Ethics chpt 9

EXAM QUESTION

Q.Which of the following are Ethical Theories studied in the literature:

a. Locke’s Rights, a correct choice is one that doesn’t infringe on anyone’s basic rights.
b. Mike’s Formalism, a correct choice is one in which each person follows an ethical route
c. Big Daddy’s Duty Ethics, a correct choice is one in which each person follows an ethical route.
d. Mill’s Utilitarianism, a correct choice is one that provides the least benefit to most of the people.
 

ANSWER: The correct answer is Locke’s Rights, a. Some may believe that Mill’s is correct; however, the statement is wrong and should be the “max benefit to most of the people”. Also answers b and c have incorrect names associated with them.

 RED HOT EXAM TIP: Often times it is best to start by eliminating answers - a good technique to have in your arsenal.

Explanation: Here are the evaluations of each option:

a. Locke’s Rights

✔ Yes — This is a real ethical theory.
John Locke is known for Rights Theory, where ethical choices must not infringe on basic human rights (life, liberty, property).
The description is mostly correct.

---

b. Mike’s Formalism

✘ No — Not a real ethical theory.
There is Kant’s Formalism (or Kantian Duty Ethics), but “Mike’s Formalism” is not studied in ethics.

---

c. Big Daddy’s Duty Ethics

✘ No — Not a real ethical theory.
There is Duty Ethics—mainly associated with Immanuel Kant—but “Big Daddy’s Duty Ethics” is not an academic term.

---

d. Mill’s Utilitarianism

✘ No  — This is a real ethical theory.
John Stuart Mill is a major figure in Utilitarianism.
But the description in the question is incorrect:
Utilitarianism aims for the greatest good (benefit) for the greatest number, not the least benefit.

ANSWER: The correct answer is Locke’s Rights, a. Some may believe that Mill’s is correct; however, the statement is wrong and should be the “max benefit to most of the people”.

Final Answer

The ethical theories actually studied in the literature are:
✅ a. Locke’s Rights

F-13: Low Bid on Feasibility Study

Statement of the Case: Engineer A was one of several consultants asked to submit proposals for

a feasibility study for a deep-water bulk-loading facility on the client’s site. To increase the

chances of getting the assignment, Engineer A submitted a proposal with a very low fee, which

was about half the realistic fee for the work. The reasoning behind the low fee was that the

consultant who got the feasibility study would be better placed to win the subsequent—and far more lucrative—design competition (providing, of course, that the client decided to go ahead

with the proposed facility).

Engineer A won the contract for the feasibility study and found that the study required far more

time and expense than originally envisioned. The contract payments covered only about 40

percent of the actual costs. However, the most depressing part was that Engineer A’s study

revealed that

 soil conditions would require very deep piles to support the massive quay-side equipment;

 railway links and highway connections were far from the site;

 the harbour did not have enough depth for bulk carriers without dredging; and

 prevailing winds and wave action would cause constant problems for ships waiting to moor.

In other words, it really was not economically feasible to construct the bulk-loading facility on

the site, and Engineer A’s final report explained this fact. Engineer A had spent several months

on a project that had cost money to complete.

----------------------------------------------

Feasible: “Feasible” means something is possible and practical to do, given the available conditions.

---

Simple definition

Feasible = doable in reality, not just in theory

---

In engineering context

A solution is feasible if it:

• Can be built or implemented

• Meets technical requirements

• Is within budget and time constraints

• Complies with regulations

---

Examples

✔️ Feasible

• A drainage system that:

  • Fits the site conditions

  • Meets design standards

  • Can be constructed with available materials

👉 Practical and achievable

---

❌ Not feasible

• A design that:

  • Requires unavailable technology

  • Costs far beyond the budget

  • Violates site constraints (e.g., no infiltration allowed)

👉 Theoretically possible, but not realistic

---

In plain terms

“Feasible” means you can actually make it happen in the real world.

---

Common engineering usage

• Technically feasible → works from an engineering standpoint

• Economically feasible → affordable

• Operationally feasible → can function in practice

---

Quick exam tip

If you see:

• “Not feasible” → think constraints prevent implementation

• “Feasible alternative” → think practical solution within limits

Question: Was Engineer A’s behaviour ethical?

