Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
and Rest,
55
who noted that moral action is a complex
process entailing four components: moral awareness (or
sensitivity), moral judgment, moral motivation, and
moral character. The actor must first be aware that the
situation is moral in nature; that is, at least that the ac-
tions considered would have consequences for others.
Second, the actor must have the ability to judge which of
the potential actions would yield the best outcome,
giving consideration to those likely to be affected. Third,
the actor must be motivated to prioritize moral values
above other sorts of values, such as wealth or power.
Fourth, the actor must have the strength of character to
follow through on a decision to act morally.
Piaget, Kohlberg, and others (e.g., Duska)
56
have
noted that the two most important factors in de-
termining a person's likelihood of behaving morally are
age and education; that is, of being morally aware,
making moral judgments, prioritizing moral values, and
following through on moral decisions. These are strong
indicators of experience
57
and seem to be particularly
critical regarding moral judgment: A person's ability to
make moral judgments tends to increase with maturity
as they pursue further education, generally reaching its
final and highest stage of development in early adult-
hood. This theory of moral development is illustrated in
Table 8.1-2
.
Kohlberg insisted that these steps are progressive. He
noted that in the two earliest stages of moral de-
velopment, which he combined under the heading
''preconventional level,'' a person is primarily motivated
by the desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain. The
''conventional level'' consists of stages three and four: in
stage three, the consequences that actions have for peers
and their feelings about these actions; in stage four,
considering how the wider community will view the
The Gert model is good news for engineering bioethics.
Numerous ethical theories can form the basis for engi-
neering ethics and moral judgment. Immanuel Kant is
known for defining ethics as a sense of duty. Thomas
Hobbes presented ethics within the framework of a social
contract, with elements reminiscent of Gert's common
morality. John Stuart Mill considered ethics with regard
to the goodness of action or decision as the basis for util-
itarianism. Philosophers and ethicists spend much effort
and energy deciphering these and other theories as para-
digms for ethical decision making. Engineers can learn
much from these points of view, but in large measure,
engineering ethics is an amalgam of various elements of
many theories. As evidence, the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
51
has succinctly bracketed
ethical behavior into three models:
Malpractice, or Minimalist, Model -
In some ways this
is really not an ethical model in that the engineer is only
acting in ways that are required to keep his or her license
or professional membership. As such, it is more of a le-
galistic model. The engineer operating within this
framework is concerned exclusively with adhering to
standards and meeting requirements of the profession
and any other applicable rules, laws, or codes. This is
often a retroactive or backward-looking model, finding
fault after failures, problems, or accidents happen. Any
ethical breach is assigned based upon design, building,
operation, or other engineering steps that have failed
to meet recognized professional standards. This is
a common approach in failure engineering and in ethical
review board considerations. It is also the basis of nu-
merous engineering case studies.
Reasonable Care, or Due Care, Model -
This model
goes a step further than the minimalist model, calling
upon the engineer to take reasonable precautions and to
provide care in the practice of the profession. In-
terestingly, every major philosophical theory of ethics
includes such a provision, such as the harm principle in
utilitarianism, the veil of ignorance in social contract
ethics, and the categorical imperative in duty ethics. It
also applies a legal mechanism, known as the reasonable
person standard. Right or wrong is determined by
whether the engineer's action would be seen as ethical or
unethical according to a ''standard of reasonableness as
seen by a normal, prudent nonprofessional.''
52
Good Works Model
- A truly ethical model goes
beyond abiding by the law or preventing harm. An ethical
engineer excels beyond the standards and codes and does
the right thing to improve product safety, public health,
or social welfare. An analytical tool related to this model
is the net goodness model, which estimates the goodness
or wrongness of an action by weighing its morality, like-
lihood, and importance.
This model is rooted in the moral development the-
ories such as those expounded by Kohlberg,
53
Table 8.1-2 Kohlberg's stages of moral development
Preconventional level
1.
Punishment-obedience
orientation
2. Personal reward orientation
Conventional level
3. ''Good boy'' - ''nice girl''
orientation
4. Law and order orientation
Postconventional level
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principle
orientation
Source: L. Kohlberg, 1981 The Philosophy of Moral Development (Vol. 1), Harper
& Row, San Francisco, CA.
Piaget,
54
