Moral Responsibility from Point of View:

Mechanical Engineer
As Mechanical Engineer, our field of study is very broad from structural analyses, finite element analyses,
thermodynamics, micro-electro-mechanical system and much more. These sub-disciplines create much
involvements of mechanical engineers towards the development of human society. Every engineer work
is a masterpiece as it is their very own result of the hard work. Upon designing structure and system,
engineers are responsible for any outcome or failure of the design that has impacted both to
environmental and society. As an engineer, it always important to pay attention to moral responsibility
behind every project that is done within public uses and spaces. According to Lozano (2003), moral
responsibility as an engineer is defined as general values of humanity, dignity, and improvement of an
aspect of human life. Moral values of society are very important towards engineers as part of engineering
ethics. To measure professionalism of an engineer individual, the engineer has to be able to make
decisions with the greatest result while taking account of the moral responsibility. During performing
preplanning, analysis or finding the best solution, engineering uses moral frameworks to evaluate the
project outcome. Generally, Utilitarianism and Kantianism, are general ethical theories to evaluate case
studies.

According to Eggleston (2012), is an ethical theory that based on wrongness and rightness depends on the
sum of overall well-being benefit. Utilitarianism usually also determined as consequentialism because the
theory is oriented based on the consequences value. This ethical theory also uses happiness to measure
the decision whether it is morally responsible or morally irresponsible. The term of Maximum
pleasure,minimize pain also related to this ethical theories. It is very usual when engineer applying to the
whole system as measure the sum total income and outcome of a project. As a mechanical engineer,
taken example on building a bridge, the structural design, and type of material will take the main role to
prevent failure during simulation or even general use. Using utilitarianism theory, engineers need to
design a bridge with cost and risk as minimum as possible and durability and capacity as maximum as
possible. When to the extent that the questioning safety reason, human life is the top priority to be taken
account of consideration factor. To conclude the reason to use Utilitarianism theories, the best solution
for a project is to gain the maximum social benefit while minimalizing risk of the project.
Lacewing (2003) , define Kantianism as ethical theories that are defined based on the purpose of doing
something rather without considering the consequences. In Kantian theory, the main goal of the idea of
Kantian is to evaluate individual will upon analyzing or planning the project. In general, people, tend to do
everything rationally as they grow up older. Acting not based on self-believed is determined as an immoral
act where it is against our very own will. As a mechanical engineer, we are expected to perform on our
self-confident. Certified engineer upon finishing degrees, they always thought to be precise and truthful
on every calculation and analyses. When it's come project decision-making, we have to question yourself
whether this project is right or wrong. Before making decisions, we have to determine ourselves that we
will do this project based our believe until the project is finished. We have to act based on what we think
that are good for social sakes. To conclude, Kantian theory will determine someone morally responsible
based on the purposes and individual will when the project is on progress while neglecting the
consequences that will happen.

To give a picture of how an engineer should behave on making decisions, it is decided to take 2 cases to
be analyzed from point of view of mechanical engineers. The first case is Investigation of the Challenger
Accident .The second case that will be reviewed is Investigation of the Challenger Accident.

Thi first case is taken from Investigation of the Challenger Accident. On April 1986, one of the biggest
engineering disasters happened in Ukraine, Pripyat. Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, which is one of the
most promising solutions to an alternative energy was exploded which create great havoc in a big area of
the city. Quickly after the explosion happened, huge quantity of radioactive particles was released into
the air and reach the atmosphere surface with less than 3 hours in West part of Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics and certain Europe region. The disaster started when a procedure was designed to determine
sufficient amount of cooling water was provided even in a condition such as complete loss of power
occurred when the emergency cooling mechanism was not able to perform. After the calculation done
which are predicted to result in no error, system test was performed and indicated unusual symptoms.
Under a panic condition and without thought further, one of the engineers executed an emergency
shutdown to the system which causes an instantaneous spike. Since the system test required a lot of
power surge, the spike creates unexpected problems. In no time, the vessel of the power was punctured
which cause chain explosions continuously. The explosion continued until it reached the core of the power
plant which causes its graphite moderator exposed to the open air and ignited which contributed a huge
amount of air pollution in the bigger area. The explosion caused up to 64 deaths directly where it was
followed by another victim of death up to 4000 lives as they are exposed directly to the radioactive
particles on the power plant site. Since the radioactive particles were spread in further distances, this
incident took another almost 1 million premature cancer deaths victims.

