Moral Responsibility
Theses statement: I agree with the author of the paper “Moral responsibility, technology and experience of the tragic: From Kierkegaard to offshore engineering”
The author presents some of the problems which he thinks they make us not to be able to handle the challenges facing us in the department of engineering. He argues that the technological action distributed rather than the right individual or collective responsibility. Currently it is sure that some of the consequences we face from the technology are beyond our control and therefore we they overrule us. We take for example the approach used on the engineering disasters like the deepwater horizon case it shows that engineering problems should handled by individuals or by collective groups who are viewed as individuals.
For instance in Mexico there happened and accident in the deepwater driller which killed people; this is an advance in technology which could not be controlled in the face of emergency. This accident was caused by a failure in the blowout used for prevention to stop flow after a blow out occurs. Attempts to stop the leak failed due to the low technology preparedness. This accident in Mexico led to kill of marine and environment destruction. This is very adverse effect and it cannot be assumed. Environment is very important and is the only place we can live in. living it unattended and not working to protect it is a serious offense because its effect ism felt by many livelihoods.
It is not ethical according to the traditional morals to force someone to do something. This was seen to be the case in this accident and in many others. People should not be pushed into doing things which may be they don’t know or have little knowledge on. Many people forced the American president and the leader of the BP Company to correct the mess which was not morally ethical. This approach to solving engineering problems can only lead to more mess and it should not be used.
Some more limitations attributed to this are also as following:
All fields are not the same and treating them the same by applying the same principles may lead to fatal disasters. In the legal field for example there is no problem in holding someone accountable for their actions but in the technology is advisable that we consider different individuals and distributing the responsibility depending on their levels. If a problem occurs it is good that in solving it we involve all the concerned parties but not individuals alone. These parties may include the following the involved companies; those acting in terms of financing; the regulators; concerned politicians; and most importantly the citizens and the end users who depend on the products produced from the technology.
The current systems are not in the capacity to distribute the responsibility to the varied individuals. They only know how to burden few individuals and groups that are directly linked to the problems that occur. There has been lack of responsibility due to the raging freedom in the sectors. Firstly there is the internal freedom which is characterized by the control over our desires which leads many to do what they wish so long as it meets what they want. Secondly there is the external freedom which sometime is very negative. This comes in when there nobody who is available to direct those in control on what to do. Sometimes it becomes so hard to bear this freedom and begin to wish that there was someone to control our actions.
If one has the capability to control a disaster and he fails to it is right to accuse them of wrongdoing because what happened was within their control. When someone takes action to control any situation they should be fully engaged if it within their ability; no one should take a partial responsibility in dealing with problems for this will only escalate the problems further. In every problem there must someone responsible and we should take actions for whatever happens.
The condition to control depends on the knowledge but today many people engage in technology but they lack the required knowledge and they are even uncertain about the consequences which are posed by the technologies they engage. Many people are engaging in technology blindly which poses a lot of danger in the society. These problems are not mainly due to lack of the ability to predict but also because of the complexity of the technology in which we are in and the social needs as well.
In the engineering departments it is easy to forecast of any possible dangers that are bound to occur due to what we do but it hard for someone to predict all the possible dangers. This has become hard for people to predict what will happen in the future. In technology is not easy to differentiate the personal and the corporate contributions as well as our actions and those of others. This amounts to the conclusion that in technology individuals engage in activities they are not sure of their outcomes.
Many individuals do different things but they don’t consider how they will lead to possible harm if the actions of different individuals re put together. In conclusion we say that in the technological departments the ability to uphold the required morals is very wanting and those involved in the technology find it hard to participate fully in the prevention technology related disaster.
Reference
Coecklebergh, M (2010). “Moral Responsibility, Technology, and Experience of the Tragic: From Kierkegaard to Offshore Engineering.” Science and Engineering Ethics pp233-244
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
