Category Archives: CRITICAL REFLECTIONS

Summary Reflection- Shubham Sinha

Posted on by
Reply

Before taking this class I never thought about the topic of ethics and morals in engineering. I always have had a problem solving attitude towards engineering. If someone were to ask me what engineers are I would simply exclaim with the answer “We are problem solvers” and if someone were to ask me “What about ethics in engineering?” I would have almost given a blank stare. The class has taught me a lot of about ethics and values and its importance in the field of engineering. Moreover, I got to learn about various kinds of ethics such as virtue ethics and normative ethics and ethics as described by various modern and old philosophers.

The following were my learning objectives for this class:

  • Understand and analyze the overlap between engineering and humanities
  • Truly feel the need to be an ethnically responsible engineer
  • Understand the importance and relevance of building or providing ethically sound products and services

There is truly a huge overlap between engineering and humanities in the area of ethics. It is imperative of engineers to be ethical in designing their products however, it is experts in the field of humanities who judge our ethical decisions. How do engineers know what’s ethical and what’s not? They obviously use their subjective views however, sometimes it tends be a little unilateral and biased and requires the opinion of non engineers to evaluate it.

Through the EITN presentations and the critical reflections I truly understand the importance of ethics in engineering. Previously my view of engineering was narrowed down to the idea of problem solving however, after having written a critical reflection on Pawley’s paper I understood how ignorant I had been. Furthermore, by speculating an imaginary conversation with philosophers such as Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart, Henry Ford to name a few, I was able to explore their understanding and opinions on the topic of morals and ethics. I previously also thought that ethics was simply the notion or idea of what’s good and what’s bad. Now, when I look back I chuckle at the simplicity of that definition and how it barely covers what ethics truly means. Ethics, previously to me was a humanities concept with little application to engineering. However, after having read the paper by Kaplan and Garrick about risk analysis and having written a critical reflection on it, I realize the importance of ethics even in very mathematical/technical concepts. The risk analysis failed to account for human emotions and how engineers would act under certain ethical dilemmas. Such a glaring oversight could easily cause massive errors in the calculating the risks.

An ethical engineer is someone who doesn’t simply understand the notion of right or wrong but truly holds a philosophical understanding of ethics and morals and is willing to analyze situations objectively. It is of utmost importance for an ethical engineer to be unbiased and not completely driven by emotions. An ethical engineer should be uncompromising of his personal code of ethics and should be consistent in following them in every situation. The following should be engineer’s role in society:

  • Solemnly pledge to design ethical products.
  • Discourage the use of unethical experiments and research in academia.
  • Be morally responsible for products once they are out in the market for public use.
  • Proactively fix products to make sure that they uphold society’s ethical standards.
  • Aware fellow engineers about the importance of ethics in engineering.
  • Report unethical products that could potentially be dangerous to the public.

Such level of commitment is only possible through introducing ethics classes in undergraduate curriculum. If the importance of ethics in engineering is embedded into the future engineers minds then they will have a much better grasp of it in the professional world. For instance, every engineering class could have a mandatory ethics class which in a way would force students to learn about ethics. Personally, I feel very accomplished having learnt a lot about ethics in engineering and such an understanding will always make me consider ethics in any software or hardware I design.

The art museum trip made me realize, we use modeling and mockup designs in engineering all the time. Models enable us to build real products such as the uc berkeley campus or the art museum itself. Every big design is first represented as a model or a mockup. It helps me explain that a mockup or prototype helps engineers determine its ethical credibility. When I design a product I can foresee the ethical problems it might create or it might solve.

Last but not the least my future learning plans for this class is keep abreast with the current debates in the field of technology. The technology section in bbc news, techcrunch and reuters very often contains articles that are very relevant to ethics in engineering. Reading these articles would be a constant reminder to me about the importance of ethics in engineering. I have also been reading this book on ethics called “Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases” which has excellent case studies on the same topic.

