Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reflexive Principlism as an Effective Approach for Developing Ethical Reasoning in Engineering

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An important goal of teaching ethics to engineering students is to enhance their ability to make well-reasoned ethical decisions in their engineering practice: a goal in line with the stated ethical codes of professional engineering organizations. While engineering educators have explored a wide range of methodologies for teaching ethics, a satisfying model for developing ethical reasoning skills has not been adopted broadly. In this paper we argue that a principlist-based approach to ethical reasoning is uniquely suited to engineering ethics education. Reflexive Principlism is an approach to ethical decision-making that focuses on internalizing a reflective and iterative process of specification, balancing, and justification of four core ethical principles in the context of specific cases. In engineering, that approach provides structure to ethical reasoning while allowing the flexibility for adaptation to varying contexts through specification. Reflexive Principlism integrates well with the prevalent and familiar methodologies of reasoning within the engineering disciplines as well as with the goals of engineering ethics education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Interestingly, Albert Jonsen, a leading critic of principlism and proponent of the “new” casuistry was one of the members of the Commission that authored the Report. Like Jonsen, we recognize that cases play a central role. But, following Beauchamp and Childress, we think cases without frames are too unwieldy, forcing participants to rely on intuitions and previous experience, which is problematic for young and developing professionals without sufficient experience. Our interest in marking Jonsen’s role on the Commission is to point out the ongoing discussion about the relevant relationship between principlism and casuistry.

  2. See, for example, analyses of potential problems by Beauchamp and Childress (2013: 422–423) and Haslett (1987: 307–310).

  3. Our anticipation of this result is guided by our experience as engineering ethics educators who have seen first-hand how much time it takes for someone to specialize not only in engineering but also in ethics sufficiently to teach ethics effectively. We are now poised to test the argued position that Reflexive Principlism is, for engineering educators, less work than theory-based approaches and more robust than case-based approaches.

  4. “In essence, ABET is advocating a kind of preventative ethics. Preventative ethics contains two dimensions: (1) engineers must be able to think ahead to anticipate possible consequences of their actions as professionals, especially consequences that may have an important ethical dimension; (2) engineers must be able to think effectively about those consequences and decide what is ethically right.” (Harris et al. 2000: 18).

References

  • Academy of Medical Sciences. (2014). Human enhancement and the future of work: Report from a joint workshop hosted by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering, and the Royal Society. 2012. Academy of Medical Sciences. http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/viewFile/publicationDownloads/135228646747.pdf. Accessed 3 August 2014.

  • AMA (American Medical Association). (2014). Principles of medical ethics. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/principles-medical-ethics.page. Accessed 27 August 2014.

  • Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379.

  • Beauchamp, T. L. (2003). Methods and principles in biomedical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29(5), 269–274.

  • Beauchamp, T. L. (2005). The nature of applied ethics. In R. G. Frey, C. H. Wellman (Eds.) A companion to applied ethics. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 1–17.

  • Beauchamp, T. L. (2007). The ‘four principles’ approach to health care ethics. In R. E. Ashcroft, A. Dawson, H. Draper, & J. R. McMillan (Eds.) Principles of health care ethics, second edition. London: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470510544.ch1.

  • Beauchamp, T. L. (2011). Making principlism practical: A commentary on Gordon, Rauprich, and Vollmann. Bioethics, 25(6), 301–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress., J. F. (2013[1979]). Principles of biomedical ethics, seventh edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Bebeau, M. J. (2002). The defining issues test and the four component model: Contributions to professional education. Journal of Moral Education, 31(3), 271–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bero, B., & Kuhlman, A. (2011). Teaching ethics to engineers: Ethical decision making parallels the design process. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 597–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, R. M. (2007). The ethics of genetic engineering. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, R. M., Borenstein, J., & Butera, R. J. (2013). Contentious problems in bioscience and biotechnology: A pilot study of an approach to ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 653–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, M. G., & Tooley, M. A. (2000). Ethics and the biomedical engineer. Engineering Science and Education Journal, 9(1), 5–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulger, J. W. (2009). An approach toward applying principlism. Ethics and Medicine, 25(2), 121–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, R. A., Davis, M., Dyrud, M. A., Herkert, J. R., Hollander, R. D., Newton, L., et al. (2013). Engineering ethics: Looking back, looking forward. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 1395–1404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, D. (1980). Goals in the teaching of ethics. In: D. Callahan & S. Bok (Eds.), Teaching ethics in higher education (pp. 61–74). New York: Plenum.

  • Chameau, J.-L., Ballhaus, W. F., & Lin, H. S. (Eds.). (2014). Emerging and readily available technologies and national security: A framework for addressing ethical, legal, and societal issues. DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkeburn, H. (2000). How to teach science ethics. The University of Glasgow. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/2852/. Accessed 23 August 2014.