Authors’ Comments: This practice is unethical. The submission of low bids, in hopes of

landing a bigger contract later, should be strongly discouraged. The main reason is that this

gamble affects the engineer’s judgment of the feasibility of the project. In other words, the

engineer has an interest in seeing that the project is feasible; otherwise, no second contract will

occur. This clearly creates a conflict of interest. In fact, to avoid biased conclusions in a

feasibility study, clients often require that the successful consultant for a feasibility study be

excluded as a consultant for the subsequent project.

Moreover, low bidding is a poor business decision: the professional engineer is gambling on two

events: 

• that the project will be feasible, and 
• that the engineer will win the design contract. 

If either event does not occur, the engineer suffers a financial loss, since the costs and profit for the

feasibility study cannot be recovered from the later work. 

Every Code of Ethics requires professional engineers and geoscientists to insist on appropriate and adequate compensation for their work.

Explain: Every Code of Ethics requires professional engineers and geoscientists to insist on appropriate and adequate compensation for their work.

This statement is about professional responsibility—not greed or profit. It’s often misunderstood, so let’s clarify it properly.

---

Core meaning

Engineers are ethically required to ensure they are paid fairly and adequately for their professional work.

---

Why this is an ethical requirement

Codes of ethics (e.g., Professional Engineers Ontario and similar regulators) include this because:

1) Protects quality of work

If an engineer accepts too little compensation:

• They may not have enough time/resources

• This can lead to cut corners, rushed analysis, or errors

👉 That can compromise public safety

---

2) Maintains professional standards

Underpricing services can:

• Undermine the profession

• Create a “race to the bottom”

👉 Ethical duty = uphold dignity and value of the profession

---

3) Prevents conflicts and pressure

If compensation is inadequate:

• Engineers may feel pressure to:

  • Approve unsafe work

  • Skip proper review

  • Please clients to secure future work

👉 Fair compensation supports independent judgment

---

4) Reflects responsibility and liability

Engineers:

• Take on legal liability

• Make decisions affecting public safety

👉 Compensation should reflect that level of responsibility

---

What “appropriate and adequate” means

• Not excessive or exploitative

• Not underpaid or unsustainable

• Reasonable for the scope, risk, and effort

---

Example

❌ Unethical situation

An engineer agrees to design a complex stormwater system for a very low fee:

• No time for proper modeling

• No peer review

👉 Risk to public → ethical issue

---

✔️ Ethical situation

Engineer negotiates a fee that:

• Covers proper analysis

• Allows time for review and compliance

👉 Protects both client and public

---

In plain terms

Engineers must charge enough to do the job properly, safely, and professionally.

---

Important exam insight (NPPE)

If you see:

• “Low fee” + “complex work”
  👉 Think: Risk to quality → ethical concern

If you see:

• “Engineer insisted on fair compensation”
  👉 Usually correct ethical behavior

---

Bottom line

This rule exists because:

Good engineering requires adequate resources—and inadequate fees can lead to unsafe outcomes.

F-1: Toxic Spill

Statement of the Case: Engineer A was Chief Engineer of a plant that processed raw ore. The

refining process involved several dangerous chemicals, which were re-captured and recirculated;

however, careful operation was essential to prevent these chemicals from escaping

into the wastewater. Engineer A worked alongside the Operations Manager, and both of them

reported to the Plant Director. Engineer A was responsible for technical matters, such as design,

maintenance, and safety. The Operations Manager was responsible for hiring, scheduling, and

meeting production targets. Both the Operations Manager and the Plant Director were older than

Engineer A, but neither was a Professional Engineer nor a Professional Geoscientist.

During the first few months on the job, Engineer A reviewed, updated, and improved the plant

Operating Manual prepared by the previous Chief Engineer. Engineer A ensured that copies of

the manual were available to the plant operating staff and personally conducted several training

sessions for key operating staff. In spite of these efforts, however, Engineer A observed many

infractions of the Operating Manual throughout the plant, and he could see that the toxic

chemicals were possibly escaping into the wastewater. Engineer A considered this lax attitude

toward safety to be very risky. Tests of the wastewater effluent showed wide variations of the

escaping chemicals, with concentrations that occasionally reached the legal limits. On several

occasions, Engineer A initiated disciplinary measures against operating staff, but these were

dealt with lightly by the Operations Manager, for whom the staff worked. Engineer A eventually

came to understand that the Operations Manager put production ahead of safety and was casual

about enforcing the safety provisions in the Operating Manual.