Critical Reflection #3 (Revised Edition)

Posted on by
Reply

John Stuart Mill, Aristotle, Henry Ford and Jeremy Bentham. To start off, explaining the ethical issues in the production of the new metal 3-D printer to these four philosophers and intellectuals would not be quite easy but I would do the following. Id first start off by explaining the ethical issues that can arise if this machinery were to be released to the public such as printing guns, explosives, another person’s license plates and many more unpractical uses. Along with the cons, id also explain how this new version of 3-D printing can be used for practical uses such as printing medical and scientific devices that can cost a fortune at market prices. In other words, id create a moral balance sheet such that weighs both the costs and benefits (pleasures and pains) in releasing this product to the public versus releasing it only to companies that will make practical use of it. The moral balance sheet analyzes both the pros and cons of releasing the Metal 3-D printer to the public and how some “pleasures” can outweigh “pains” such as printing medical and scientific devices. In relation to the moral balance sheet, id also explain the importance of moral autonomy in releasing this product. Before releasing it, it is important for one to realize the difference between one’s views of what’s right versus societies’. The moral autonomies’ along with the moral balance sheet is how id explain the ethical issues that can possibly arise in releasing the metal 3-D printer to the public. The purpose of this new 3-D printer is to benefit those who will use it for practical uses such as the one listed above. Based off the “Pinto” case, it is important to have a mutual relationship between the company and the consumer. Henry Ford will respond by explaining how it is important for one to explain the technicalities and specifications of such machinery if it were to be released. By doing so, I think Henry Ford will support 3-D printers by suggesting a list of the technical specifications along with a list of all things possible the machine can perform. Before id explain the moral balance sheet, John Stuart Mill will respond by saying that one should have the ability to do what one wishes, in other words his “No harm principle.” John Stuart Mill, in my opinion, would take a positive stance on the 3-D printers as long as they cause no harm to the public. In other words, his “No harm principle” would support his point by suggesting that the 3-D printer be used for beneficial purposes only, such as creating medical devices. While John Stuart Mill would think that 3-D printers were created for logical and constructive purposes, Aristotle would impose the idea that 3-D printers have the potential to do both good and harm if used for the wrong purposes.  Aristotle will respond by justifying the importance of “learning by doing.” In doing so, Aristotle is implying the notion that 3-D printers have the potential to do good but in doing so, one can also have dishonest and malicious motives. For example, 3-D metal printers have the potential to create weapons such as guns and bullets, which can then be used to kill. In this case, 3-D printers serve as both beneficial and virulent. Jeremy Bentham would manifest his idea of “utilitarianism” and the possibility of hedonism arising if the machinery were to be released. Returning back to the notion of “pleasure vs pain”, Bentham would agree that this machinery would serve as both a pleasure and pain to society. Similar to Aristotle’s views, Bentham would stand his ground by imposing the notion that 3-D printers have the capabilities to cause “pleasure” and “pain”. Pleasure in the sense that this device can be used to create goods at a low price and pain in the sense that, if used in the wrong hands, the device can produce malevolent appliances. All four philosophers would impose the general idea of improving any product by learning from its failures.

Critical Reflection #4 (Revised Edition)

