Antonio Montoya

EE394

Code of Ethics Essay

Amongst the definitions for the word code, as taken from the Merriam-Webster
dictionary, are a systematic statement of a body of law; especially: one given statutory
force, and a system of principles or rules. The purpose or importance of having a
code of ethics can be derived from this definition. The importance of ethics and ethical
behavior of an individual are only really truly meaningful as they apply to the interactions
of the individual with other individuals. That is to say that at the core of most major
ethical issues is the concern for how ones actions affect others, rather than the self. The
importance of standardizing or regulating the expected values of members of a group is
then important and necessary to ensure that individuals are not subject to the unethical
or immoral behaviors of others. We can see this manifest in codes of conduct, where the
rules are exclusively concerned with the regulation of behaviors that affect other
persons. In looking at the IEEE code of ethics, only #5 to improve the understanding of
technology; its appropriate application, and potential consequences; does not expressly
involve others, but the spirit of the rule, or at least my interpretation, is that as engineers
we have an obligation to advance societal understanding of technology, and its
potential consequences on society. So here I see the intent and purpose of having
Codes of Ethics to be to formulate and formally state the expectations of a society or
group of individuals for the behaviors of individuals that affect other individuals and the
group as a whole.
My personal process for determining the ethically superior path when faced with
a challenging ethical quandary is usually as follows: Weigh the potential impacts of your
decision on those who are affected ( In engineering matters this is usually the end user
and my employer, in that order of priority), and then consider the variant cost of the
available decisions, and then evaluate how the costs stack up against the impacts of the
given options. When a the superior choice is not easily discerned, I frequently resort to
seeking the advice of those who I deem more ethically knowledgeable or wise than
myself, parents, grandparents, mentors, professors, etc. Failing that, I often consult the
internet, or try to imagine what the Koch brothers would do, and do the opposite.
My small group only consisted of myself and Dr Jiles, so there were not any
different considerations. The Case study that was discussed was about the Launch of
the Space Shuttle Columbia. The main issue that we discussed was the role that
budgetary constraints played in the tragedy. We discussed that there is a major
difference in the thinking behind engineering work conducted in an academic setting vs
in an industry setting. In school and academic settings, the cost of a solution is usually

Antonio Montoya

EE394

of secondary concern, taking a backseat to producing quality results. In industry and

most real world engineering, unfortunately, the paradigm is the opposite. Cost ends up
taking precedence over many other important factors such as safety. We discussed in
our meeting how the concept of acceptable risk has its roots in the lamentable
economic realities of engineering work. In the case of the Columbia disaster, the case
study points out that there were two major engineering failures: the first was that two
technical specifications were not followed regarding Debris prevention and protection,
and the second was the fact at the time of launch Columbia was operating with 1600
safety waivers. Dr. Jiles pointed out that with such a massively complex system as a
space shuttle, with each individual problem, a solution could require complete rebuilds
of systems, and cause rippling effects on interconnected systems, so the potential
expenses of fixing any one of the 1600 potentially faulty systems could have been
enormous. So the question then becomes, what is the exchange rate? That is to say
what is the dollar value of a specific percentage risk of critical failure that carries the
potential to cause loss of life. I speculated on whether there was such an equation on
the books, if for each of the problems they calculated a risk of failure and applied an
exchange rate, and if the cost of repairs is greater than X, then issue a safety waiver.
Im not sure if that hypothetical scenario is more or less disturbing than if each safety
waiver was just a subjective judgement call.
The Virtues that seem to me to be most relevant to the Columbia case study are
Charity, Responsibility, and Fidelity, in that order. While reaction would have been to
select integrity and honesty, when I actually think about it, the existence of safety
waivers is actually brutally honest, they are an unequivocal admission of shortcomings,
and the engineers themselves I assume were actually acting with a great deal of
integrity in making those decisions to waive safety requirements, making what they
thought to be the best available decisions to further the cause of scientific exploration in
the light of budget restrictions. Charity seems to be the most egregiously absent virtue
at play, the concept of a safety waiver being at its core, so cold, callous, and ruthlessly
pragmatic in its consideration of the value of a human life. In this vein, I feel that
Responsibility was also lacking, as engineers there is a responsibility to act for the good
of others, and to do so with a good sense of charity. Fidelity also struck me as being
quite relevant, as an engineer, is it not our job to always fight the deleterious effect that
monetary concerns have on producing quality work? Perhaps if someone had been
more faithful to a creed of quality work and a little less tolerant of error, there could have
been a push for some of the problems to be rectified, and the tragedy could have been
avoided. I do not know what other virtue might be more applicable.

Antonio Montoya

EE394

I suppose in the end I fault the society we live in, and federal budgetary priorities,
more than I do the engineers or the team at NASA in general. Where sufficient funds
made available to advance the causes of space exploration, and if those funds were
commensurate with the enormous benefit to humanity and scientific discovery that
NASAs efforts have yielded over the years, safety waivers probably wouldnt exist. At
the end of the day, engineers have to the best with what they have.