Finally, Engineer A warned the Operations Manager about these unsafe practices in writing and

demanded that infractions be disciplined more severely. As a last resort, Engineer A went

directly to the Plant Director and explained the problem, but the Director simply said, “Work it

out among yourselves.”

Question: If you were Engineer A, what would you do at this point?

Outcome: Engineer A was unhappy with this lack of leadership, but felt that he had reported the

problem up the “chain of command” so the problem was no longer his responsibility. A few

weeks later, while the plant was operating at maximum capacity, local news media carried

reports of a devastating fish-kill in a neighbouring creek and poisoned birds in a downstream

marsh. An investigation, carried out by scientists from a government ministry, placed the blame

clearly on the lax operating procedures in the plant. The ministry charged the company and

Engineer A with violations of environmental regulations. A rancher, who had to pipe safe water

to his livestock, sued the company and Engineer A for damages. A lengthy series of legal and

disciplinary actions followed.

Authors’ Comments: Obviously, Engineer A tried to do a good job by updating and distributing

the Operating Manual, by educating staff, and by informing the Operations Manager and the

Plant Director of hazards. However, when they failed to respond adequately, the responsibility

then fell back on the engineer, as the only technically competent professional, to insist that the

plant personnel follow adequate safety measures. In a difficult situation such as this, Engineer A should have informed the Plant Director that unsafe practices were unacceptable, and if the Plant
Director refused to co-operate, Engineer A should have consulted the Association for guidance.
If a solution still could not be found, Engineer A should have reported the unsafe practices to the
appropriate ministry.
When senior management refuses to act on clear dangers to the public or to the environment,
professionals cannot defend themselves by saying they were “only following orders.” As
professionals, engineers and geoscientists are usually the ultimate authority in the industrial
workplace and must insist on protecting the environment and the public when, in their
professional opinions, hazards are likely to cause injury or damage. Failure to do so can lead to
disciplinary action; every Code of Ethics requires the practitioner to put public safety first.

F-2: Mine Safety

Statement of the Case: Engineer A, the Chief Engineer for a long-established mine, engaged

Geoscientist B to study the mine operations and to devise more efficient methods for extracting

ore from the old mine. During a site inspection, the geoscientist travelled down the shaft into the

drifts (tunnels) which led to the ore face. During this detailed tour of the mine, Geoscientist B

observed many infractions of safety provisions: methane detectors were missing from the deepest

parts of the mine; ventilation was poor in many areas of the mine; shoring was old and appeared

to be deteriorating; thick dust covered equipment and could have been a source of dangerous

dust explosions. Although Geoscientist B had not been hired to examine mine safety, the

geoscientist nevertheless mentioned these concerns to Engineer A, who agreed that safety was a

major worry. Engineer A explained that several proposals for safety improvements had been

made over the years, but the senior mine management had rejected them, citing the marginal

profitability of the mine and the fact that costly changes could cause the mine to close.

Question: If you were Engineer A or Geoscientist B, what would you do at this point?

Outcome: Geoscientist B stated that a professional should not condone such unsafe practices by

ignoring them and suggested that a combined, direct warning to the mine management might be

more convincing than the engineer’s previous safety proposals. Engineer A agreed, and they

made up a list of the most essential safety measures. The warning on mine safety was prepared as

a chapter in the geoscientist’s report on ore extraction. Engineer A and Geoscientist B cited the

Westray mine disaster, which killed 26 miners, and they quoted sections from the Westray

inquiry, showing similarities with the Westray practices. They also explained that the possibility

of injury or death because of the dangerous mine conditions was a far more serious financial risk

than the potential of mine closure.

Geoscientist B presented the report to senior management, and Engineer A supported the safety

warning and emphasized that safety measures need to be taken whether the mine’s productivity

justified them or not. After a brief discussion of the report, the senior management agreed to all

of the proposed safety measures, saying that they simply had been unaware of the seriousness of

the situation.

Authors’ Comments: This example is typical of many cases where the initiative of Professional
Engineers and Professional Geoscientists, and their commitment to the public welfare, as stated
in the Code of Ethics, has resulted in safer and more productive workplaces.

[Infraction- a violation or infringement of a law or agreement.

Ore - a natural aggregation of one or more minerals that can be mined, processed, and sold at a profit.]

