effect is often expressed as the number of fatalities

Safety is related to the notion of acceptable risk: situation in which risks have been reduced in as
far that is reasonably feasible and desirable.

Reasons why hazards cannot always be predicted and expressed:
1) complexity of causal relations between potential harmful agents and undesirable effects
2) uncertainty as lack of knowledge or ignorance (unknown unknowns)
3) ambiguity: interpretive ambiguity (different interpretations of scientific data) and
normative ambiguity (disagreement about relevant (moral) values and importance)
8.3. The engineers responsibility for safety
Law and codes of conduct are not sufficient a moral argument to establish that engineers are
responsible for safety.

Arguments why engineers should strive for safe products:
Consequentalism: engineers must strive for good consequences as like safe products
Do no harm (consequentialism or utilitarianism with freedom principle of Mill)
Duty ethics: you should not harm anyone as general norm (universality principle of Kant)
Virtue ethics: care for users (people who suffer consequences of your design)

Different strategies for ensuring safe products during design process:
1) Inherently safe design: avoid hazards instead of coping with them
2) Safety factors
3) Negative feedback mechanism (causes the device to shutdown)
4) Multiple independent safety barriers (by e.g. redundancy in design = if one system drops
out, one can fall back on the redundant system continue to operate safely)
Strategies do not only address known risks but also to some extent uncertainties to
avoid the Ostrichs fallacy
8.4. Risk assessment
Risk assessment: map hazards and express them as risks. Four steps:
Step 1: Release assessment.
Releases are physical effects that can lead to harm and originate in technical installation.
Two kinds: incidental (unintended) and continuous (often anticipated, may not do harm).
o In case of incidental: detection of failure modes and accident scenarios
Probabilty of occurrence of scenarios is calculated by
o Using statistical data (related to past)
o Event trees (what events will follow) or fault trees (move backwards from a fault)


24


Step 2: Exposure assessment
Aim: predict the exposure of culnerable subjects like human beings to certain releases

Step 3: Consequence assessment
Focus on determining relationship between exposure and harmful consequences by animal tests
or epidemiological research.
Many models for dose-response relationships have hypothetical & descriptive nature

Step 4: Risk estimation
Determine in what measure the risk is expressed.
8.4.1. The reliability of risk assessments
In many cases, risk assessments only have limited reliability, because results depend on the
original assumptions made. Many RA do not give an estimate of the accuracy & reliability.

In establishing a risk on basis of a body of empirical data one might make two kinds of mistakes
Type I error (establish risk when there is actually no risk)
Type II error (mistakenly conclude that there is no risk while there actually is a risk)
Many think it is more important to avoid type II errors
8.5. When are risks acceptable?
Some believe that if risks of two different activities are the same according to RA, the activities
are equally acceptable. Why equally risks are not necessarily equally ethically acceptable:
Not all RA are equally reliable and not easily comparable
Risks are often multi-dimensional (while one dimension is used in comparison)
Not obvious that small probability of major accident is as acceptable as a large probability
of a small accident
Acceptability depends on degree to which people voluntarily take consent to a risk
It makes to weight different options
Acceptability depend on how justly risks and advantages are distributed

Four ethical considerations
1) The degree of informed consent with the risk (8.5.1.): aim to create conditions through
which people can act according to freedom principle (Mill) and autonomous choice (Kant)
2) The degree to which the benefits of a risky activity weigh up against the disadvantages
and risks (8.5.2.). In agree with utilitarianism. Tool: risk-cost-benefit analysis.
Basic ethical ideal of Bentham: greatest happiness for greatest number
Objections to risk cost-benefit analysis
o May commit the fallacy of pricing (not always possible to express risks in money)
o Little attention paid to informed consent and to just distribution of cost & benefits
3) The availability of alternatives with a lower risk (8.5.3.):
Choose the best available technology
4) The degree to which risks and advantages are justly distributed (8.5.4.): supported by
Kants first categorical imperative which implies an equality principle.
Objections against this kind of standardization:
o Little account is given of the pros and cons of risky activity
o It is paternalistic: people dont get to choose which risks they find acceptable. Use
market regulation in case of personal risks, not for collective risks.
25


8.6. Risk communication
Should risk communication only inform or also (try to) persuade? Should people always be
informed about risks or is it likely they interpret information in the wrong way?

Perspective of duty ethics: risk communication must be honest, respect the freedom of choice
and autonomy of people and hence not be paternalistic. Only inform people, do not convince.

