Comment by worldvoyageur | Hacker News Reader

Comment by worldvoyageur | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Since 1925, in a voluntary ritual near the end of a Canadian engineering degree, almost-graduates swear an oath and, upon doing so, are given a small card and a ring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_of_the_Calling_of_an_Eng...

I swore my oath more than 25 years ago and I still have the card in my wallet and the iron ring on the smallest finger of my working hand. A couple times a year, I pull out the card and read it.

The oath reads:

" I [worldvoyageur], in the presence of these my betters and my equals in my Calling, bind myself upon my Honour and Cold Iron, that, to the best of my knowledge and power, I will not henceforth suffer or pass, or be privy to the passing of, Bad Workmanship or Faulty Material in aught that concerns my works before mankind as an Engineer, or in my dealings with my own Soul before my Maker.

MY TIME I will not refuse; my Thought I will not grudge; my Care I will not deny towards the honour, use, stability and perfection of any works to which I may be called to set my hand.

MY FAIR WAGES for that work I will openly take. My Reputation in my Calling I will honourably guard; but I will in no way go about to compass or wrest judgement or gratification from any one with whom I may deal. And Further, I will early and warily strive my uttermost against professional jealousy or the belittling of my working colleagues in any field of their labour.

FOR MY ASSURED FAILURES and derelictions, I ask pardon beforehand of my betters and my equals in my Calling here assembled; praying that in the hour of my temptations, weakness and weariness, the memory of this my Obligation and of the company before whom it was entered into, may return to aid, comfort and restrain. "

That's a great oath: Bypassing ethics completely, and swearing devotion to technical quality and not disturbing the porfessional social order, it underscores, bolds and italicizes TFA, which is nicely summarized in the caption under the picture which comes before any of its text:

"Engineering ethics are mostly technical: how to design properly, how to not cut corners, and how to serve our clients well."

Congratulations, you have utterly and perfectly- without wasting materials!- demonstrated why such articles are necessary. In case it's not crystal clear yet, an oath like that would do nothing to encourage an Aaron Swartz or an Ed Snowden.

What would you prefer? "I swear to uphold an ethical course of behavior as defined by the current zeitgeist of Hacker News"? It's clear that in delivering a sub-standard project, you're acting badly. But when you make a great product that may be used to harm others?

Many of the creators of the atom bomb have expressed their belief that they did the right thing. I agree with them and would have no ethical problems working on the nuclear stockpile. Many people, however, would consider that extremely bad.

I think the point is not doing what you believe to be wrong.

And to have ethics as a group, there needs to be some discussion on what's right and wrong. That might help you to (further) develop your own ethics, and also give you same backup from your peers if you decide to not do something.

We had a similar ritual at my school here in the USA. It was optional but many people did it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer

It's not just Canadian. I did it too for my engineer degrees in the US. My ring is in my dresser, but I still keep it in mind. I was being recruited hard by Picatinny Arsenal and didn't give them the light of day as I'm not keen on building weapons systems.

Thanks. I lost my card years ago...but I don't think I forgot what it said. Maybe I can order a replacement to carry with me to show people at parties.

tl;dr: how to be a good robot.

You really think that taking an oath to be morally responsible for what you create and how you create it is being a robot?

What a ridiculous thing to say.

An important note here: "Moral" does not refer to a singular set of values, behaviors or beliefs. It only refers to a moral system, any moral system. That is why that oath the PP carries around from morning till night is "moral", yet does nothing to encourage the larger ramifications of their work, such as ecology, human rights, etc. It's only one moral system, not one which respects others' rights (beyond efficacious contractual obligatoin), etc.

Interesting how the wiki version of the "Obligation of the Engineer"^1 seems to speak toward being a good steward of technology, humanity and public resources where the oath the OP quotes is more focused on delivering a good product and being obligated to do so by your pay.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer

Um. It talks about fair wages. How is that being obligated to do so by your pay?

It really depends on the context you read it in and how you define some of the key words.

So... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

So?

