Design Engineer At Major Auto Company Received 2 R

A Design Engineer In A Major Automobile Company Received 2 Reports Con

A design engineer at a major automobile company encountered a series of safety concerns related to engine fires in a specific vehicle model operating under hot weather conditions. The engineer had previously identified potential issues with the carburetor and gas line construction, which could lead to gas leaks and subsequent fires under excessive heat. Despite proposing modifications that would add approximately US $5,000 per engine, the company rejected these suggestions, citing cost considerations, and advised the engineer to cease further efforts related to this issue. Standard testing protocols did not reveal any dangers at the time, leading the company to dismiss ongoing concerns.

However, subsequent reports of engine fires, including four incidents from a desert region experiencing extreme temperatures, prompted the engineer to again advocate for specialized testing under severe heat conditions and to warn the public. He recommended immediate recall of the model to prevent further accidents. The company, weighing potential financial losses estimated between US $0.5 million and US $1 million for a recall, firmly instructed the engineer to cease his warnings, threatening termination if he persisted. The engineer now faces a moral and professional dilemma: should he continue to prioritize consumer safety over loyalty to the company, which has been his employer for 15 years and where he has received multiple promotions?

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical responsibilities of engineers often come into conflict with corporate interests, especially when safety issues are involved. In this scenario, the engineer faces a critical decision that pits loyalty to his employer against his duty to public safety and professional integrity. This essay explores the ethical considerations and principles that guide such situations, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing safety, the obligations of engineers to society, and the potential consequences of neglecting ethical standards.

Engineers are bound by a professional code of ethics that emphasizes the primacy of public safety, health, and welfare. The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) and other similar bodies advocate for engineers to hold paramount the responsibility to protect society from harm, even if this conflicts with corporate interests (NSPE, 2021). In the present case, the engineer's initial identification of potential hazards was supported by his experience and knowledge, even though standard tests did not initially demonstrate danger. His persistent advocacy and concern for safety align with the ethical obligation to prevent foreseeable harm, especially when all evidence points towards a serious risk.

From a utilitarian perspective, the engineer's actions can be justified on the grounds of maximizing overall safety and minimizing harm. Although recalling a vehicle model incurs significant costs, the potential loss of life or injury from engine fires in extreme weather conditions might far exceed the financial expenses involved. Engineers have a moral duty to prevent accidents and protect consumers, prioritizing human life over short-term corporate profits (Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 2018). Conversely, ignoring such warnings for financial reasons would be ethically irresponsible and could lead to loss of life, legal repercussions, and damage to the company's reputation.

Furthermore, the engineer’s long tenure and multiple promotions within the company do not diminish his ethical responsibility to advocate for safety. Loyalty to an employer should not supersede moral duties, especially when public well-being is at stake. Ethical theories such as principle-based ethics emphasize that moral duties—like ensuring safety—are not overridden by loyalty or corporate allegiance (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). History provides numerous examples where engineers or scientists who prioritized safety over corporate pressures prevented calamities, such as the Challenger disaster or the Ford Pinto case.

However, the practical realities complicate the decision. The company’s threats to fire the engineer and dismiss his concerns reflect an organizational culture that may prioritize profits over safety. Such environments can discourage whistleblowing and perpetuate unsafe practices. Nonetheless, professional integrity requires engineers to act according to ethical standards, even at personal risk, including whistleblowing if necessary. Legal protections, such as whistleblower laws, exist to safeguard employees who report safety violations (Davis, 2020).

In this situation, the engineer’s obligation extends beyond company loyalty to include the broader responsibility of ensuring consumer safety. He must consider the potential consequences of inaction, including injuries, fatalities, and legal liabilities that could ultimately harm the company's interests far more than proactive safety measures. Ethically, the engineer should escalate his concerns through appropriate channels, such as regulatory agencies or professional organizations, if his internal warnings are dismissed. This action aligns with the ethical mandate to serve the public interest and uphold the integrity of the profession (Mohan, 2018).

In conclusion, the engineer’s loyalty to his company must be balanced against his ethical duty to protect public safety. While longstanding employment and organizational ties are significant, they do not override the fundamental responsibility to prevent harm caused by unsafe products. The engineer’s continued advocacy for safety, even in the face of threats, exemplifies the core values of engineering ethics: prioritize human welfare, act with integrity, and uphold societal trust. Ultimately, his moral obligation should motivate him to pursue every reasonable avenue to mitigate risk and ensure that safety concerns are addressed appropriately.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Davis, M. (2020). Whistleblowing and Legal Protections for Engineers. Engineering Ethics Journal, 34(2), 125-139.
• Harris, C. E., Pritchard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (2018). Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases (5th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Mohan, P. (2018). Ethical Decision-Making in Engineering Practice. Journal of Engineering Ethics, 22(4), 347-362.
• National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE). (2021). Code of Ethics for Engineers. NSPE.
• Shaw, W. H., & Barry, V. (2015). Moral Issues in Business (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Thompson, P. B. (2013). Ethical Issues in Engineering Practice. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(4), 1329-1340.
• Urbanic, R. J., & Naylor, J. (2017). Corporate Culture and Ethical Responsibility: Managing Safety and Profitability. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2), 223-236.
• Victorian Institute of Technology. (2016). Ethical dilemmas in engineering project management. VIET Online Journal, 5(1), 45-58.
• Wankhade, P., & Koli, V. (2019). The Role of Engineers in Safe Product Development. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 11(3), 245-251.