Perspective of consequentialism: convince people by means of risk communication or withholding
certain information can be morally right if it results in good consequences.
8.7. Dealing with uncertainty and ignorance
Is it acceptable to introduce a new technology with potential hazards into society when there is
scientific controversy or uncertainty about these hazards?
8.7.1. Precautionary principle
The precautionary principle was initially proposed to deal with environmental problems, but can
also be applied to unknown risks. As a prescriptive principle contains four dimensions: If there is
a threat which is uncertain, then some kind of action is mandatory.
1) Threat dimension
2) Uncertainty dimension
3) Action dimension
4) Prescription dimension

Criticism: in many cases reducing complexity and uncertainty is not possible without the
introduction of the new technology into society.
8.7.2. Engineering as a societal experiment
Engineering has an experimental nature. It is often not possible to completely predict the possible
hazards of new technologies before they enter society. Reasons:
1) It is possible that certain hazards are overlooked
2) Tests in laboratory and field are not always representative situations
3) Cumulative or interactive long0term effects can hardly be studied in laboratory
4) Systems may be characterized by recursive and non-linear dynamics

Societal experiments in technology are nearly always large scale, can have irreversible negative
consequences and usually involve people as experimental subjects. Statement: It can be
performed under condition of informed consent. Objections:
Does it make sense to ask people to consent uncertain hazards?
Is the principle not too restrictive? Seems unfair, it the actual hazard for the person is
small and the social benefits large
How to deal with people who are indirectly involved in the experiment but are not able to
give their informed consent? (like future generations) introduce hypothetical consent

26


9. The distribution of responsibility in engineering
9.1. Case: Herald of free enterprise
9.2. Problem of many hands
Problem of many hands: difficult to pinpoint responsibility and blame in cases in which many
people are involved in an activity and in which many causes contributed to a disaster.
Practical problem: identify and prove who was responsible for what
Moral problem: it may turn out nobody can be held morally responsible, problematic
because 1) people may find it morally unsatisfactory that if an engineering disaster
occurs nobody can be held responsible and 2) desire to learn from mistakes.

Collective responsibility: deal with the intention that there is more to responsibility in complex
cases than just the sum of the responsibilities of the individuals.
9.2.1. Case: the Citicorp building
An individual is morally responsible for the structural deficiency if
1) He did something wrong (wrong doing)
2) A causal connection is present between the wrong-doing and the structural deficiency
3) He could have known that the building was structurally deficient (knowledge)
4) He acted freely

To show it is a problem of many hands, we need to show that the collective can reasonable be
held responsible. It is assumed the conditions are similar to the ones applying to individuals.
Important argument why the collective meets the knowledge condition is that if they
had shared their knowledge and expertise, they could have known.
Wrong doing is not confined to breaching the code. Engineers are expected to live up
to a standard of reasonable care.
9.2.2. Causes of the problem of many hands
Knowledge condition: Applying the condition to each of the individuals in isolation might yield a
different result than applying it to the entire group of actors at once.

Wrong-doing condition: while none of the individuals is doing something wrong or is at fault, at the
collective level there is obviously harm done.
9.2.3. Distributing responsibility
It is not immediately clear what ascribing responsibility to the collective implies for the individuals
who together form that collective distribution of responsibility.

Two reasons for ascribing responsibility
1) Moral fairness requirement: consider it morally important to hold people responsible for
their actions and the consequences of these actions if certain conditions are met
Can be applied to active responsibility as they are able to live up the responsibility
(have means and authority)
2) Effectiveness requirement: we want to avoid harm and stimulate desirable outcomes.
Especially relevant for active responsibility

27


Number of mechanisms for distributing responsibility and their moral fairness and effectiveness:
law (9.3.), organizational models (9.4.) and technological designs (9.5.)
9.3. Responsibility and law
Responsibility also a legal concept. Use the term liability to refer to legal responsibility.

Moral responsibility Legal liability
Moral blameworthiness based on conditions of
wrong-doing, causality, freedom&foreseeability.
Based on conditions formulated in law (differ
per action, consequence and country).
Can be established more informally, you can
consider whether you are yourself responsible.
Established in well-regulated procedure in
court, juridical proof of conditions required.
Not necessarily connected to punishment or
compensation.
Usually implies the obligation to pay a fine or to
repay damages.
Backward-looking and forward-looking. Backward-looking.

Argument in favour of translating moral responsibility into liability:
Pro: If morally irresponsible behaviour never leads to punishment on grounds of legal
liability then there remains little incentive to act morally.
Con: doubt assumption people are inclined to behave immorally unless they are punished.

Argument in favour of basing liability upon moral responsibility:
Pro: Consideration that it would be undesirable to have immoral laws.
Con: Not everything that is legally allowed is also morally allowed.

Law & liability could never apply to all cases of moral responsibility
It may even be desirable to make someone liable even if this or het moral
responsibility is debatable (based on considerations of effectiveness)
9.3.1. Liability versus regulation
Liability and regulation are tools that can be used to deal with social consequences of technology.

Regulation is usually based on our current knowledge. Therefore it is often not able to deal with
innovation. Regulation tends to lag behind technological development and its consequences.

Liability provide an attractive alternative legal framework. It does not require the government to
foresee the consequences of new technology.
It place the responsibility in the hand of the ones developing technology.
What is best form of liability to stimulate them to employ their moral responsibility?
9.3.2. Negligence versus strict liability
Conditions that must be met for a person to be liable depends on law and may differ in countries.
Main condition for liability is negligence. In order to claim negligence, proof must be given of:
1. Duty of care, based on sometimes implicit moral responsibilities of engineers and need
not be made explicit in law (think of relation between engineer and the public);
2. Breach of that duty;
3. An injury or damage; and
4. A causal connection between the breach and the injury or damage.
It does not require the defendant foresaw the damage, but could have foreseen it

28


Strict liability: It is usually enough that the defendant engaged in a risky activity and that this
activity caused the damage done (he does not have to be negligent in order to be liable).