F-3: Sliding Retaining Wall

 Statement of the Case: Engineer A had several years’ experience in the design of water and
sewer systems and municipal streets, but had no experience in the design of retaining walls. A
client, who was building a large lake-view house on the lower slopes of a hill, asked Engineer A
to design a retaining wall 3 m high and 50 m long to provide a flat lawn area in front of the
house. Engineer A accepted the assignment, even though he had never designed a retaining wall
before. His university education, some 20 years earlier, had touched briefly on the topic of
retaining wall design, so Engineer A consulted the concrete design textbook used in that course
and took dimensions, bar size, and spacing from a diagram in the textbook. He then produced

drawings and specifications for the client, who hired a contractor to build the wall.

Question: Was this effort adequate for a professional engineer?

Outcome: Soon after construction, the wall’s foundation failed by sliding. In the investigation
that followed, it was revealed that Engineer A had performed no foundation investigation. At the
very least, he should have drilled a few hand-auger holes and performed soil classification to
estimate bearing resistance, compressibility, and so on. He made no checks for sliding and made
no provision in the design to resist sliding. He did not consult any current codes, but simply
copied the old textbook design. Moreover, the textbook diagram illustrated structural aspects
only, not foundation details, and the textbook stated this fact. The client launched a successful
lawsuit. Engineer A was also disciplined under the provincial professional engineering Act.

Authors’ Comments: Competence is the result of education and experience. Although Engineer A was competent in his established field, he was not competent in the area for which his client

was paying, and while he made a minimal attempt to learn about the topic, his knowledge was

superficial. An engineer or geoscientist need not be an expert in every phase of a proposed

project before accepting it; however, a professional must be sufficiently familiar with the subject

to know that he or she can become competent through study or research in a reasonable period of

time, or that a colleague or consultant can be hired, without delaying the project, at reasonable

expense. The key point is that the professional’s lack of competence must not put the client’s

project at risk.

F-5: Study of Forest Road-Building

 Statement of the Case: Engineer A, an experienced civil engineer, was engaged by an

environmental advocacy organization to provide a report on past road-building practice by a

major forest company, in a forested area where cutting ceased in the late 1970s. He found many

examples of road-building practice that, over the past 25 years, had led to serious erosion.

Engineer A photographed and described these obsolete practices in his report, to illustrate what

damage they can cause and why they must be avoided. The environmental advocacy organization

used the report in a submission to government, urging tighter enforcement of road-building

regulations.

Engineer A then wrote an article for a national magazine in which he castigated the government

and the forest company and called on readers to mount a “write-in” campaign. He also implied

that the forest company might still be using these poor road-building practices. Engineer A later

stated that he believed that this “hard-hitting” approach would help to get the article published.

In the magazine article, Engineer A acknowledged the assistance he received from the logging superintendent of the forest company, but did not mention that the environmental advocacy

organization had financed his study.

A reporter on a local weekly newspaper read the magazine article and wrote a “rehash” of the

article. That is, the reporter wrote a newspaper story, based on the article, but implying that the

story was the result of a personal interview—a questionable journalistic practice. In the

newspaper story, the facts were simplified and made even a little more “hard-hitting.” The

reporter pretended to quote Engineer A as saying that the forest company’s unacceptable roadbuilding

practice was “still widespread throughout the province.” Before publication, the reporter

phoned Engineer A, to justify the claim that the story was an interview. The reporter explained

that she had written the story from the magazine article, but it was too long to read over the

telephone. She gave a rough verbal outline. Engineer A said he was satisfied with the story,

which then appeared in the next issue of the newspaper.

The forest company, after reading the magazine article and the newspaper story, felt that they cooperated

with a constructive attempt to study and improve road-building practices, but they had,

instead, been misled and defamed. They complained to the provincial Association and asked the

Association to discipline Engineer A.

Question: Should Engineer A be disciplined? If so, on what basis?

Outcome: The Association investigated and charged Engineer A with unprofessional conduct on the basis that he had expressed an opinion on a professional subject not founded upon “adequate

knowledge and honest conviction.” This is contrary to the provincial Association’s Code of

Ethics. In a disciplinary hearing, Engineer A was found guilty of unprofessional conduct and

given a reprimand.

Authors’ Comments: Clearly, the actions of Engineer A were less than professional.

