“Ain’t No One Here But Us Social Forces”: Constructing the Professional Responsibility of Engineers [Book Review]

Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (1):13-34 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

There are many ways to avoid responsibility, for example, explaining what happens as the work of the gods, fate, society, or the system. For engineers, “technology” or “the organization” will serve this purpose quite well. We may distinguish at least nine (related) senses of “responsibility”, the most important of which are: (a) responsibility-as-causation (the storm is responsible for flooding), (b) responsibility-as-liability (he is the person responsible and will have to pay), (c) responsibility-as-competency (he’s a responsible person, that is, he’s rational), (d) responsibility-as-office (he’s the responsible person, that is, the person in charge), and (e) a responsibility-as-domain-of-tasks (these are her responsibilities, that is, the things she is supposed to do). For all but the causal sense of responsibility, responsibility may be taken (in a relatively straightforward sense)—and generally is. Why then would anyone want to claim that certain technologies make it impossible to attribute responsibility to engineers (or anyone else)? In this paper, I identify seven arguments for that claim and explain why each is fallacious. The most important are: (1) the argument from “many hands”, (2) the argument from individual ignorance, and (3) the argument from blind forces. Each of these arguments makes the same fundamental mistake, the assumption that a certain factual situation, being fixed, settles responsibility, that is, that individuals, either individually or by some group decision, cannot take responsibility. I conclude by pointing out the sort of decisions (and consequences) engineers have explicitly taken responsibility for and why taking responsibility for them is rational, all things considered. There is no technological bar to such responsibility

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,252

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The engineer’s responsibility for quality.Michael C. Loui - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (3):347-350.
The moral responsibility of the hospital.Richard T. De George - 1982 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 7 (1):87-100.
Informatics and professional responsibility.Donald Gotterbarn - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):221-230.
Corporate Moral Responsibility.Michael J. Phillips - 1995 - Business Ethics Quarterly 5 (3):555-576.
Existential Responsibility - The Civic Virtue.Helmut Danner - 1998 - Studies in Philosophy and Education 17 (4):261-270.
Moral responsibility.Garrath Williams - 2010 - Oxford Bibliographies Online.
Responsibility for believing.Pamela Hieronymi - 2008 - Synthese 161 (3):357-373.
Limits on patient responsibility.Maureen Kelley - 2005 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (2):189 – 206.
Responsibility.Garrath Williams - 2006 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-11-18

Downloads
113 (#152,478)

6 months
17 (#134,829)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Michael Davis
State University of New York at Buffalo

References found in this work

The concept of law.Hla Hart - 1961 - New York: Oxford University Press.
The Concept of Law.Hla Hart - 1961 - Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press UK.
Punishment and Responsibility.H. L. A. Hart - 1968 - Philosophy 45 (172):162-162.
Causation By Omission: A Dilemma.Sarah McGrath - 2005 - Philosophical Studies 123 (1-2):125-148.
Distributing responsibilities.David Miller - 2001 - Journal of Political Philosophy 9 (4):453–471.

View all 33 references / Add more references