Advantages
Motivates engineers involved in innovation to be very careful (higher safety level)
Only way to meet Mills freedom principle or the principle of informed consent

Disadvantages:
Slow down the pace of innovations
Seems morally unfair to hold people liable when they are not at fault or could not have
foreseen damage, while they are not morally responsible.
However, it also seems unfair to potential victims that they have to bear the damage.

Product liability (liability without fault): makes a manufacturer liable for defects in a product (no
need to proof that he acted negligently).
Advantage: result in fairer distribution of risks and benefits of technological innovation

Exception: development risks.
Otherwise innovation would be too much hampered.
Morally unfair to make manufacturers responsible for damage they cannot foresee.

Exception seems reasonable, but:
Put a bonus on not developing scientific & technological knowledge about potential harms
It is not obvious that victims of the yet unknown risks should bear the damage.
9.3.3. Corporate liability
Corporate liability is the case a corporation is treated as a legal person.

Advantage: do not need to find out which individuals in a company were responsible.

Disadvantages:
Corporation do not possess a conscience (no soul to damn and no body to kick)
Most have limited liability which means shareholders are liable to value of their shares
(damage can be more than total value) & can disappear by being split up or bankruptcy.
Both moral fairness and effectiveness of corporate liability to a large extent depend on
how liability is translated to individuals within organization (9.4)
9.4. Responsibility in organisations
Important considerations: whether the model is morally fair in how it allocates responsibility and
whether it is effective in avoiding undesirable behaviour.

Three different models for distributing responsibility in organizations (passive and active):
1) Hierarchical responsibility model:
Attractive because of relative simplicity and clarity,
Not always effective (managers may be outsiders within own organization). It may
motivate managers to gather necessary knowledge.
Seems somewhat morally unfair if managers are not well informed

29


2) Collective responsibility model:
Everyone is responsible to an equal degree for actions of the collective body (seen as
morally unacceptable)
Not very attractive to large organizations.
Only seems applicable in exceptional cases where members must be able to
effectively influence each other (demands small-scaleness and equality)

3) Individual responsibility model
Advantage: morally fair & effective (it encourages individuals to behave responsibly).
Disadvantage: individual moral responsibility may lead to problem of many hands.
Try to avoid problem of many hands through organizational measures like sharing of
information, empowering individual employees & good policy whistle-blowing.

Note: which model can be best applied depends on organizational structure (and on legal status).
However, attempts can be made to make the organization fit the responsibility model.

How should the responsibility for safety be distributed?
1) Formulate desiderata for allocation of responsibility for safety;
o Individuals should be able to live up to their responsibilities
o For outsiders, it should be clear whom to address if there are concerns/questions
o Distribution of responsibilities should be effective
2) Different models or combinations of modal could be considered to achieve this
(hierarchical, collective, individual or allocate it to a special safety official)
3) Evaluate models with mentioned desiderata.

Conclusion: Individual model requires that within organizations people have the freedom to
operate in actively responsible ways and the law often allocates corporate liability rather than to
individual employees. A combination of the models will often be the best option.
9.5. Responsibility distributions and technological designs
Not only do the law and organizations influence the distribution of responsibility, but engineering
design does too (example: automatic pilot in an airplane)
design decisions also affect passive responsibility for error
sometimes nobody can be held responsible and a problem of many hands occurs

If certain tasks are allocated to humans through design decisions, it should be ascertained that
the conditions exist or can be created under which they can responsibly carry out those tasks.

Technological design may not only allocate responsibilities to individuals, but may also imply more
complex divisions of labour and responsibility. Technologies therefore might require an allocating
of tasks & responsibilities along hierarchical lines.

Judge the responsibility distribution in terms of effectiveness and moral fairness
Effectiveness: what are the consequences?
Moral fairness: Can actors involved reasonably live up to these responsibilities?

30


Sample exam question

The statement We should build a new nuclear power plant
1. Is a descriptive statement because it is not true
2. Is a descriptive statement because it refers to what is or is not actually the case
3. Is a normative statement because it is not true
4. Is a normative statement because it refers to what is desirable

Explain whether or not you agree with the following proposition: Professional codes have nothing
to do with ethics and are just image building.
I Agree, because
Argument pro
Another argument pro
Argument con
Conclusion: the arguments pro are stronger because hence I agree with this proposition

Science versus technology: Technology is applied science. Agree of disagree?

Which of the following statements is true?
1. A valid argument cannot contain a false conclusion
2. An invalid argument contains at least one false premise
3. The conclusion of an invalid argument must be false
4. The premises of a sound argument must all be true

Which of the following statements is true?
1. The successful use of induction in science proves that the method is logically valid
2. Induction is logically invalid because the conclusion is not logically contained in the
premises
3. Deduction is logically valid because it can be used to verify scientific theories
4. Deduction is logically invalid because it does not lead to new knowledge.

Which of the following terms described an approach for improving the safety of a design
1) Risk communication
2) Cost benefit analysis
3) Safety factor approach
4) Informed consent