Search for: All records

Ethics is crucial to engineering, although disagreement exists concerning the form engineering ethics education should take. In part, this results from disagreements about the goal of this education, which inhibit the development of and progress in cohesive research agendas and practices. In this regard, engineering ethics faces challenges like other professional ethics. To address these issues, this paper argues that the ultimate goal of engineering ethics education should be more long-term ethical behaviors, but that engineering ethics must more fully engage with the fields of empirical moral and cultural psychology to do so. It begins by considering reasons for adopting ethical behaviors as the ultimate goal of ethics education, and moves on to discuss why ethical behaviors have not been adopted as the goal of ethics education. The paper ends by considering responses to these problems, why ethical behaviors should still be adopted as the ultimate goal of ethics education. 

The article argues that mainstream value-sensitive approaches to design have been based on narrow understandings of personhood and social dynamics, which are biased toward Western Educated Industrialized Rich and Democratic cultures and contradicted by empirical evidence. To respond to this weakness, the article suggests that design may benefit from focusing on user behaviours from the joint perspective of values and norms, especially across cultural contexts. As such, it proposes Norm Sensitive Design as a complement to value-sensitive approaches when designing and implementing new technologies. Versus values, norms serve as more accurate predictors or descriptors of behaviours and can thus support valuesensitive approaches to realize the aspiration of informing user behaviour via design. The article makes two key contributions. On the theoretical side, it promotes the consideration of norms in design. On the practical side, it offers designers and instructors prompts for reflecting on design ethics from the perspective of norms. 

Even though engineering programs, accreditation bodies, and multinational corporations have become increasingly interested in introducing global dimensions into professional engineering practice, little work in the existing literature provides an overview of questions fundamental to global engineering ethics, such as what global engineering ethics is, why it should be taught, how it should be taught, and when it should be introduced. This paper describes the what, why, how, and when of global engineering ethics – a form adopted from a 1996 article by Charles Harris, Michael Davis, Michael Pritchard, and Michael Rabins, which has influenced the development of engineering ethics for over twenty-five years. First, this paper describes global engineering ethics as a response to the increasingly cross-cultural, international characteristics of contemporary engineering, as well as four fundamental approaches to conceive and deliver this training (what). Next, it explains the motivations for global engineering ethics: Neither educators nor practitioners can necessarily assume a shared nationality or culture among students or between coworkers (why). Third, this paper discusses how global engineering ethics should be taught: One of the most prevalent approaches uses case studies with a cross-cultural and/or international dimension (how). Finally, it identifies spots within curricula for global engineering ethics: standalone courses, integrated modules, micro-insertions, competence-based training scenarios, and extracurricular activities (when). As the world becomes ever more cross-cultural and international, training in global ethics will be essential for both students and practicing engineers. 

Abstract Designing social media technologies to promote digital well-being requires designers to face many challenges. In this article, we explore one under-explored challenge, relating to how conceptions of what it means to flourish online show significant cultural variation. We believe that today’s design-based approaches to digital well-being are hobbled by a lack of ethical attention towards important cultural variations. To remedy this, we explore the potential for an intercultural approach to digital well-being, one that respects cultural differences while preserving what culturally distinct conceptions of human flourishing have in common. 

The purpose of this paper is to discuss problems related to value-sensitive design frameworks, especially in cross-cultural and international environments, and why “norm-sensitive design” would be a better alternative. To do so, this paper is divided into three parts. First, it begins by discussing the nature of value-sensitive design and why it might appear to be fruitfully applied to global contexts. Next, this paper moves on to explain problems with this move – in other words, problems related to value-sensitive design, especially from international and cross-cultural perspectives. Finally, it finishes by describing norm-sensitive design, what is meant by this term and why it would be better than value-sensitive design. The account here is not meant to be either exhaustive or definitive but exploratory, raising questions and encourage debates within this space, bringing different disciplinary perspectives to the discussion 

This paper describes some first-year results of a five-year project funded by the NSF’s ER2 program. The project explores how culture and education affect the ethical reasoning and moral intuitions of engineering students. This paper describes the project and is divided in two parts. First, it begins by describing some background about this project. Second, the paper presents some first-year results.