The importance of meta-ethics in engineering education
Abstract Our shared moral framework is negotiated as part of the social contract. Some elements of that framework are established (tell the truth under oath), but other elements lack an overlapping consensus (just when can an individual lie to protect his or her privacy?). The tidy bits of our accep...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Haws, David R. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2004 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Opragen Publications 2004 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Science and engineering ethics - Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995, 10(2004), 2 vom: Juni, Seite 204-210 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:10 ; year:2004 ; number:2 ; month:06 ; pages:204-210 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2029168890 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2029168890 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230402075425.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200819s2004 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2029168890 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s11948-004-0015-7-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 100 |a 500 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 19,2 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Haws, David R. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a The importance of meta-ethics in engineering education |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2004 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Opragen Publications 2004 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Our shared moral framework is negotiated as part of the social contract. Some elements of that framework are established (tell the truth under oath), but other elements lack an overlapping consensus (just when can an individual lie to protect his or her privacy?). The tidy bits of our accepted moral framework have been codified, becoming the subject of legal rather than ethical consideration. Those elements remaining in the realm of ethics seem fragmented and inconsistent. Yet, our engineering students will need to navigate the broken ground of this complex moral landscape. A minimalist approach would leave our students with formulated dogma—principles of right and wrong such as the National Society for Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers—but without any insight into the genesis of these principles. A slightly deeper, micro-ethics approach would teach our students to solve ethical problems by applying heuristics—giving our students a rational process to manipulate ethical dilemmas using the same principles simply referenced a priori by dogma. A macro-ethics approach—helping students to inductively construct a posteriori principles from case studies—goes beyond the simple statement or manipulation of principles, but falls short of linking personal moral principles to the larger, social context. Ultimately, it is this social context that requires both the application of ethical principles, and the negotiation of moral values—from an understanding of meta-ethics. The approaches to engineering ethics instruction (dogma, heuristics, case studies, and meta-ethics) can be associated with stages of moral development. If we leave our students with only a dogmatic reaction to ethical dilemmas, they will be dependent on the ethical decisions of others (a denial of their fundamental potential for moral autonomy). Heuristics offers a tool to deal independently with moral questions, but a tool that too frequently reduces to casuistry when rigidly applied to “simplified” dilemmas. Case studies, while providing a context for engineering ethics, can encourage the premature analysis of specific moral conduct rather than the development of broad moral principles—stifling our students’ facility with meta-ethics. Clearly, if a moral sense is developmental, ethics instruction should lead our students from lower to higher stages of moral development. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a engineering ethics | |
| 650 | 4 | |a meta-ethics | |
| 650 | 4 | |a ethical systems | |
| 650 | 4 | |a theoretical ethics | |
| 650 | 4 | |a applied ethics | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Science and engineering ethics |d Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995 |g 10(2004), 2 vom: Juni, Seite 204-210 |w (DE-627)19230397X |w (DE-600)1304534-9 |w (DE-576)051378167 |x 1353-3452 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:10 |g year:2004 |g number:2 |g month:06 |g pages:204-210 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-TEC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHY | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-CHE | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-MAT | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-TGE | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2006 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 10 |j 2004 |e 2 |c 06 |h 204-210 | ||
| author_variant |
d r h dr drh |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:13533452:2004----::hipracomtehciegn |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2004 |
| publishDate |
2004 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7 doi (DE-627)OLC2029168890 (DE-He213)s11948-004-0015-7-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 500 VZ 19,2 ssgn Haws, David R. verfasserin aut The importance of meta-ethics in engineering education 2004 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Opragen Publications 2004 Abstract Our shared moral framework is negotiated as part of the social contract. Some elements of that framework are established (tell the truth under oath), but other elements lack an overlapping consensus (just when can an individual lie to protect his or her privacy?). The tidy bits of our accepted moral framework have been codified, becoming the subject of legal rather than ethical consideration. Those elements remaining in the realm of ethics seem fragmented and inconsistent. Yet, our engineering students will need to navigate the broken ground of this complex moral landscape. A minimalist approach would leave our students with formulated dogma—principles of right and wrong such as the National Society for Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers—but without any insight into the genesis of these principles. A slightly deeper, micro-ethics approach would teach our students to solve ethical problems by applying heuristics—giving our students a rational process to manipulate ethical dilemmas using the same principles simply referenced a priori by dogma. A macro-ethics approach—helping students to inductively construct a posteriori principles from case studies—goes beyond the simple statement or manipulation of principles, but falls short of linking personal moral principles to the larger, social context. Ultimately, it is this social context that requires both the application of ethical principles, and the negotiation of moral values—from an understanding of meta-ethics. The approaches to engineering ethics instruction (dogma, heuristics, case studies, and meta-ethics) can be associated with stages of moral development. If we leave our students with only a dogmatic reaction to ethical dilemmas, they will be dependent on the ethical decisions of others (a denial of their fundamental potential for moral autonomy). Heuristics offers a tool to deal independently with moral questions, but a tool that too frequently reduces to casuistry when rigidly applied to “simplified” dilemmas. Case studies, while providing a context for engineering ethics, can encourage the premature analysis of specific moral conduct rather than the development of broad moral principles—stifling our students’ facility with meta-ethics. Clearly, if a moral sense is developmental, ethics instruction should lead our students from lower to higher stages of moral development. engineering ethics meta-ethics ethical