Design A Bridge That Will Not Exceed One Million ✓ Solved

Design a bridge that will not exceed 1 million

Your employer asks you to design a bridge that will not exceed $1 million to build. After conducting a study, you determine the following: an ideal bridge can be built for $1.5 million, but due to design constraints, a bridge built for $1 million will collapse in a moderate earthquake. Your employer states, "if we don’t build the bridge for $1 million, then we are going to have to fire half of the staff, including you," and asks you to proceed with the project.

This scenario presents a significant ethical dilemma involving safety, professional responsibility, economic pressure, and organizational priorities. The core issue is whether to adhere to ethical standards of engineering or to follow managerial directives driven by financial and employment considerations.

Understanding the ethical obligations under the NSPE Code of Ethics

The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics underscores that engineers must hold the safety, health, and welfare of the public as paramount. Specifically, Principle 1.3 states that "Engineers shall approve only those designs that are safe and meet applicable standards." Furthermore, Rule 1.3.1 emphasizes that engineers shall "be honest and impartial and serve with fidelity the public, their employers, and clients." When safety is in question, these principles require engineers to prioritize public safety over organizational or financial pressures.

Analyzing the dilemma through ethical principles

1. Commitment to public safety

The most critical aspect of engineering ethics is ensuring public safety. Building a bridge that is known to be unsafe in a moderate earthquake violates this fundamental obligation. If the bridge were constructed for $1 million, and as the study indicates, it would collapse during a moderate earthquake, this would put lives at risk. Engineers have a professional duty to avoid knowingly endorsing unsafe designs, which could result in injury or loss of life.

2. Responsibility to uphold honesty and integrity

The NSPE emphasizes honesty in professional practice. Concealing or ignoring the safety hazards to fulfill budget constraints compromises integrity and exposes engineers to potential legal and ethical liabilities. It is essential to communicate transparently with stakeholders regarding the safety limitations of the design.

3. Avoiding the appearance of endorsing unsafe practices

Supporting a design known to be unsafe may also damage the reputation of engineering professionals and the organization. Ethical practice requires advocating for solutions that protect public welfare, even if such advocacy results in organizational or financial consequences.

Evaluating the employer’s position and potential actions

The employer's threat to dismiss staff—including the engineer—if the project isn't completed within the budget essentially pressures the engineer to compromise safety for job security and organizational profits. Such coercion conflicts with the professional obligation to prioritize safety and integrity. From an ethical standpoint, succumbing to such pressure is unacceptable; it would set a dangerous precedent, undermining the trust placed in engineers by society.

Possible courses of action

1. Communicate safety concerns explicitly

The engineer should formally communicate to decision-makers that the current budget constraints make it impossible to meet safety standards. Highlight the potential consequences of building an unsafe bridge and advocate for a revised plan or additional funding.

2. Seek support from professional associations or ethics boards

When facing undue pressure, consulting with professional organizations such as NSPE, or ethics committees, can reinforce the position that safety cannot be compromised. They can offer guidance and potentially intervene to protect public safety.

3. Document all communications and decisions

Maintaining thorough documentation of safety concerns, recommendations, and employer responses is crucial. This record can provide legal and professional protection should issues arise later.

4. Consider refusal to proceed under unsafe conditions

If the employer demands proceeding with an unsafe design, the ethically correct course is to refuse to sign off on the project and to withdraw from involvement if necessary, as per NSPE’s emphasis on safeguarding public welfare.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the engineer's primary obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics is to protect public safety and uphold honesty and integrity. Supporting a project that is known to be unsafe violates these core principles. Therefore, the appropriate course of action is to communicate the safety issues clearly, advocate for safety standards, seek support from professional bodies, document the process, and if necessary, refuse to proceed with an unsafe design. Ethical engineering practice prioritizes societal well-being over organizational or financial pressures, and adherence to these standards is essential for maintaining professional integrity and public trust.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The scenario presented involves a conflict between ethical obligations to public safety and organizational pressures to reduce costs. Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, engineers are committed to serving the public interest, prioritizing safety, health, and welfare above all else. Building a bridge that is known to fail in the event of a moderate earthquake violates the fundamental principle of ensuring safety and could result in catastrophic consequences.

Public safety is the cornerstone of ethical engineering practice. According to the NSPE Code, engineers shall "hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public" (NSPE, 2020). Building an unsafe bridge, even under economic pressure, contravenes this core responsibility. Failing to disclose or act upon the safety concerns posed by the cost constraints jeopardizes lives and credibility.

Moreover, engineers are sworn to act with honesty and integrity. Concealing safety deficiencies or acquiescing to unsafe conditions breaches professional commitments and legal standards. Transparency with stakeholders about the risks involved is essential. This includes clearly articulating why the proposed design cannot meet safety standards at the specified budget and proposing alternatives.

Employer threats to dismiss staff if safety concerns are raised constitute coercion, which is ethically unacceptable. The NSPE emphasizes that engineers must "avoid deceptive acts" and "reject bribery or concealed interests" (NSPE, 2020). Yielding to such threats undermines the engineer’s integrity and public trust. Ethical practice dictates that engineers must refuse to endorse unsafe designs, regardless of organizational pressures.

When confronted with such dilemmas, engineers should adopt a proactive approach. First, they should formally communicate the safety risks and the implications of proceeding with the project. Second, seeking support from professional associations like NSPE or consulting an ethics board can bolster their position. Third, detailed documentation of all communications and concerns serves as a legal safeguard.

If the employer persists in demanding unsafe work despite warnings, the engineer’s ethical obligation may necessitate refusal to proceed with the project. Abandoning involvement in unsafe practices aligns with the profession’s standards for safeguarding public welfare. It also reinforces the importance of ethical integrity over job security or organizational profits.

In essence, ethical engineering practice requires prioritizing public safety above all else. Engineers have a responsibility to advocate for safety standards, communicate risks transparently, and refuse to compromise on core ethical principles. This stance safeguards public trust, professional integrity, and the fundamental mission of engineering—to serve society responsibly.

References

• NSPE. (2020). NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers. National Society of Professional Engineers.
• Harrison, R., & Jaccard, M. (2018). Ethical dilemmas in engineering practice. Journal of Engineering Ethics, 12(3), 123-135.
• Martin, M. (2019). Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases. Oxford University Press.
• Ferguson, R. (2021). Public safety and professional responsibility in engineering. Safety Science, 138, 105236.
• Schinzinger, R., &ann G. A. (2017). Ethics in Engineering (5th Ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Becker, L. C. (2022). Ethics and professionalism in engineering. Engineering Management Review, 33(4), 52-63.
• Ethics Resource Center. (2019). Ethical decision-making in engineering.
• Harris, C. E., Pritchard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (2018). Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Cengage Learning.
• Hoffman, M. (2020). The role of ethics in engineering practice. Journal of Engineering Social Responsibility, 4(1), 45-60.
• Baker, S. E. (2021). Navigating ethical dilemmas in engineering projects. Professional Engineer, 33(7), 22-29.