Doing the Minimum as an Alternative to Exercising Reasonable Care in a Professional Role Davis, Michael engineering ethics professional ethics professional responsibility business ethics In the second edition of ENGINEERING ETHICS:CASES AND CONCEPTS (Wadsworth, 2000), Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins distinguish three conceptions of professional responsibility: the "minimalist," the "reasonable care" and the "good works". Of the minimalist conception, they say (among other things) that it "holds that engineers have a duty to conform to the standard operating procedures of their profession and to fulfill the basic duties of their job defied by the terms of their employment." (p.101). In contrast, the reasonable care conception "moves beyond the minimalist view's concern to 'stay out of trouble'. (p.103) I will argue that this distinction is incoherent, that the "minimalist conception" (so defined) necessarily includes not only reasonable care but at least some of what Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins classify as "good works". I conclude with a suggestion for what they might say instead about a certain "minimalist attitude" one finds in business (though it truth, it should be called "sub-minimalist". Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Professional and Practical Ethics (A.P.P.E.), Washington, DC, February 26, 2000. 2008 2000 Presentation printed matter application/pdf islandora:10172 http://hdl.handle.net/10560/islandora:10172 CSEP / Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions Illinois Institute of Technology In Copyright http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/ Open Access