Assign Ep 3

5, 2019

ASSIGNMENT NO.3 ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALISM

Submitted To:

Dr.Khurram Zaidi

Submitted By:

ALI RAZA

FA17-BCE-A-039

SAAD ABID

FA17-BCE-A-076

ASAD REHAN

FA17-BCE-A-005

CASE 1 QUESTION: A County Engineer in Virginia demanded a 25% kickback in secret……… Allan did right? ANSWER: Being an engineer, Allan has to set code of ethics at priority while making every decision. Concerning public safety, IEEE code of ethics states: 1.

to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, to strive to comply with ethical design and sustainable development practices, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;

Meanwhile, Allan faces conflict in decision making for his business and employers, he have to decide between two paths to choose more beneficial one for all, basing on ethical grounds, this could be sorted out through Line Drawing Method, as follow: FACTORS

Paradigm( Accept Offer)

Test Case

Paradigm(Does not Accept the offer)

Public Safety

Not Sure

-------------x-

Yes

Employers Benefit

Great

---x-----------

Nothing

Business Compromised

No

---x-----------

High

Included in Bribery

Yes

------------x--

No

Victim of need

No

--x------------

Yes

According to Line diagram; three crosses are left aligned while two are right, thus solution lies in Allan accepting the offer but on moral grounds & concerning ethical behavior, Allan should consider public safety first & reject bribery. As code of ethics states:

4. To reject bribery in all its forms; Surely, Allan is a victim of need here, but instead of compromising his ethical values to save his personal priorities could never be an option. Instead Allan should focus on being competent enough to create new opportunities for his company to grow and for his employers to work. Accepting bribery or compromising public safety in spite of his own situation should not be the option.

CASE 2 QUESTION: On a midnight shift, a botched solution of sodium cyanide, a reactant in a……Should Roy inform government authorities, as is required by law in this kind of situation?

ANSWER: In this case, Roy is faced with critical scenario, which could result in chemical calamity for public. Meanwhile IEEE put public safety in high regards. Thus we had to analyze preciseness of situation to conclude. Again Line drawing method is used: FACTORS

Paradigm( Goes to Authority)

Damage

Low

Test Case -x-------------

Paradigm(Do not go) High

Cost to contain damage

High

-------------x-

Minimal

Responsibility (fault)

His

-------------x-

No

Job in danger

Yes

------------x--

No

Company’s benefit

No

----------x----

Yes

According to table, it clearly shows that company and Roy’s benefit lies in keeping quiet or to handle the situation themselves. But it also shows that chemical wastage into lake could be the cause of disease or deaths, so concerning public safety & following code of ethics, Roy should go to government authorities.

CASE 3 QUESTION: Older engineers, in particular, find job security in competition with ethical instinct…… Did he really have a choice?

ANSWER: Old engineer, at the ending stages of his career had to face a real dilemma here. Considering all options, a better of all solutions could be devised. Let’s assess this problem with line drawing method too. FACTORS

Paradigm( Accepts Test Case Offer)

Paradigm(Rejects)

Possible Damage

High

Low

------------x--

Job in danger

No

-x-------------

Yes

According to table, one case is right aligned while other in opposite. Having less number of options, it makes hard to decide. So judging according to IEEE codes, old engineer having experience of work, might get another suitable job to his environment where retires could train young ones. He have to find another option as he should not be compromising on the lives of people working in that company as bad quality roof could fell on labor.! So he should not accept the offer.