Balance between technical and philosophical training

Question

I'm interested in potentially studying engineering, specifically cybernetics and possibly robotics with machine learning or AI for assistive technology, probably with a focus on hygiene. Coming from a pure physics and math background, I have a rudimentary exposure to ethics mainly in the context of academic integrity and research (e.g. proper attribution, representing sources accurately, etc.) and beyond that only at a purely philosophical level. One reason I'm somewhat hesitant to venture into engineering is the prospect of confronting very real ethical quandaries (e.g. who claims responsibility for any significant damage(s) or even deaths that self-driving cars may cause, and how to know that this is right?) It occurs to me that, especially in engineering and applied math/physics, failure to adequately examine the ethical dimensions of work or possibly even exploratory research could significantly impede long term progress. Is there a consistent, if potentially complex, body of literature on technological ethics that all engineers should probably read at various stages of their careers, or is the field split in ways that are hard to reconcile (i.e. is it in effect necessary for engineers to specialize in their ethical outlook as well as their subject expertise?)

EDIT: to clarify my question, I'm wondering if there is a sort of ethics trivium that aspiring engineers should probably try to grapple with if they want to avoid otherwise well-documented ethics-related pitfalls, somewhat analogous to the rules and regulations that help engineers design and build safe machines and structures, or the "embedded ethics" of modern computer science curricula, or if ethics are deemed sacrosanct in a way that eludes any simple characterization.

The thing is most engineers don't do research, let alone pioneering research. There are definitely ethics material that engineers have to cover to get licensed (at least where I am), but that kind of ethics is more about due diligence for more mundane routine work rather than the high-concept ethics which make for viable sci-fi short stories. It's more about "*Did I take reasonable measures to ensure no one gets hurt?*". Something like "*Should I be designing ICMBs?*" isn't even touched on let alone "*Is it dangerous to research AI?*" — DKNguyen, Jun 27 '21 at 02:25
So, is the basic idea to always start with the simplest "unsolved" (or unaddressed) problem or need, and (hopefully) progress from there? — TLDR, Jun 27 '21 at 03:03
Still too high concept. You just do what you need to do to get the job done and make sure you're not neglectful or nefarious along the way. The ethics you seem concrned about are far removed from what most engineers need to worry about. — DKNguyen, Jun 27 '21 at 03:05
But isn't there also some obligation to certify or check that the job itself isn't part of a larger nefarious or neglectful program, even if the precise tasks involved in the job are not in any obvious way? — TLDR, Jun 27 '21 at 03:07
No, there is not. Imagine a highly classified project with layers of security clearance. Do you always know what that doodad you are working in is being used in? Or what it will be used for? The people who constructed the first tanks didn't know what they were making. A guy I work with used to design and build mystery mechanical assemblies for aerospace during the Cold War for which he was not allowed to know its purpose or what it was being used in. — DKNguyen, Jun 27 '21 at 03:08
Who designed the hammer? screwdriver? Are they responsible for murders committed with those items or any tool? Or is it down to the perpetrator? — Solar Mike, Jun 27 '21 at 05:28
@DKNguyen In the UK, the [Chartered Engineer standard](https://www.engc.org.uk/engcdocuments/internet/Website/UK-SPEC%20third%20edition%20(1).pdf) includes requirements to demonstrate the ability to 'Conduct appropriate research, and undertake design and development of engineering solutions' and to 'Undertake engineering activities in a way that contributes to sustainable development'. Those requirements would be very difficult to satisfy with the mindset you describe. — Daniel Hatton, Jun 27 '21 at 16:30
@DanielHatton That sounds moderately different from APEGGA in Alberta in that it actually specifically tries to address R&D. APEGGA just uses the umbrella term "Public interest", admits it is broad and complex and give some examples. However, even what you describe does not seem to encompass the stuff the OP is concerned about. The ethics the OP seems concerned about seem to revolve around whether or not something should be done at a high level via slippery slope argument, not how to go about doing it. https://www.apega.ca/docs/default-source/pdfs/ethical-practice.pdf — DKNguyen, Jun 27 '21 at 18:45
@DKNguyen The CEng standard has a gloss on the above-mentioned "sustainable development" competence that says 'This could include an ability to... use imagination, creativity and innovation to provide products and services which maintain and enhance the quality of the environment and community, and meet financial objectives', which does suggest it's about the choice of what to do, not just how to do it. — Daniel Hatton, Jun 27 '21 at 22:00
@DKNguyen I didn't intend to suggest that my interest in ethics stemmed from concerns over slippery slopes, although I do acknowledge the reality of such entities. I'm more concerned about how a nonchalant or blasé attitude toward ethics could in effect be misinterpreted by others, and possibly guarantee failure in all but what amount to trivial or inconsequential projects. That said, it could be that (for reasons that are not yet apparent to me) it is best to start with projects that are seemingly trivially or inconsequential, given that these might not actually be as trivial as they seem. — TLDR, Jun 27 '21 at 22:38
@DanielHatton That doesn't change that in practice things are not always so clear cut. It is really is a follow your heart kind of thing. If what you're working on really is clearly, and intentionally malicious, you're probably not in a position to know and people are actively keeping you in the dark. If you even have the luxury to dig around into every project you're working on before starting, there are probably consequences in place. Even then, it's not always so clear cut. For example, "This thing I am building is meant to kill people, but it's also meant to protect my countrymen." — DKNguyen, Jun 27 '21 at 22:38
And that's just for development of known stuff, let alone pioneering stuff where no one knows what's going to happen and there is no prior guidance. There's also the can of worms that if you're not going to do it, someone else probably will and potentially go about it in an even worse way. Does bowing out in that case absolve yourself of the matter or is it just self-serving for your conscience? Ethics is mess enough to just even talk about, let alone structures and canned learning materials that the OP wants about it. All you can really do is due diligence. — DKNguyen, Jun 27 '21 at 22:44
My naïve guess, based on environmentalist literature, was that there is a close connection between technology ethics and the scientific method. — TLDR, Jun 27 '21 at 22:45
Interesting question, if indeed the subject of opinion. Engineering incorporates elements of business decisions - after you get the technical stuff under control, those become the dominant element too. As there tends to be some meaningful money on the table, even if you have no opportunity to get at it, you will eventually see various games being played, and moral and ethical gray areas abound. There may be a token ethics seminar in engineering school but essentially it's learn on the job. IMO the flavor of random individual experiences determine what comes out as much as anything else. — Pete W, Jun 29 '21 at 01:15