Posted on by
Reply

Critical Reflection #4

“Risk cannot be spoken of as acceptable or not in isolation, but only in combination with the costs and benefits that are attendant to that risk”; one of main arguments in Kaplan’s and Garrick’s essay, “On the Quantitative Definition of Risk”. Kaplan and Garrick argue that risk cannot be left alone or simply, “one cannot talk about risk in isolation.” They claim the notion that when analyzing the risks of a certain situation, one must also consider the costs and benefits included with the risk. I agree with Kaplan and Garrick with this statement in relation to their argument that risk cannot be analyzed as an isolated variable. It is true that many factors contribute to risk in certain situations but it is not true that the number of factors in every situation is the same. Kaplan and Garrick utilize equation 1 on page thirteen of the article, which concludes that the risk included in a certain event depends on the number of consequences in such a risk that one can think of. In relation to this, I disagree with Kaplan and Garrick’s statement that, “risk depends on what you do and what you know and what you do not know”. To an extent, this statement is true but analyzing the risk analysis of a certain event, which include all of the possible consequences, is too big of a scope for one to think of. What Kaplan and Garrick should include is that it is important to realize the probability that all engineers will use such a formula to calculate risk. It is unlikely that all employed engineers will use this formula to calculate risk since there are many other “traditional”  ways in doing so. Stepping back even further, the decisions of manager can also greatly influence the probability of a risk occurring. From a managerial perspective, it is not likely that equation 1 on page thirteen, will be used.  The notion that risk depends on the costs and benefit analysis of a situation but the two definitions of risk, from an engineer’s and manager’s perspective, should also be a factor to take into account when analyzing risk.

To argue that “risk is acceptable, which comes along with the optimum decision option, all other risks are unacceptable, even if smaller”, is indeed correct since one cannot possibly take into account all the other possible risks that can occur within a situation. Kaplan and Garrick make a great point from this statement since risk analysis and quantification does not only involve risks but also “other forms of costs and benefits.” From this, one can reason that only the possible consequences involved in a situation are the ones that will influence and impact the outcome under a fixed amount of certainty that those consequences will occur. Those consequences tie in with the risks of a situation in such a way that they are included in the risk analysis. To analyze a certain situation, one must include those consequences and benefits that will occur. In the grand scheme of things, the costs and benefits analysis plan in a risk analysis, heavily supports the probability of an outcome of a certain event. Returning to the point of a manager’s perspective, it is equally important to take into account a different perspective on risk. In doing so, one creates a general solution based off the engineer’s and manager’s knowledge on risk. From this, it can be concluded that risk should be assessed based off two different ideas of analyzing situations involving risk. In conclusion, Kaplan and Garrick entail clear-cut arguments in relation to the topic of risk analysis.

Art Museum Reflection

Posted on by
Reply

Just a few weeks ago, we learned about the importance of emotion as a tool for ethical engineers. Emotion can serve not only as a guide, but also as an inspiration and motivation. The goal of art is to inspire by invoking emotions in the audience, and therefore can serve engineers well in their education and practice. In the art museum, my favorite exhibit was the looms. Looms are more than simple inanimate objects — they are creations which themselves, create, an entirely autonomous extension of a man (or more precisely, of an engineer). While the looms may seem to be a totally utilitarian object, and out of place in a gallery of art, to me they represent the creative potential of engineering and the creative spirit that is at the heart of the field.

Short Response- Regulating New Technologies

Posted on by
Reply

Developing new technology can impact, in a positive manner, the lives of those who desperately need it. Whether it’s in the fields of bio-engineering, materials science or mechanical engineering, new technologies have a great impact everywhere. In terms of regulating these new technologies, in the US, both the management/corporation group along with the engineers, have the expertise to advance the current state of regulation pertaining to certain technologies. However, these two groups of people are not the only ones who have a say in the advancement of these technologies. In my opinion, I think organizations such as the CIA and the US government have a great deal of impact in the regulations of  these technologies. Although companies have the right to their products, it sometimes comes down to the US government or the CIA to monitor these regulations in hopes of creating safety barriers for the citizens of the US.  The group of people who take the initiative to change regulation are those who are responsible for the management and structure of the company. Although the owners of the technology and those who are entitled to managerial positions have a great deal of weight when it comes to regulation, I also believe that those who engineer the technology hold the right to participate in this notion. Engineers know the ins and outs of the technology they created and is thus why they should participate in regulating and developing new regulations to new technology.

Art museum reflection

Posted on by
Reply

I think what I found was mainly inspiration for the less-technical side of engineering. In technical classes we learn the how-tos, and in this class we learn the things to be aware of, but in the art museum all they had to do was set out a bunch of play-doh and they had a neat exhibit. I think the thing with copy machines was pretty cool as well, turning what’s usually a boring-office type atmosphere into something weirdly out of place. It showed me how something seemingly mundane can be cool from the right perspective, which will be good to think about when designing something that wouldn’t normally be thought of as cool.