  • Clarkeburn, H. (2002). A test for ethical sensitivity in science. Journal of Moral Education, 31(4), 339–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkeburn, H., Downie, J. R., & Matthew, B. (2002). Impact of an ethics programme on a life science curriculum. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(1), 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2008). Ethics teaching in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 327–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. (1991). Thinking like an engineer: The place of a code of ethics in the practice of a profession. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 20(2), 150–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. (2001). The professional approach to engineering ethics: Five research questions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 379–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einsen, A., & Parker, K. P. (2004). A model for teaching research ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 693–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finelli, C. J., Holsapple, M. A., Ra, E., Bielby, R. M., Burt, B. A., Carpenter, D. D., et al. (2012). An assessment of engineering students’ curricular and co-curricular experiences and their ethical development. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 469–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleddermann, C. B. (2004). Engineering ethics (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and Its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. E. (Ed). (2004). Methodologies for case studies in engineering ethics. In Emerging technologies and ethical issues in engineering (pp. 79–93). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  • Harris, C. E, Jr., Pritchard, M. S., & Ravines, M. J. (2000). Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases. Stamford, CT: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M. S., Harris, C. E., & Rabins, M. J. (2009). Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

  • Haslett, D. W. (1987). What is wrong with reflective equilbria? The Philosophical Quarterly, 37(148), 305–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haws, D. R. (2001). Ethics instruction in engineering education: A (mini) meta-analysis. Journal or Engineering Education, 90(2), 223–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herkert, J. (2004). Microethics, macroethics, and professional engineering societies. In Emerging technologies and ethical issues in engineering (pp. 107–166), Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  • HHS. (1979.) The Belmont report. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html. Accessed 7 July 2014.

  • Huff, C., & Frey, W. (2005). Moral pedagogy and practical ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11, 389–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. G., & Wetmore, J. M. (2008). STS and ethics: Implications for engineering ethics. In Hacket, E. J. (Ed.) et al. The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd Ed.), pp. 567–577.

  • Keefer, M., & Ashley, K. D. (2001). Case-based approaches to professional ethics: A systematic comparison of students’ and ethicists’ moral reasoning. Journal of Moral Education, 30(4), 377–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kibert, C. J., Monroe, M. C., Peterson, A. L., Plate, R. R., & Thiele, L. P. (2012). Working toward sustainability: Ethical decision making in a technological world. New Jersey: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kisselburgh, L., Zoltowski, C., Beever, J., Hess, J., Iliadis, A., & Brightman, A. (2014). Effectively engaging engineers in ethical reasoning about emerging technologies: A cyber-enabled framework of scaffolded, integrated, and reflexive analysis of cases. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE 2013), pp. 1561–1563.

  • Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., & Hewer, A. (1983). Moral stages: A current formulation and a response to critics. Basel, NY: Karger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Fu, S. (2012). A systematic approach to engineering ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 339–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monzon, J. E., Ariasgago, O. L., Monzon-Wyngaard, A. (2010). Assessment of moral judgment of BME and other health sciences students.  Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society: Annual International Conference of the IEEE, pp. 2963–2966.

  • Monzon, J. E., Monzon-Wyngaard, A. (2009). Ethics and biomedical engineering education: The continual defiance. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society: Annual International Conference of the IEEE, pp. 2011–2014.

  • Napper, S.A. (2009). Teaching of ethics in biomedical engineering. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, IEEE, 12(4), pp. 100–105.

  • Newstetter, W. C. (2006). Fostering integrative problem solving in biomedical engineering: The PBL approach. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 34(2), 217–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieusma, D., & Riley, D. (2010). Designs on development: Engineering, globalization, and social justice. Engineering Studies, 2(1), 29–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NSF.gov. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development. Available http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2014.

  • NSPE.org. (2014). Frequently asked questions about engineering. National Society of Professional Engineers. Available http://www.nspe.org/resources/media/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-engineering. Accessed 29 Jan 2014.

  • Pinkus, R. L. B., Shuman, L. J., Hummon, N. P., & Wolfe, H. (1997). Engineering ethics: Balancing cost, schedule, and risk, lessons learned from the space shuttle. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1999[1971]). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

  • Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: a Neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. R., Narváez, D., Thoma, S. J., & Bebeau, M. J. (2000). A neo-Kohlbergian approach to morality research. Journal of Moral Education, 29(4), 381–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuzel, R., Ootwijn, W., Decker, M., Clausen, C., Gallo, P., Grin, J., et al. (2004). Ethics and HTA: Some lessons and challenges for the future. Poiesis & Praxis, 2(2–3), 247–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley, D. (2013). Hidden in plain view: Feminists doing engineering ethics, engineers doing feminist ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Self, D. J., & Ellison, E. M. (1998). Teaching engineering ethics: Assessment of its influence on moral reasoning skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(1), 29–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuana, N. (2007). Conceptualizing moral literacy. Journal of Education Administration, 45(4), 364–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research for this paper was completed as part of an NSF award: Award #1237868 SIRA Modules for Effectively Engaging Engineers in Ethical Reasoning About Emerging Technologies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Rock Ethics Institute, Penn State University, 131 Sparks Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Jonathan Beever

  2. Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering, Purdue University, Martin Jischke Drive, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Andrew O. Brightman

Authors
  1. Jonathan Beever
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew O. Brightman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Beever.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beever, J., Brightman, A.O. Reflexive Principlism as an Effective Approach for Developing Ethical Reasoning in Engineering. Sci Eng Ethics 22, 275–291 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9633-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9633-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation