[Panini_Jones]

> The intention is, that when someone calls them self an engineer, you can have confidence in both their technical ability and moral obligations.

I thought the intention was that, even if someone didn't have confidence in both their technical ability and moral obligations, it didn't matter. An engineer is a person whose technical decisions are literally protected by law - if they decide to not sign off on something, they don't have to convince anyone and can't face consequences for it (ahem, Quebec bridge[1]). What you're suggesting is just a byproduct of confidence in the system.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Bridge - Search for 'iron ring'

[ponderingHplus]

I'm not sure that I fully understand your comment, but what I mean to say is that the intent of regulating the specific word is so that everyone has the same understanding of what using that word entails, when applying it to the profession of engineering. What you say about an engineer's decisions being legally bound are true, but that helps provide confidence in the work engineers do, but isn't the reason for regulating a specific word. I feel like I might be missing something in your comment though, sorry if this doesn't address what you were getting at.