Art Museum Reflection

Posted on by
Reply

What resources do you think you can find in the arts that can help you in your practice or learning of engineering?

In practice, design is a very big part of engineering. Efficiency is important, but so are the aesthetical aspects of engineering as well. One such usage is symmetry, especially when dealing with the ideas of redundancy. If one system fails, then having another system that replaces that failed system can prevent a meltdown or a huge problem from occurring. Going through the art gallery, I saw various types of art. Some of it was very much avante garde, some two dimensional, and others three dimensional. The aspect of dimensionality that art covers seems to outline a process for engineering design that I believe is important. Early designs are almost always two dimensional. They are drawn on a piece of paper, sometimes crudely just for initial ideas, sometimes carefully like blueprints. However, two dimensional objects can’t really be used to much effect by humans. They need to be transformed to three dimensions, and just a two dimensional image does not capture enough information about a design. However, I think art is a very abstract concept and has more of an influence on the humanity that affects all people and doesn’t really have anything specific to say about engineering. Principals of design incorporate art, for sure, but design is just a type of art: an art of efficiency, of science. Art is still an important aspect that should be consider throughout engineering and the learning of engineering, but it should not be a driving force, but rather a catalyst for helping.

Quinn Z Shen | Critical Response #4

Posted on by
Reply

Critical Response #4: On the Quantitative Definition of Risk

            Risk is an interesting concept to think about when it comes to decisions. What makes us choose certain risks over another? Stanley Kaplan and B. John Garrick make an attempt to formalize the entire process.

We begin by defining what risk really is. The article makes a distinction between ‘risk’, ‘uncertainty’, and ‘hazards’. For the most part, I definitely agree with the definitions. Risk is a combination of uncertainty and a damaging consequence – something that is only uncertain wouldn’t really be considered risky. The weather is uncertain on a day-to-day basis, but it isn’t really considered risky until there is an event that requires sun (a potentially damaging consequence).

Hazards are considered sources of pain – obstacles, open circuits, etc. while risk is considered a potential or likelihood of pain. The main distinguishing factor is the probability or uncertainty involved. I don’t think risk should be exactly defined quantitatively though; my main issue with doing so is that it could put a determined limit on what should be considered risky or what shouldn’t be considered risky. In some instances, I would argue that a more qualitatively definition is much more appropriate since the definition of risk can greatly differ on a case by case situation. I don’t think it’s necessarily possible to quantitatively graph or analyze situations since that relies on data points that we may/may not know or may/may not even have control of. Sometimes, definite numbers and graphs can give us a false sense of security or false sense of safety.

In the article, it is also brought to light that in reality, risk is infinite and shouldn’t be used to necessarily deter the construction of things like nuclear reactors.

The discussion of the distinction between ‘frequency’ and ‘probability’ is also interesting. Most of the discussion is focused around the difference in wording – but that can also influence a difference in how we think of the topic. Frequency is considered a hard measurement because it is based on observations of repeated trials and is a concrete number. On the other hand, probability still involves a degree of belief, or a state of confidence. In my opinion, the distinction is meaningful but I don’t completely agree with how it is presented. I think there is still a degree of uncertainty and a degree of confidence/belief with frequency. When I say that a lighting bolt strikes a tree once in every 10,000 lighting strikes, the degree of uncertainty is whether or not the next lighting strike will hit the tree I’m standing at. While some may argue that is their definition of probability, I would say that it is all implicitly a part of the entire notion of probability/frequency.

Overall, I agree with the conclusions that the article brings in that a single number is not big enough to make a decision. The extensive lists of different types of graph are all being used to make one decision – is this decision a safe decision or a risky decision. It’s a question that requires a lot of forethought and patience – but it’s one of the most important things that must happen on a day-to-day basis for an engineer!

