The Changing Of The Guard: Should The Engineering Ethics Code Be Changed To Environmental Ethics?

Engineers of the 21 st Century must include environmental considerations in their designs. Such additions to design thinking as sustainability and consideration of environmental impacts are worthwhile; however, to place the emphasis on such considerations may override the main focus of the basic ethics statement. A series of recent publications has urged a move to broad environmental thinking as the foundation for engineering ethics. Environmentally-based ethics arises out of “deep ecology” or “morally deep ethics” in which oneness with nature, rather than our stewardship of nature, underlies our thinking. The authors warn that such an environmentallybased ethic proves detrimental to the meaning of engineering, provides an inadequate base for an ethical system, requires a major shift in worldview, and could produce a situation which is actually harmful to human lives. Introduction Neglect of the environment in the first half of the 20 th Century led to large areas of destruction: pollution of water, air, and soil, destruction of forests, and, in some case, destruction of entire species. Catalano describes the situation in grave terms: “The world is in the midst of a period of unprecedented and disruptive change. This is particularly evident when examining the health of the world’s ecological systems. A host of human forces impinge upon coral reefs, tropical rain forests and other critical natural systems located around the world. Half the planet’s wetlands are gone.” 1 Because of the threat to the ecological system, modern engineers have come to recognize the importance of including environmental considerations in engineering decisions. Such additions as sustainability and consideration of environmental impacts are worthwhile; however, to place the emphasis on such considerations may override the focus of the basic ethics statement. A series of recent publications, including two books, 2,3 has urged a move toward broad environmental thinking as the core foundation for engineering ethics. When first considered, this change may seem to be a good idea. Any modifications of the basic ethical concepts previously established, however, including the Engineering Code of Ethics, should be examined carefully. The solution proposed by some to the destruction of our environment (a solution which attempts to link peace, justice, ending poverty, and protecting the environment) is a move toward a new ethical foundation for engineering, a foundation that is specifically rooted in the environment. The proposed new ethical system has been termed “morally deep ethics” since it is based on the concept of “deep ecology.” “Deep ecology” is an approach to ecology based upon the complete P ge 14184.2 considerations of the large environment and upon the assumption that all living creatures, plants and organisms, are treated as equals. This approach is considered “biocentric,” or nature centered. In contrast, “shallow ecology,” which is an ecology based primarily on human interaction with the environment, is termed “anthropocentric” (or human centered.) It is based upon the assumption that human beings are the most important environmental entities, and that everything should be done to meet their needs and desires above all others. The authors warn that such an environmentally based ethic has four major pitfalls, as follows: 1. It proves detrimental to the meaning of engineering. 2. It provides an inadequate base for an ethical system. 3. It requires a major shift in worldview, and 4. It could produce a situation that is actually harmful to human lives. Historical background of environmentally-based ethics Before discussing the specific impact of environmentally-based ethics on engineering, it is important to take a brief look at the events that brought us to our current situation. Serious concern for the environment over the last five decades produced both (1) a scientific examination of the issues at stake and (2) various philosophical or socio-political movements rooted in ecological concerns. The latter set includes such widely varying approaches as ecofeminism, socialist ecology, deep ecology, and animal liberation. De Laplante summarizes the issues this way:”The central themes of environmental philosophy, as the discipline is currently understood and practiced, revolve around two related but distinct sets of questions: (1) Do human beings have moral obligations to protect or preserve the natural environment? If so, what are they, and to whom, or what, are they owed? How are such obligations justified? (2) What are the root causes of contemporary attitudes and practices with respect to the natural environment, and how can we change them?” 4 De Laplante further places the movements into historical context: “The 1960s saw the rapid growth of information concerning a diverse array of environmental threats, including overpopulation and its relation to poverty and famine, the depletion of non-renewable resources, and the harmful effects to human and nonhuman welfare caused by chemical pollutants. The result was the birth of modern environmentalism, a socio-political movement predicated on the belief that current attitudes and practices toward the environment are at best imprudent, and at worst, gravely immoral, to other human beings and perhaps to nature itself. ‘Environmental philosophy’ as an academic discipline arose in the early 1970s in response to a perceived need for intellectual support and defence of the ethical and political commitments of environmentalism.” 5 Much of the philosophical controversy surrounding the environment stems from a 1967 article in Science magazine by historian Lynn White, Jr. entitled “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic P ge 14184.3 Crisis.” 6 In this article White placed the bulk of the blame for environmental problems squarely on the western Christian Church, which, he suggested, had taken the command to “subdue the earth and have dominion over it” (Bible, Genesis 1:28) as license to pillage and destroy the earth. As a result of this critique, new philosophical approaches to the environment were encouraged. White’s thinking also prompted an entirely new worldview, which will be described later in the paper. White wrote, “... somewhat over a century ago science and technology—hitherto quite separate activities--joined to give mankind powers which, to judge by many of the ecologic effects, are out of control. If so, Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt.” 7 Environmental writer Aldo Leopold introduced a new approach to ethics. Leopold suggested in his Sand County Almanac that our interaction with nature should be in terms of what he called a “land ethic,” which he defined in this way: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." 8 The specific terminology and development of deep ecology arose from the writings of Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess. Naess called his approach “deep ecology” because it dealt with the deep questions of life and survival. The eight points of the”Deep Ecology Platform” set forth its basic principles: “1. The flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth has intrinsic value. The value of non-human life forms is independent of the usefulness these may have for narrow human purposes. 2. Richness and diversity of life forms are values in themselves and contribute to the flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth. 3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs. 4. Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening. 5. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires such a decrease. 6. Significant change of life conditions for the better requires change in policies. These affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. 7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of intrinsic value) rather than adhering to a high standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great. 8. Those who subscribe to the forgoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.” 9 One website summarizes deep ecology in these terms: “Deep Ecologists emphasize that human beings are only part of the ecology of this planet, (and) believe that only by understanding our P ge 14184.4 unity with the whole of nature can we come to achieve full realization of our humanity. Deep Ecology believes that all organisms are equal: Human beings have no greater value than any other creature, for we are just ordinary citizens in the biotic community, with no more rights than amoebae or bacteria.” 10 Lawrence Johnson later combined the land ethic of Leopold with the deep ecology of Naess to formulate a system of “morally deep ethics.” Johnson develops his philosophy on the following beliefs: 1. “There is an intrinsic moral significance in wildernesses, ecosystems, species, and so forth, in addition to their significance for humans.” 11 2. “If there is a moral universe at all, it must extend beyond the human sphere.” 12 3. “Morality is not the exclusive domain of rational beings...sub-rational animals can act morally, and sometimes do so.” 13 4. “Animals, plants, ecosystems, and even species have interests, and that these interests are, to the extent of each interest, morally significant.” 14 5. The interests of animals and nature include their basic survival and freedom from suffering as experienced by each individual member. 6. Species count more than individual animals. Johnson’s guiding principle for morally deep ethics is the following: “Give due respect to all the interests of all beings that have interests, in proportion to their interests