Captain Davis Code Of Ethics
Analysis on a “Code of Ethics”
A code of ethics is a set of written or unwritten rules that are established and followed by a formed establishment. Different professions have varying codes of ethics based of their relationship with the public and how their line of work could have direct consequences on the said “public”, whose very definition is up for debate. Why is a code of ethics put into place if people are expected to always do the right thing considering they are rational and moral people capable of making life altering decisions?
Davis’ first argument to defend the lethal decision of Lund is that Lund was not trained to think like a manager. His background was in engineering. He then goes on the state that Engineers are typically
in charge of things, while managers are in charge of people. In essence, he states that Lund was ill prepared to make a decision of that magnitude without proper training in management. But why is there even a difference in a code of ethics between professions? Why are people not expected to be ethical as a whole population? Davis then begins to talk about the process by which an occupation or a collaboration of workers becomes a profession. Then, once the occupation becomes a profession, they (out of conventionality) establish a code of ethics that is mutually agreed upon, meaning that engineers as a whole should be ethical people. Davis then argues that following a code of ethics is supposedly rational, thus, Lund being a rational person should prevent him from being an exception to the rules. Although he was asked to think like a manager, he is still an engineer. A code of ethics is necessary in order to be a guiding hand into the morally right direction.
Another argument that Davis makes to defend Lund’s blatant ignorance of a code of ethics is that the code of ethics itself is entirely up for interpretation. One canon that is pointed out is that engineers should “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public”. This is relevant in that the word public could include or neglect anyone, which would mean that Lund was still following a code of ethics. Davis states that the astronauts are not a part of the public because they are paid an exceptionally large income to be fully aware of the risks they are taking. Thus, they are not innocent bystanders because they have previous knowledge of the dangers that may lie in their immediate future. However, he also states that being directly unaware of the possibly defective O-ring makes them innocent and therefore in the branch of “public” by another definition. The Challenger explosion that occurred in 1986 was the direct result of Robert Lund’s inability to merge an engineering code of ethics with his own personal morals. To protect himself from shame and scalding, he obliviously neglected the engineering code of ethics. When asked to think like a manager, why wasn’t his conscience and responsibility as an engineer to “put safety first” enough to prevent the loss of seven lives? Lund’s conscience weighed his job and the reputation of Thiokol over the lives of seven astronauts because a code of ethics was physically absent. Although he initially felt that the launch should be postponed and had scientific data to justify his feelings, he was pressured into a decision without reflecting upon the engineering code of ethics. Conscience was not enough to save the astronauts lives, but if Lund had gazed over a code of ethics, his immediate reaction would have most likely been to ignore the advice of Mason, and make an ethical decision for the safety and welfare of the public.
A code of ethics is a set of written or unwritten rules that are established and followed by a formed establishment. Different professions have varying codes of ethics based of their relationship with the public and how their line of work could have direct consequences on the said “public”, whose very definition is up for debate. Why is a code of ethics put into place if people are expected to always do the right thing considering they are rational and moral people capable of making life altering decisions?
Davis’ first argument to defend the lethal decision of Lund is that Lund was not trained to think like a manager. His background was in engineering. He then goes on the state that Engineers are typically
in charge of things, while managers are in charge of people. In essence, he states that Lund was ill prepared to make a decision of that magnitude without proper training in management. But why is there even a difference in a code of ethics between professions? Why are people not expected to be ethical as a whole population? Davis then begins to talk about the process by which an occupation or a collaboration of workers becomes a profession. Then, once the occupation becomes a profession, they (out of conventionality) establish a code of ethics that is mutually agreed upon, meaning that engineers as a whole should be ethical people. Davis then argues that following a code of ethics is supposedly rational, thus, Lund being a rational person should prevent him from being an exception to the rules. Although he was asked to think like a manager, he is still an engineer. A code of ethics is necessary in order to be a guiding hand into the morally right direction.
Another argument that Davis makes to defend Lund’s blatant ignorance of a code of ethics is that the code of ethics itself is entirely up for interpretation. One canon that is pointed out is that engineers should “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public”. This is relevant in that the word public could include or neglect anyone, which would mean that Lund was still following a code of ethics. Davis states that the astronauts are not a part of the public because they are paid an exceptionally large income to be fully aware of the risks they are taking. Thus, they are not innocent bystanders because they have previous knowledge of the dangers that may lie in their immediate future. However, he also states that being directly unaware of the possibly defective O-ring makes them innocent and therefore in the branch of “public” by another definition. The Challenger explosion that occurred in 1986 was the direct result of Robert Lund’s inability to merge an engineering code of ethics with his own personal morals. To protect himself from shame and scalding, he obliviously neglected the engineering code of ethics. When asked to think like a manager, why wasn’t his conscience and responsibility as an engineer to “put safety first” enough to prevent the loss of seven lives? Lund’s conscience weighed his job and the reputation of Thiokol over the lives of seven astronauts because a code of ethics was physically absent. Although he initially felt that the launch should be postponed and had scientific data to justify his feelings, he was pressured into a decision without reflecting upon the engineering code of ethics. Conscience was not enough to save the astronauts lives, but if Lund had gazed over a code of ethics, his immediate reaction would have most likely been to ignore the advice of Mason, and make an ethical decision for the safety and welfare of the public.