Ethical Relativism:

Does a profession’s code of ethics create the obligations that are incumbent on members of the
profession, so that engineers’ obligations are entirely relative to their code of ethics? Or does the code
simply record the obligations that already exist? One view is that codes try to put into words obligations
that already exist, whether or not the code is written. As Stephen Unger writes, codes “recognize”
obligations that already exist: “A code of professional ethics may be thought of as a collective
recognition of the responsibilities of the individual practitioners”; codes cannot be “used in cookbook
fashion to resolve complex problems,” but instead they are “valuable in outlining the factors to be
considered.”14 Unger takes codes very seriously as a profession’s shared voice in articulating the
responsibilities of its practitioners. A good code provides valuable focus and direction, but it does not
generate obligations so much as articulate obligations that already exist.

Michael Davis disagrees, and he places far greater emphasis on professional codes of ethics. In his view,
codes are conventions established within professions to promote the public good. As such, they are
morally authoritative. The code itself generates obligations: “a code of ethics is, as such, not merely
good advice or a statement of aspiration.

There are problems with ethical relativism, whether we are talking about the conventions of a
profession such as engineering or the conventions of a society in its entirety. By viewing customs as self-
certifying, ethical relativism rules out the possibility of critiquing the customs from a wider moral
framework. For example, it leaves us without a basis for criticizing genocide, the oppression of women
and minorities, child abuse, torture, and reckless disregard of the environment, when these things are
the customs of another culture. Regarding professional ethics, ethical relativism implies that we cannot
morally critique a given code of ethics, giving reasons for why it is justified in certain ways and perhaps
open to improvement in other ways. Ethical relativism also seems to allow any group of individuals to
form its own society with its own conventions, perhaps ones that common sense tells us are immoral.
Again, an engineer might be a member of one or more professional societies, a weapons development
corporation and a pacifist religious tradition, and the customs of these groups in matters of military
work might point in different directions. Although ethical relativism is a dubious moral outlook, it
remains true that moral judgments are made “in relation to” particular circumstances, such as those of
engineering. It is also true that customs are “morally relevant” (though not always decisive) in deciding
how we ought to behave.

Finally, some moral requirements are indeed established by mutual agreements. Just as laws establish
the legal and moral permissibility of driving on the right side of the road (in the United States) or the left
side (in England), some requirements in engineering codes of ethics create obligations. For example,
some of the specific conflicts of interest forbidden in codes of ethics are forbidden by agreement within
the profession to ensure fair competition among engineers. In our view, then, Unger and Davis are both
partly correct. Unger is correct in holding that many of the entries in codes of ethics state
responsibilities that would exist regardless of the code—for example, to protect the safety, health, and
welfare of the public. Davis is correct that some parts of codes are conventions arrived at by mutual
agreement within the profession.

Justification of Codes If codes of ethics do not merely state conventions, as ethical relativists hold, what
does justify those responsibilities that are not mere creations of convention? A code, we might say,
specifies the (officially endorsed) “customs” of the professional “society” that writes and promulgates it
as incumbent on all members of a profession (or at least members of a professional society). When
these values are specified as responsibilities, they constitute role responsibilities—that is, obligations
connected with a particular social role as a professional. These responsibilities are not self-certifying,
any more than other customs are. A sound professional code will stand up to three tests: (1) It will be
clear and coherent; (2) it will organize basic moral values applicable to the profession in a systematic
and comprehensive way, highlighting what is most important; and (3) it will provide helpful and
reasonable guidance that is compatible with our most carefully considered moral convictions
(judgments, intuitions) about concrete situations. In addition, it will be widely accepted within the
profession.

Question:
Conflict of Interest vs. Conflicting Interest?
Conflict of interest occurs when an individual is tasked with making a decision, using judgment,
on behalf of someone else, and when that person has an "other" interest -- typically a personal,
financial interest -- that seems likely to influence their decision.

Conflicts of interest typically arise when two conditions are met:

(1) The professional is in a relationship or role that requires exercising good judgment on behalf
of the interests of an employer or client, and
(2) The professional has some additional or side interest that could threaten good judgment in
serving the interests of the employer or client—either the good judgment of that professional
or the judgment of a typical professional in that situation.
Sometimes such an interest involves serving in some other professional role, say, as a consultant for a
competitor’s company. Other times it is a more personal interest, such as making substantial private
investments in a competitor’s company

Conflicting interests are much simpler, and more common. Conflicting interests occur any time
two people's interests aren't aligned. If you and I are both hungry and dividing a pie, we have
conflicting interests -- MY interest in having more pie conflicts with YOUR interest in having
more pie.
Or difference in opinion, one like cricket and other like football.
A student, for example, may have interests in excelling on four final exams. She knows, however, that
there is time to study adequately for only three of them, and so she must choose which interest not to
pursue. In this case “conflicting interests” means a person has two or more desires that cannot all be
satisfied given the circumstances. But there is no suggestion that it is morally wrong or problematic to
try pursuing them all.

Q-2
Why does a conflict of interest seem unethical?
Ethical concerns raised by conflict of interest:

1- Potential Bias:

Moral Dimensions:

For the technical and economic decisions had moral dimensions in four general directions: safety,
environmental protection, consumer usefulness, and economic benefits.

Safety

Environment

Consumer Usefulness

Economic Benefits

Presence of these moral dimensions is not enough, there has to be a hierarchy.

First concern should be safety, if the product is not safe, don’t go for it. Then Environmental factor
should be considered. After that comes consumer usefulness and Economic Benefits.

Ethics say this pattern should be considered whenever you are making something or analyzing it.
Presentations:
1- Kant’s Theory
 Kant, believed that certain types of actions (including murder, theft, and lying) were
absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more
happiness than the alternative.

 Kant’s theory is an example of a deontological moral theory–according to these

theories, the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their
consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.

 According to Kant a good person is someone who always does their duty because it is
their duty. It is fine if they enjoy doing it, but it must be the case that they would do
it even if they did not enjoy it.

 Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, and he referred to it as
The Categorical Imperative.
 A hypothetical imperative is one we must obey if we want to satisfy our desires: 'go
to the doctor' is a hypothetical imperative because we are only obliged to obey it if
we want to get well.
 A categorical imperative binds us regardless of our desires: everyone has a duty to
not lie, regardless of circumstances and even if it is in our interest to do so.

Criticism:
German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer criticized Kant’s belief that ethics should
concern what ought to be done, insisting that the scope of ethics should be to attempt to
explain and interpret what actually happens. Whereas Kant presented an idealized
version of what ought to be done in a perfect world, Schopenhauer argued that ethics
should instead be practical and arrive at conclusions that could work in the real world,
capable of being presented as a solution to the world’s problems.[54]
German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel presented two main criticisms of Kantian ethics. He
first argued that Kantian ethics provides no specific information about what people
should do because Kant’s moral law is solely a principle of non-contradiction.[2] He
argued that Kant’s ethics lack any content and so cannot constitute a supreme principle
of morality.
Hegel’s second criticism was that Kant’s ethics forces humans into an internal conflict
between reason and desire. For Hegel, it is unnatural for humans to suppress their
desire and subordinate it to reason. This means that, by not addressing the tension
between self-interest and morality, Kant’s ethics cannot give humans any reason to be
moral.[53]
Mill believed that his principle of utility has a stronger intuitive grounding than Kant’s
reliance on reason, and can better explain why certain actions are right or wrong.[61]