Hacker News Reader

Comment by na85 | Hacker News Reader

>The mixing of explanation with moralism in every sentence is grating.

At the fundamental level, Engineering is a social/ethical process, not a technical one. Yes, engineers tend to have technical skills but when you use those skills to design a bridge you must always keep society (the users of your product) at the forefront of your mind. What separates engineers from "skilled people" is professional ethics. An engineer (structural, software, aerospace, chemical or whatever) who does not consider the ethics of their work cannot credibly claim to be an engineer at all.

To "put the moralism and ethics in its own paragraph" is to sequester the ethical considerations somewhere where they can be conveniently ignored in service of the cult of CEO worship.

edit: Instead of anonymous downvotes, would anyone care to let me know why they find this comment so inappropriate for HN?

View on HN

What would you call the process by which the defense sector designs and builds weapons? This cannot be "engineering" by your definition, as the people involved are not consulted on the foreign policy objectives their work will serve, but it's probably what others in the thread think the word means.

Even in bridge building, the balancing of human civilization's advantages against its environmental cost is a matter of public policy. Engineers may be consulted to assess environmental impact or to provide lower-impact options, but "should we have a bridge here or not" is ultimately a question for political leaders, not engineers.

I believe if you go back and read my comment you'll find I said engineers need to consider the ethical ramifications of their work.

I neither prescribed a particular ethical conclusion nor required consultation for my definition. There are lots of people who choose not to work in Defense because of the ethical considerations. There are others whose personal senses of ethics are not offended by the idea of making weapons, or at least are assuaged by the money. I would argue the same interplay between ethics and compensation is at work in e.g. Facebook and other surveillance firms. Quite obviously some people don't mind working for Facebook, even though I personally would find that repugnant.

What I'm not saying is that someone who works for Facebook "isn't an engineer" because I happen to disagree with their ethical choices. I'm saying that if you call yourself an engineer and you don't consider/ignore the ethical consequences of your work then you are an impostor.

The link to the topic at hand/reason I brought this up is that the 737 MAX issue (or the MCAS issue) isn't a technological problem so much as an ethical problem. Considering the technical faults in isolation ("putting the moralism and ethics in their own paragraph") is deliberately blinding one's self to the crux of the issue.

The aircraft doesn't do what it's specified to do. That's a technical problem. If the aircraft misbehaved but the people involved were really scrupulous about it, it would still be an engineering failure and their strong ethics would not mitigate that.

>The aircraft doesn't do what it's specified to do. That's a technical problem.

The root cause, the reasons why it doesn't do what it's specified to do stem from an ethical problem.

I absolutely concur with your viewpoint. Then again, I've always bought into the Iron Ring mentality anyway.

Right now I feel like there is a lot of hostility aimed at the "ethically active engineer". I've seen time and time again people pushed to back down because they're "rocking the boat."

On the other hand, I look at stuff going on in the Free Software movement where cancel culture seems to be being weaponized (by whom, and to whose ultimate benefit I can't really tell)as well.

There is a balance, but I really do agree that if you aren't actively engaged with the ethics of the process you're facilitating, you can't really call yourself an Engineer. I have lists of projects I won't do, and I have fewer qualms with letting an employer know they're crossing them as I get older.

Unfortunately for me the point is a little moot, as there is no PE for Software fellas anyway, and I'm a few years away from being able to work my way educationwise into a field that has a program for it.

Just wanted to let you know you aren't alone in your sentiment.

>why they find this comment so inappropriate

It is just wrong.

>Engineering is a social/ethical process, not a technical one

This is just bizarre.

>Yes, engineers tend to have technical skills

...tend to have???

>What separates engineers from "skilled people" is professional ethics

I'd argue that it is specialized education

> when you use those skills to design a bridge >An engineer... who does not consider the ethics of their work cannot credibly claim to be an engineer at all.

A bridge is usually designed by a team of engineers, who will get a specification (usually from another team of engineers and other professionals).

One engineer may be a geotechnical expert, another might design piling, a third will specify the cement and aggregates in the concrete etc etc. Each contribution must meet the applicable technical standards and specifications. Apart from making sure your work is correct, how do you bring ethics into calculating the amount of rebar in your concrete slab??

>...tend to have???

I don't know about you, but there are lots of people I know who call themselves engineers but aren't actually very skilled at all.

>Apart from making sure your work is correct, how do you bring ethics into calculating the amount of rebar in your concrete slab??

I think it's pretty obvious that I was using "design a bridge" as a proxy for any engineering work. But to answer your question: by making sure you do your due diligence with your work, and push back against superiors who want you to cut corners in your analysis for money, of course.

The same way it works in any discipline of engineering. The engineers at Boeing appear to have been unsuccessful in changing the cost-cutting culture of their company, and the executives who ordered the cost cutting are ethically deficient. To put the ethics aside is to absolve the executives of responsibility. If you want a technical writeup of the MCAS debacle, the issue has been discussed ad nauseam in the crash reports. But those reports will lead to no material change if the CEO and other execs aren't willing to change their expectations.

>I'd argue that it is specialized education

Part of which in many programs includes familiarization with ethics coincidentally.

>A bridge is usually designed by a team of engineers... how do you bring ethics into calculating the amount of rebar in your concrete slab??

You are not a calculator. You are responsible for ensuring your specific part is correct, yes; but being conferred with the power to halt something that isn't up to snuff or to reject a plan for unsoundness also implies a responsibility to exercise that discretion. You (as the engineer) have those technical chops that others do not.

If you bow out and rubber stamp without a thought to the consequences of your actions, you aren't fulfilling your duty to the Public. With a bridge it's more straightforward, so it doesn't necessarily avail the civil engineer of the opportunity to exercise that discretion, but it is nevertheless there.

I know zero about engineering (or even ethics, heh) but this comment seems plausible and well-reasoned enough to not be anonymously greyed out, which seems a bit tattle-tale-y , to be honest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com