Reviewing the incident with Utilitarianism theory, the motive and outcome of the incident are very
important to be investigated. It can be observed that the motive of this incident is indecisive action during
rush condition. As an engineer, performing an investigation on any project that has very high
consequences had to be done very precisely and carefully. Preplanning and review of the approach on the
project are very important to prevent unexpected cases like happened during system test above. The
outcome of the project also very disastrous. A gigantic amount of unassociated life was taken just because
of the indecisive decision. Concluding based on this theory, this can be distinguished as not fulfilling moral
responsibility as the risk of failure of system test can be taken more considerably which can save a big
number of casualties.

In Kantian ethics point of view, it is can be determined immoral responsibility since there is no good will
on doing such a rush decision without any thoughts further. It is always better to think more carefully
before deciding since it is considered to be wiser and matured judgment.

The second study case that will be reviewed is Investigation of the Challenger Accident. On January 1986,
the new space shuttle, Challenger was supposedly sent to perform in the space until it broke down just
less than 1 minutes after its launch. The main cause of the incident was failure design on primary and
secondary O-rings at the right side of the rocket booster support. Highly temperature gas and flame was
leaked and hit the external tank and caused a structural problem. Failure of O-Ring compartment
technology was popular and had been ignored for almost 1 decade since it was suggested safe by adding
second O-Ring. Unfortunately, on this incident, both of O-Rings were not able to perform as a safety
element. This incident caused 7 deaths of its own crew members.

In Utilitarianism Theory, this problem seems morally irresponsible since the motive of the incident was
done to minimize the cost while only causing higher risk or consequences. In my opinion as a Mechanical
Engineer, it is not professional to resolve the problem by the neglecting failure of the compartment and
resolve it just by adding another same compartment to seemingly improved the safety precautions. The
consequences are not even equal to the cost that saved by just adding another compartment, not
resolving the ultimate problem.

In point of view from Kantian Theory, it is determined as moral responsible when engineers do something
on their own belief and good will by neglecting the consequences. From the first point of the problem
which is the cause of the failure was the breakdown of the O-Rings, it was still morally responsible since
engineers may failure on certain calculations. Another reason that causes the incident which was
neglecting the failure trend of O-Rings which cause disaster on them of launch. Engineers should do their
best to minimize the potential failure on a big project like designing safety precaution that may cost a life.
This second reason determined as morally irresponsible.

In the end, as Mechanical Engineer, we are expected to perform at our best condition and as professional
ass possible since we are the one that is responsible for our own creations. There are two measurements
on Engineering Ethics that determined Professional Engineer. By applying Utilitarianism theory, we can
perform a cost-benefit analysis which will minimize consequences that may happen. Using Kantian theory,
we may have determined engineer as morally responsible for every act that engineers do on their will and
believe on handling problems and project. In the end, we, engineers will bring a big impact to society
depends on what we intend to do. Being responsible and considerably determined individual as a
professional engineer.
References
Agency, I. A. (2006). Environmental Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident and their Remediation:
Twenty Years of Experience. Vienna: International Atom.

Eggleston, B. (2012). Utilitarinism. University of Kansas.

Fuqua, D. (1986). INVESTIGATION OF THE CHALLENGER ACCIDENT. Washington: U.S. GOVERMENT

PRINTING OFFICE.

Lacewing, M. (2003). Kants deontological ethics. 1.

Lozano, J. F. (2003). Ethical Responsibility in Engineering: A Fundementation and Proposition of

Pedagogic Methodology. 2-3.