His first

report, funded by the environmental advocacy organization, was an objective study of roadbuilding

practices; however, he was later guilty of three unprofessional acts:

First, in the magazine article, he negligently (or deliberately) stated that the poor roadbuilding

methods he had observed were still in use by the forest company—a professional

opinion not founded upon “adequate knowledge and honest conviction.”

 Second, in the magazine article, Engineer A acknowledged the assistance of the logging

superintendent, but omitted to say that the environmental organization provided the funding.

This omission could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to conceal a potential bias.

 Finally, he permitted the newspaper reporter to produce an inaccurate story. He should have

insisted on more than just a telephone interview; in fact, since the reporter had already

written the story, Engineer A should have insisted on reading it (easily sent by fax or

Internet). Although professional journalists hate delays, they usually want to get the facts

correct.

Engineer A’s actions showed a disregard for the damage (or potential damage) that his public

pronouncements might have caused to the forest company, and he failed to mitigate the damage

by retracting or correcting erroneous statements.

[Note: Explain: In the magazine article, Engineer A acknowledged the assistance of the logging

superintendent, but omitted to say that the environmental organization provided the funding.

This omission could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to conceal a potential bias.

The paragraph is pointing out a potential ethical concern about incomplete disclosure.

Here’s the breakdown:

• Engineer A did acknowledge one contributor (the logging superintendent), which shows some level of transparency.

• However, Engineer A did not disclose that an environmental organization funded the work.

• Funding sources are important because they can influence (or appear to influence) the conclusions or tone of an article.

Why this matters:

• If readers knew the environmental organization funded the work, they might interpret the article differently (e.g., suspecting bias toward environmental protection).

• By omitting that funding source, Engineer A may appear to be hiding a conflict of interest.

Key idea:

Even if the work itself is technically sound, failing to disclose relevant financial support can undermine credibility.

In simple terms:

The paragraph is saying:

Engineer A mentioned some help, but left out who paid for the work—and that makes it look like they might be hiding bias.

Ethical principle involved:

This relates to transparency and conflict of interest disclosure, which are core obligations in engineering ethics (e.g., under Professional Engineers Ontario or similar bodies).]

F-4: Concrete Bridge Design

 Statement of the Case: Engineer A, who recently moved to British Columbia from Ontario,

learned from a classmate at a reunion that a mining company needed a design for a bridge over a

creek, near a mine in the mountains. Engineer A had designed a single-lane timber logging

bridge over a creek in northwestern Ontario but had no other bridge experience. He approached

the mining company, stated that he had extensive experience in bridge engineering, and

eventually received the contract for the design. The site was at the base of a steep slope, and the creek was full of rocky debris. No flow records were available for the creek, so Engineer A

determined the span and clearance based on the creek’s high-water marks. He felt that the site

was adequate and did not arrange for geotechnical investigation or advice. He designed a

standard concrete box-girder bridge with a 15 m span and pile-driven abutments. A building

contract was also hired. The contractor was familiar with mine construction and mechanical

plants, but had no experience in bridges. Nevertheless, the construction went smoothly. The

bridge served well for five years, but a debris torrent during a particularly rainy winter season

destroyed the bridge in the sixth year.

Question: Did Engineer A act ethically in this project?

Outcome: The mining company regretted the loss of an expensive bridge, particularly because

the loss interrupted mine operations for months. The company hired an experienced bridge

engineer as a consultant to investigate the reasons for the bridge failure. The consultant noted the

debris in the creek and concluded that it was likely deposited by torrents. This design constraint

should have been satisfied by relocating the bridge site, providing a debris basin, increasing the

vertical clearance, and/or by altering the design in other ways. The mining company complained

to the Association, seeking disciplinary action against Engineer A.

Authors’ Comments: Engineer A clearly misrepresented his qualifications to his client. He had,

in fact, minimal bridge experience, and none of that was in the mountains. In this way, he was

not acting in good faith with the client, as required by the Code of Ethics. 

A more serious error, however, is that he did not have adequate knowledge of the type of structure he undertook to design (a key principle in almost every Code of Ethics), and he failed to seek help and guidance to protect the interests of the client. 

An engineer or geoscientist need not be an expert in every phase of a proposed project before accepting it, but must become competent through study or

research, in a reasonable time. 

Alternatively, a consultant can provide advice. The client’s project must not be put at risk because of the engineer’s lack of knowledge. In this case, Engineer A should simply have engaged a consultant to provide geotechnical advice.