score 3 · Answer 1 · answered Jun 27 '21 at 03:44

Most engineering schools will offer an upper-division class in business ethics and contract law. The course I took 45 years ago focused on case studies of what engineers in the workplace should do when their managers tell them to do something unethical, and what their legal exposure is if they do it.

The simple part was contract law because it is a well-developed field with clear rules, lots of precedents, case law, and so on.

The hard part was unethical behavior in the workplace. Examples included falsifying experimental data logs (logging tests that were never performed, logging fails as passes, tampering with test equipment to get the parts to pass, inventing ways to trick the test equipment, and then hiding these acts from other workers to escape detection).

I would recommend that you go on-line and search course offerings with titles like business ethics for engineers, etc., take note what texts are required, and then order one and study it.

Another starting point would be to study the recent VW scandal around rigging the emissions control systems in their diesel cars so they only turned on during the EPA's qualification testing, and shut themselves off during normal driving .

score 3 · Answer 2 · answered Jun 27 '21 at 14:33

If you are truly worried about this depth of ethical questions, to the level that it would keep you awake at night, the answer is simply "don't be an engineer."

The basic purpose of engineering is to "make stuff." Some of that stuff will fail, and some the failures will kill people.

Obviously, you can avoid "making stuff" that is intended to kill people by choosing your employers wisely. But anything can kill somebody, on a bad day. A small plastic kid's toy can kill someone just as "effectively" as an automatic-driving car or a rifle bullet. There aren't different "levels" of being dead.

Does that mean the engineer who designed the injection molding machine that made the plastic toy was unethical? If your personal philosophy (or your religion) says the answer is "yes", then find a different career.

NMech · Answer 3 · 2021-06-27T05:13:01.753

Is there a consistent, if potentially complex, body of literature on technological ethics that all engineers should probably read at various stages of their careers?

TL;DR: No, to my knowledge.

Related modules

Engineering courses in all institutions that I've been involved had some modules which are related to either

Engineering and its interaction with society
Introductory courses to legal aspects of engineering.

To my experience the first (Engineering and its interaction with society) is in most cases philosophical (usually in the first semesters - and it is considered as a lighter in difficulty module).

The second (legal aspects of engineering) is something more related to informing engineers about legislative aspects of their profession. (I'll add that usually mostly it has to do with business and intellectual property law). This approach (as you can imagine) is totally different that ethics.

priorities in engineering syllabus

I'll also add that I've been involved in the forming and the update of an mechanical engineering syllabus (with group in mechatronics and robotics ). At no point in the process, did the legislation (much less ethics) became a priority in the discussion.

Unfortunately (in my case) the priority was to cover as much ground efficiently, in a set number of ECTS with limited resources (of course that might be different in larger institutions although I doubt it).

Legally permissible is not the same as ethical

The title of this section says it all. This is something that I've noticed in the world, when you are starting to look at details (and not so much sometimes).

Given that both legislation - and even ethics - can change its very difficult to teach (or more correctly to educate in the case of ethics).

Effect on society

Ethics is a very important of an individual's work. More so in Engineering that things are build (from inanimate objects such as houses to medical devices and automobiles) that affect human lives in a variety of ways.

Where does the ethical responsibility rest upon?

There have been some examples of exemplary engineering (e.g. von Braun's rockets) that has been used for destroying lives. However, that is not different in a significant way that a physicist's work has been used to develop the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Sure, there were engineers that designed certain aspects, but there were also laymen that build and people that transported the bombs, or pulled the release trigger.

So this begs the question, "where does the ethical responsibly rest upon?"

In my view, each and every one of us has a responsibility for our actions. The greater, the potential for invention or contribution the greater the capacity for responsibility.

The special case of machine learning

In short this is a special case, because already the big companies have directors for AI ethics (please not that they lack directors on general ethics). This is something that people do care about, and you are probably going to get a more structured approach if you go down that road.