Since I started my current position in Fall 2020, I’ve been teaching Engineering Ethics every fall. The Engineering Ethics course satisfies a general education requirement for engineering majors, so instead of taking intro to philosophy or intro ethics, they can take this discipline-specific philosophy course offered through the Department of Humanities and Philosophy. The course supports the engineering program’s accreditation with the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) by providing instruction in ethical responsibilities in the engineering profession. Most students who take the course are first-year engineering majors.
When I was assigned the course, I reached out to a couple of colleagues who teach Engineering Ethics to find out what to expect from students and what they found worked for them. They both said that case studies are important for getting students to engage with the material. And my experience has definitely aligned with that observation.
The goals I had for the course were: learning about professional ethics codes, moral theories and moral principles and applying them to problems in engineering; thinking critically about technology and human values; and developing strong arguments.
The next problem I had was finding a textbook that could address these goals. The classic text is Harris et al., Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases, but I ended up choosing Ethics for Engineers by Martin Peterson. I chose it because it had a familiar feel; it has the same structure of the contemporary moral problems textbook I had been using. It starts off with professional codes of ethics and moral theories, followed by particular problems in the profession (whistle-blowing, conflicts of interest, cost-benefit analysis, responsibility and the problem of many hands, etc.), and ending on more “philosophical” topics, like technological pessimism and optimism, whether technological artifacts are value-laden, and sustainability. Case studies appear in every chapter. The instructor manual also includes links to videos to supplement the textual description of case studies. We spend a good deal of class time going from the general (theory and principles) to the specific (applying principles to a case study), and back to the general (lessons learned from the case study).
Content-wise, my biggest contribution to the material is adding a week on diversity. Whereas the professional codes of ethics for engineers stress the importance of protecting the safety, health, and welfare of the public, historically, engineers (and other leaders—scientists, business leaders, politicians, etc.) have not considered the impact of their decisions on everyone, particularly the most vulnerable. By including a week on diversity, students can see how technology has been discriminatory and inaccessible to some and see that engineers have the potential to engineer a world that is inclusive and accessible.
I use Sara Goering’s chapter “Thinking Differently: Neurodiversity and Neural Engineering” to initiate the topic. I introduce the social model of disability and the neurodiversity movement and use examples from Goering to contrast differences in interests and priorities between those using the tech and those making the tech. Goering advocates for a model of technology development that partners with the intended technology users in order to make technology that better fits users’ needs. I also mention making engineering spaces more welcoming to neurodiverse students and include a slide with information about the university’s Disability Support Services to remind students about that office if they may need it.
The second topic under diversity is race and gender/sex bias. The readings and videos show how cars are not designed with women in mind and discuss racial bias in software. I also assign a report by the Society for Women in Engineering that reports on the sexist, racist, and ageist experiences of engineers. I end with a slide sharing resources for minorities in engineering, such as the National Society of Black Engineers, the Society of Women Engineers, the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers, and the American Indian Science and Engineering Society. Making engineering more welcoming to diverse people may help to prevent the development of discriminatory technology.
As for pedagogy, class time is a mix of interactive lectures, videos, discussion of concepts and case studies, and journaling. The journaling exercise promotes engagement with the material that goes beyond the sort of memorization or scientific problem-solving that students practice in their math, science, and engineering classes. Journaling happens almost every class. I provide students a writing prompt for them to reflect on the material, ask questions, think critically, or make connections to their other classes or experiences. Some of the prompts serve as practice articulating a philosophical concept, like “explain one metaethical position. What do you like, dislike, or not understand about it?” or applying Kant’s categorical imperative to a short vignette. Other prompts are based off of short case studies in the book: “What do you think is the right thing to do? Why? Make sure you explain your answer.” And some prompts are more open-ended: “What are two important lessons or takeaways from today’s class and what is a question you have based on the material presented?”
After journaling time, we discuss what students wrote. Sometimes they reiterate main points of the class (which is great reinforcement of the material for others in the class), sometimes their comments or questions serve to notify me of misconceptions of the material and allow me to address them, sometimes students make insightful connections to material in the class, in other classes, in their own lives and experiences, and sometimes the journals are spaces for students to just explore their curiosity. It’s also an opportunity for that quiet student, who has now had a few minutes to process and articulate their thoughts, to contribute to the discussion.
Although the main concern for the course is equipping future engineers with the ethical reasoning tools they may need in their career, there’s also an aspect of inspiring students to be knowledgeable, engaged, and critical citizens, consumers, and users of technology. I really enjoy teaching Engineering Ethics. As a philosopher of science interested in science and values, it allows me to engage STEM students in important conversations about the social impact of their work and the relationship between science and human values.
The Syllabus Showcase of the APA Blog is designed to share insights into the syllabi of philosophy educators. We include syllabi in their original, unedited format that showcase a wide variety of philosophy classes. We would love for you to be a part of this project. Please contact Series Editors, Dr. Brynn Welch via bwelch@uab.edu or Dr. Smrutipriya Pattnaik via smrutipriya23@gmail.com, or Editor of the Teaching Beat, Dr. Sabrina D. MisirHiralall via sabrinamisirhiralall@apaonline.org with potential submissions.
Vanessa A. Bentley
Vanessa Bentley is Assistant Professor in the Department of Humanities and Philosophy at the University of Central Oklahoma, where she teaches courses in philosophy of science, feminist philosophy, and applied ethics. Her research interests are in neuroethics, bioethics, and feminist practices in science, particularly in cognitive neuroscience and the neuroimaging of gender/sex.
