Bioethics and the Engineer - Biomedical Ethics for Engineers - page 76

not distinguish ethics and other aspects of philosophy from physics and other underpinning sciences of
engineering. Later Descartes, Humes, and Mill tried to turn things around by attempting to place ethics
under the scientific method. Although we cannot return to such thinking completely, it may be useful
to consider our careers as engineers a bit more comprehensively as a starting point for understanding
bioethics.
The comprehensive view allows us to consider some topics not often covered in engineering texts;
concepts like good versus evil, moral versus immoral acts, and obligations versus prohibitions are
understood by most professionals at some intuitive level, but unlike our colleagues in the humanities
and social sciences, we are more likely to avoid considering them theoretically. However, reading the
classical works of Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, et al. makes the case for life being a mix of virtues and
vices available to humans. In fact, our previous discussion about active engineering sets the stage for
ethical engineering. Ethicists sometimes refer to goodness to be the result of “right action.” Virtue can
be defined as the power to do good or a habit of doing good. In fact, one of Aristotle's most memorable
lines is “Excellence is habit.” So, if we do good, we are more likely, according to Aristotle, to keep
doing good. Conversely, vice is the power and the habit of doing evil.
Truth
The subjectivity or relational nature of good and evil, however, leads to some discomfort in scientific
and engineering circles, where meanings of certainty and consistency of definition are crucial to problem
solving. Actually, this is consistent with the perspective of philosophers, especially ethicists. Scientific
facts are a crucial part of any bioethical case analysis, and so are other factors. To wit, philosophers
tell us that we can determine whether a moral argument is valid (not necessarily correct) by parsing the
argument into a “syllogism,” which consists of four parts:
1. The factual premise
2. The connecting premise (i.e., factual to evaluative)
3. The evaluative premise
4. The moral conclusion
For example, the facts may show that exposing people to a chemical at a certain dosage (e.g., one part
per million or ppm) leads to a specific form of cancer in one in every ten thousand people. We also
know that, from a public health perspective, allowing people to contract cancer as a result of some
human activity is morally wrong. Thus, the syllogism would be the following:
1. Factual premise: exposure to chemical X at 1 ppm leads to cancer
2. Connecting premise: A company is releasing 10 kg of chemical X per day which leads to
1 ppm exposure to people living near an industrial plant
3. Evaluative premise: decisions that allow industrial releases that lead to cancer are morally
wrong
4. Moral conclusion: therefore, corporate executives who decide to release 10 or more kilograms
of chemical X from their plants are morally wrong.
Science provides us with the factual premise and part of the connecting premise, but social mores and
norms provide us with the evaluative premise and drive the moral conclusion. However, if we are