|
|
|
|
|
|
by alphazard
1064 days ago
|
|
|
I wouldn't use "ethics" to describe any of the rules in place to ensure the quality of the designs or deliverables in civil/mechanical/electrical engineering. I'm glad that there are building inspectors, and safety standards for consumer electronics. I'm also glad that those rules are written clearly in terms of lbs and amp*hours and volts, and not philosophical terms. If you want rules, say you want rules, but don't try to hide the fact that some of your rules will have not objective justification, and will be based on the personal philosophies of those in charge. |
|
|
The "objective" safety standards are often a lot more philosophical than you think. There is no "objective" truth for road design, it is a trade-off between how important you deem the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, versus the convenience and throughput of cars.
But also, just look at fields like journalism. Journalistic ethics exist because without them they kill people.
Not ratting out your anonymous sources isn't some technical requirement laid down in the physics of the universe, it's a philosophical belief.
And yes. Choosing to not take people's personal data is a philosophical belief. But the harm isn't philosophical.