
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:title>&apos;Ain&apos;t No One Here But Us Social Forces&apos; : Constructing the Social Responsibility of Engineers.</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Davis, Michael</dc:creator>
  <dc:subject>engineering ethics</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>engineer</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>responsibility</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>liability</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>accountability</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>causation</dc:subject>
  <dc:description>There are many ways to avoid responsibility, for example, explaining what happens as the work of the gods, fate,
    society, or the system. For engineers, “technology” or “the organization” will serve this purpose quite well. We may
    distinguish at least nine (related) senses of “responsibility”, the most important of which are: (a)
    responsibility-as-causation (the storm is responsible for flooding), (b) responsibility-as-liability (he is the
    person responsible and will have to pay), (c) responsibility-as-competency (he’s a responsible person, that is, he’s
    rational), (d) responsibility-as-office (he’s the responsible person, that is, the person in charge), and (e) a
    responsibility-as-domain-of-tasks (these are her responsibilities, that is, the things she is supposed to do). For
    all but the causal sense of responsibility, responsibility may be taken (in a relatively straightforward sense)—and
    generally is. Why then would anyone want to claim that certain technologies make it impossible to attribute
    responsibility to engineers (or anyone else)? In this paper, I identify seven arguments for that claim and explain
    why each is fallacious. The most important are: (1) the argument from “many hands”, (2) the argument from individual
    ignorance, and (3) the argument from blind forces. Each of these arguments makes the same fundamental mistake, the
    assumption that a certain factual situation, being fixed, settles responsibility, that is, that individuals, either
    individually or by some group decision, cannot take responsibility. I conclude by pointing out the sort of decisions
    (and consequences) engineers have explicitly taken responsibility for and why taking responsibility for them is
    rational, all things considered. There is no technological bar to such responsibility.</dc:description>
  <dc:description>Science and Engineering Ethics.</dc:description>
  <dc:publisher>Springer</dc:publisher>
  <dc:date>2011-04</dc:date>
  <dc:date>2011-06</dc:date>
  <dc:type>Article</dc:type>
  <dc:format>printed matter</dc:format>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>islandora:10175</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>http://hdl.handle.net/10560/islandora:10175</dc:identifier>
  <dc:source>CSEP / Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions</dc:source>
  <dc:source>Illinois Institute of Technology</dc:source>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:rights>In Copyright</dc:rights>
  <dc:rights>http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/</dc:rights>
  <dc:rights>Open Access</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>