No. How to be a responsible engineer who doesn't get people killed. There are situations in life that require one to grow the fuck up, and being a professional engineer is one of them.

> How to be a responsible engineer who doesn't get people killed.

Actually, the above oath will maximize the number of people killed if the sworn engineer happens to be working on a weapon. There is absolutely nothing in that oath about not doing harm.

There's a difference between a collapsing bridge (the original reason for the oath) and a weapon. You knew from the start that the weapon was going to kill people. I'm ok with designing weapons; my ethical beliefs allow that. It would be unethical to accept the project but deliver a weapon that didn't work properly.

> I'm ok with designing weapons; my ethical beliefs allow that. It would be unethical to accept the project but deliver a weapon that didn't work properly.

Sabotage for a good cause is unethical? You have strange ethical beliefs.

> Actually, the above oath will maximize the number of people killed if the sworn engineer happens to be working on a weapon.

That depends on the weapon. If a weapon malfunctions and kills its operators, that will help maximize casualties. But it would still be a failure on the engineer's part. If it's supposed to kill its operators, then it wasn't.

Many engineers are employed to create devices that kill as efficiently as possible.

And an ethical engineer would design those weapons so that they don't blow up in a soldier's magazine or a submarine missile tube.

It's about adhering to a code of ethics, not undertaking some Hippocratic oath. In most places that code is actually a concrete document, which can be used as grounds to discipline/prosecute/regulate you, should you breach it.

I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass, and I'm not sure why people seem to want to discredit my thesis that engineers are/should be ethically bound to not endanger the public good.

You do what you think is right. If you think designing weapons helps the greater good, you should design them well. Remember nuclear weapons prevented at least one global war and a couple regional ones.

And no. I have refused to design weapons early on in my career and I would refuse to do so now. I took my oath (a slightly different one, because I am Brazilian) and I take it very seriously.

Being called "a good robot" is beyond offensive.

Due to anthropic selection effects, we don't know how many wars were really caused by nuclear weapons...

Many wars of the late 20th century were proxy wars between nuclear powers. My bet is that, without MAD, they would have happened anyway, with the powers fighting directly. It would be very ugly.

Besides, we may need nukes to vaporize incoming asteroids. They can also be handy if you need to quickly dig a hole, move a mountain or if you need a cannon that can reach orbiting spacecraft.

This is the second time in as many days that I've seen a position reduced to "You're like a kid, and I'm like a grown-up." Cool argument.

edit: I hereby coin The Argument From Maturity - of which the simplest prototype is, "Grow up."

Equivocating taking the engineer's oath with being a 'good robot' is childish, at best. I could also call it ignorant, or perhaps on its to criminal (if somebody truly believes that and puts it into practice).

The engineer's oath towards ethical practice is precisely about not being a robot. We have specifications, years of technical brainwashing in school, and employment imperatives to make us into robots. Ethical practice is about having a watchdog thread in your brain that monitors your situation as an engineer. When a situation comes up where you could be a robot and do something stupid/illegal/dangerous/corrupt, the hope is that you can invoke your ethical/moral compass and make the right choice. Hopefully your compass is better calibrated than some unnamed folks in this thread.

You want to talk about reducing a position simplistically? How about taking the backbone of a healthy engineering infrastructure, one which everybody relies on and must trust, and equating its core values to being a 'good robot'. I'm not reducing that person's position, I'm defending the position of the person who understands what they're talking about.

So, yes, I reiterate to anyone who agrees with the OP: grow up. Or better yet, don't be a god damn engineer.

> The engineer's oath towards ethical practice is precisely about not being a robot.

How so? I didn't get that at all from the oath.

Can you elaborate which part you think reads like being a robot? The main point is to do excellent work if you're going to do any work.

The argument reduces to "being a good engineer and not getting people killed". The insult is a dismissal with an eyeroll of a dumb comment.

How to build a good robot, you mean.

If you want to be a robot, you need a lot of practice. Walking that way is surprisingly hard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com