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 Test Case Paradigm(Does

Offer) not Accept the
offer)

Public Safety Not Sure -------------x- Yes

Employers Benefit Great ---x----------- Nothing

Business No ---x----------- High

Compromised

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 Test Case Paradigm(Do not

Authority) go)

Damage Low -x------------- High

Cost to contain High -------------x- Minimal
damage

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 Paradigm(Rejects)

Offer)

Possible Damage High ------------x-- Low

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.