Short Response- Art Museum

Posted on by
Reply

What resources do you think you can find in the arts that can help you in your practice or learning of engineering?

Art, in many aspects, can be very useful in both the practice of engineering. To begin with, the notion of “creativity” encompasses the practice of art. Creativity and curiosity has led to a lot of important breakthroughs in science and technology such as, Galileo’s discovery of simple pendulum oscillators, Einstein’s theory of relativity based partially on intuition, Newton’s arithmetic principles behind calculus, etc. It is clear that all of these groundbreaking discoveries began with creativity but more importantly, creativity is what encompasses art. Because these elements form a basis for art, it is safe to acknowledge the notion that engineering is in some manner, encompassed by those same elements. The resources in art that can enhance both the practice and learning of engineering, are those such that allow one to act beyond the parameters given. However, being creative in engineering, in my opinion, does not mean to work around the risks and safety hazards. If creativity was allowed in the practice of engineering, the notion of “safety first” would always be embellished and not ignored. Once safety factors are out of the way, one can work around the parameter given and use such a resource that art has provided. Within leaning engineering, one can also apply the resources of art, creativity and intuition. For example, in pre-requisite classes undergraduate engineering students must take such as, math, physics and chemistry, there are many ways to solve problem sets. In lecture, one is taught a “general” approach to a problem. That “general” approach might not be the only way to solve such problems and thinking “creatively” is what can encompass this. To summarize, I believe the practice of thinking creatively and being able to “freely” use the mind, can enhance the practice of engineering. With creativity, one can be led to great discoveries and more importantly lead to improving the work of our predecessor’s.

Critical Reflection V: Emotional and Ethical Engineers

Posted on by
Reply

I agree with the author’s overall conclusions that the emotional component of engineering should be acknowledged and supported. It doesn’t come as a surprise to me that technological design is heavily influenced by the designer’s personal moral and ethical views. While there is generally a “chain of command” involved in most engineering projects, the engineer is the primary decision maker when it comes to how the project is used or designed. This is true for efficiency’s sake, if for nothing else. That is not to say that input from the other parties should be disregarded, but it only emphasizes the need for ethically trained engineers.

Roeser shuns the idea that engineers must be robots just because they build them. She points out that ethical and emotional maturity are just as essential to good engineering and design as quantitative skills. The Dual Process Theory separates reactions into two categories: (1) immediate emotional responses and (2) drawn-out rational responses. Roeser challenges this categorization because it suggests that emotional responses cannot be rational, and vice-versa. She gives the example of “moral emotions” (for example, sympathy for victims of a natural disaster) as a response which is the product of both analysis and empathy. She argues that it is these types of processes that should be implemented by an “emotional engineer”.

Perhaps the title of the paper is somewhat misleading. What the author seems to be calling for is an “ethical” engineer rather than an “emotional” one. Pure, uninformed emotion (such as that would fit into the first category in the Dual Process Theory) can be dangerous to the progress of science and technology. For instance, I don’t believe the public, in most cases, is well informed about risks since much of their information is bound to come from equally biased parties through the media. Therefore, their reactions to several innovations in science and technology are not rooted in facts, but rather sensationalism. The lack of solid, clear boundaries between rationality and emotion only emphasize the need for a well-rounded engineer, who is as adept ethically as he is mathematically.

The moral agenda of an engineer likely has a strong influence on his/her designs. As a final point, Roeser points out that quantitative systems used for risk analysis are not applicable to most situations. For example, should a large risk of a minor failure have the same weight as a small risk of a major failure? The solution, according to the author, is to stop relying on a formalized system, and essentially, to follow one’s instincts. Emotions can serve as a context specific tool during the design process. While I agree that purely quantitative risk systems are not sufficient, Roeser’s suggested system is extremely subjective and rather haphazard. While the designer should be able to design within and according to his own personal moral code, there must be a formal system of “checks and balances” to assure some level of uniformity.