ARGUMENT:

Professional ethical codes are admirable endeavors on paper and in theory, but such constitutions such as the ACM fail to take into account economic / job reality in the whole scheme of making the "right" decision.

I stand with Ladd in assailing professional ethics as:

  • *absurd
  • *inviting of mischief
  • *hypocritical in imposing its principles on humans regarded as autonomous moral agents.
  • *disciplinary actions, sanctions and forms of adjudication put forth by the code make it a LEGAL CODE.
  • *being a professional "does not automatically make a person an expert in ethics of that person's own profession..." (Ladd, 581)
  • *professional ethical codes give the professional a false license to place themselves on a higher moral sphere than those outside his professional realm.
  • *too often do professional codes have as an important side motive public relations; PR should not be a primary concern of any code.

    THE LUND MORTON THIOKOL EXAMPLE

    Robert Lund, vice president for engineering at Morton Thiokol, considered his profession's plan of ethics when the time came for him to OK / disallow the launch of NASA's Challenger. Originally, taking into consideration how the Cape's unusually cold temperature could have potentially marginalized the tenacity of booster O-Rings, Lund did not approve the flight. A ring failure could most definitely result in the shuttle's explosion, a doubly harrowing prospect taking into account the landmark participation of teacher Christa McCaullife.

    Yet the political stakes of the flight were simply too large for Lund to get off with this otherwise perfectly justified final decision. Reagan counted on boasting of a teacher in space as part of his State of the Union address the following night. With Congress bickering about funding for NASA, Morton Thiokol could ill-afford jeopardizing its future with the profit-delivering Space Administration by interfering with their lofty plans.

    "Lund's first response was to repeat his objections. But then [boss Gerald Mason] said something that made him think again. Mason asked him to think like a manager rather than an engineer.Lund did and changed his mind. The next morning the shuttle exploded during lift-off, killing all aboard. An O-ring had failed."

    HOW 'THE CODE' FAILED LUND AND MORTON THIOKOL

  • *It was rendered null and void by Mason's pressuring and demand that Lund "think like a manager." An engineer can't just suddenly decide to abandon his responsibilities as an engineer, and take on managerial responsibilities.
  • *What does Lund's professional code specify in terms of conflict of interest? Ostensibly, Lund's foremost responsibility should be to those whose lives are at risk on the shuttle. But he also has a responsibility to himself and his company. Had he absolutely disagreed to give the final OK, he ran the risk of annoying the President and NASA elite to the point of reconsidering NASA's future with Morton Thiokol. Contracts are at stake. Jobs, including his own post, stand to be lost. Why do professional codes of ethics imagine that it is so easy for the professional to ignore his own needs and interests in the context of the "greater good?" Lund was given no immunity in light of quite high stakes.