IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Winter 2014 - 47

always threatens to possess the
engineering worldview [17].
Codes are also inherently conservative constructs that embody and
extend the values of their creators.
The code's mandates - which
are the mandates of the code's
framers - persist over time as a
relatively stable and wide-ranging
form of influence [11]. Changing
codes is not a simple task. Even if

self-development, and recognizes
that socio-ethical engagement is
an ongoing, constant process. "[M]
orality should not be legislated in
the profession[s]... any more than
it can be in our everyday lives" [15].
C.E. Harris [7] presents a clear,
robust theoretical argument for
approaching professional ethics through a lens of virtue ethics, rather than by a code-based

Instead of relying on codes,
professionals should embrace
an ethic that builds a capacity
for reflexive moral reasoning.
a professional does decide to critically reflect on the code's principles
and finds that they are insufficient,
outdated, or otherwise wanting, it's
unlikely that she will be able effect
change - at least not without some
form of sustained collective action.
A recent study [3] paints an even
worse picture: due to an engrained
"culture of disengagement," engineering students' concerns about
public welfare - based on four
categories of "professional/ethical
responsibilities, understanding the
consequences of technology, understanding how people use machines,
and social consciousness" -
actually decline during the interim
years of starting college, graduating, and becoming an employed
professional. In other words, these
results indicate that the further
one integrates into the engineering
culture, the less one is concerned
about the very aspects of public
welfare that codes are ostensibly
supposed to guarantee. It appears
that codes are not a strong enough
ethical crutch, rather they are too
easily ignored or instrumentalized.

An Alternative to Codes
Instead of relying on codes, professionals should embrace an ethic
that builds a capacity for reflexive moral reasoning, nurtures

foundation. "First, rules cannot
adequately account for the place
of discretion, judgment, and background knowledge in meeting some
professional obligations," Harris
argues. "A second reason for the
inadequacy of rules is that there is
an internal, motivational, and often
idealistic element present in professional life that cannot adequately
be accounted for by rules" [7].
To address these limitations, Harris lays out the tenants of virtue ethics and their specific relevance to an
engineering and technological context. His arguments, though, are not
strictly limited to engineering - the
theory is easily applicable to professions in general. In short, virtue
ethics as related to professionalism
involves five aspects: 1) understanding virtue as a wide-ranging character
trait involving multiple characteristics; 2) gaining satisfaction from
adhering to virtues; 3) knowing how
to correctly make moral decisions
at the right time and place; 4) nurturing and developing excellence
in both technical and non-technical
virtues; and 5) constructing "a professional virtue portrait of the 'good
engineer'" [7].
Focusing on virtue ethics education is better overall for professionals and the profession. Through
virtue ethics, professionals gain a

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

WINTER 2014

reflexive self-understanding and
hone their moral reasoning capacities, which can be flexibly and
critically applied throughout their
life - without having to rely on
reference to a limited code. The profession as a whole gains by building a reputation of having genuinely
good and well-rounded members.
There are, of course, limitations
to using a virtue approach instead of
relying on a code. Foremost, teaching virtue ethics is not a straightforward endeavor. Pedagogies that
explicitly try to build the students'
moral capacities often require more
educational resources, both in terms
of quality and quantity of instruction
[18]. Without dedicating already
scarce resources to emphasizing
ethics, students may complete their
training with less moral knowledge
than if a professor had relied on
a ready-made code. Additionally,
without a code there is not a clear
metric for ethical accountability -
though, nor is there a solid shield for
people to hide behind - which can
make external judgments difficult.
This can be detrimental for times
when one or many members of a
profession are guilty of negligence
since there wouldn't be any explicitly stated duties they had an obligation to follow.
There is still much work that
needs to be done in further developing theories and practices of a professional ethic centered on virtue and
character. Yet, this should not deter,
and instead should reinvigorate, the
work of establishing alternatives that
actively address the varied pitfalls
of codes. Although virtue ethics as
an alternative to codes is, to be sure,
more difficult to implement, the benefits far outweigh the costs and risks. If
the decision is between saving time,
effort, and other resources in order
to provide professionals with a basic
level of ethical capabilities or to value
and recognize the importance of a
well-developed moral capacity -
then the choice should be obvious.
(continued on page 72)

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Winter 2014