systems theoretical ethics applied ethics Enthalten in Science and engineering ethics Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995 10(2004), 2 vom: Juni, Seite 204-210 (DE-627)19230397X (DE-600)1304534-9 (DE-576)051378167 1353-3452 nnns volume:10 year:2004 number:2 month:06 pages:204-210 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-MAT SSG-OLC-TGE GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2006 AR 10 2004 2 06 204-210 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7 doi (DE-627)OLC2029168890 (DE-He213)s11948-004-0015-7-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 500 VZ 19,2 ssgn Haws, David R. verfasserin aut The importance of meta-ethics in engineering education 2004 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Opragen Publications 2004 Abstract Our shared moral framework is negotiated as part of the social contract. Some elements of that framework are established (tell the truth under oath), but other elements lack an overlapping consensus (just when can an individual lie to protect his or her privacy?). The tidy bits of our accepted moral framework have been codified, becoming the subject of legal rather than ethical consideration. Those elements remaining in the realm of ethics seem fragmented and inconsistent. Yet, our engineering students will need to navigate the broken ground of this complex moral landscape. A minimalist approach would leave our students with formulated dogma—principles of right and wrong such as the National Society for Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers—but without any insight into the genesis of these principles. A slightly deeper, micro-ethics approach would teach our students to solve ethical problems by applying heuristics—giving our students a rational process to manipulate ethical dilemmas using the same principles simply referenced a priori by dogma. A macro-ethics approach—helping students to inductively construct a posteriori principles from case studies—goes beyond the simple statement or manipulation of principles, but falls short of linking personal moral principles to the larger, social context. Ultimately, it is this social context that requires both the application of ethical principles, and the negotiation of moral values—from an understanding of meta-ethics. The approaches to engineering ethics instruction (dogma, heuristics, case studies, and meta-ethics) can be associated with stages of moral development. If we leave our students with only a dogmatic reaction to ethical dilemmas, they will be dependent on the ethical decisions of others (a denial of their fundamental potential for moral autonomy). Heuristics offers a tool to deal independently with moral questions, but a tool that too frequently reduces to casuistry when rigidly applied to “simplified” dilemmas. Case studies, while providing a context for engineering ethics, can encourage the premature analysis of specific moral conduct rather than the development of broad moral principles—stifling our students’ facility with meta-ethics. Clearly, if a moral sense is developmental, ethics instruction should lead our students from lower to higher stages of moral development. engineering ethics meta-ethics ethical systems theoretical ethics applied ethics Enthalten in Science and engineering ethics Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995 10(2004), 2 vom: Juni, Seite 204-210 (DE-627)19230397X (DE-600)1304534-9 (DE-576)051378167 1353-3452 nnns volume:10 year:2004 number:2 month:06 pages:204-210 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-MAT SSG-OLC-TGE GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2006 AR 10 2004 2 06 204-210 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7 doi (DE-627)OLC2029168890 (DE-He213)s11948-004-0015-7-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 500 VZ 19,2 ssgn Haws, David R. verfasserin aut The importance of meta-ethics in engineering education 2004 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Opragen Publications 2004 Abstract Our shared moral framework is negotiated as part of the social contract. Some elements of that framework are established (tell the truth under oath), but other elements lack an overlapping consensus (just when can an individual lie to protect his or her privacy?). The tidy bits of our accepted moral framework have been codified, becoming the subject of legal rather than ethical consideration. Those elements remaining in the realm of ethics seem fragmented and inconsistent. Yet, our engineering students will need to navigate the broken ground of this complex moral landscape. A minimalist approach would leave our students with formulated dogma—principles of right and wrong such as the National Society for Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers—but without any insight into the genesis of these principles. A slightly deeper, micro-ethics approach would teach our students to solve ethical problems by applying heuristics—giving our students a rational process to manipulate ethical dilemmas using the same principles simply referenced a priori by dogma. A macro-ethics approach—helping students to inductively construct a posteriori principles from case studies—goes beyond the simple statement or manipulation of principles, but falls short of linking personal moral principles to the larger, social context. Ultimately, it is this social context that requires both the application of ethical principles, and the negotiation of moral values—from an understanding of meta-ethics. The approaches to engineering ethics instruction (dogma, heuristics, case studies, and meta-ethics) can be associated with stages of moral development. If we leave our students with only a dogmatic reaction to ethical dilemmas, they will be dependent on the ethical decisions of others (a denial of their fundamental potential for moral autonomy). Heuristics offers a tool to deal independently with moral questions, but a tool that too frequently reduces to casuistry when rigidly applied to “simplified” dilemmas. Case studies, while providing a context for engineering ethics, can encourage the premature analysis of specific moral conduct rather than the development of broad moral principles—stifling our students’ facility with meta-ethics. Clearly, if a moral sense is developmental, ethics instruction should lead our students from lower to higher stages of moral development. engineering ethics meta-ethics ethical systems theoretical ethics applied ethics Enthalten in Science and engineering ethics Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995 10(2004), 2 vom: Juni, Seite 204-210 (DE-627)19230397X (DE-600)1304534-9 (DE-576)051378167 1353-3452 nnns volume:10 year:2004 number:2 month:06 pages:204-210 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-MAT SSG-OLC-TGE GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2006 AR 10 2004 2 06 204-210 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7 doi (DE-627)OLC2029168890 (DE-He213)s11948-004-0015-7-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 500 VZ 19,2 ssgn Haws, David R. verfasserin aut The importance of meta-ethics in engineering education 2004 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Opragen Publications 2004 Abstract Our shared moral framework is negotiated as part of the social contract. Some elements of that framework are established (tell the truth under oath), but other elements lack an overlapping consensus (just when can an individual lie to protect his or her privacy?). The tidy bits of our accepted moral framework have been codified, becoming the subject of legal rather than ethical consideration. Those elements remaining in the realm of ethics seem fragmented and inconsistent. Yet, our engineering students will need to navigate the broken ground of this complex moral landscape. A minimalist approach would leave our students with formulated dogma—principles of right and wrong such as the National Society for Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers—but without any insight into the genesis of these principles. A slightly deeper, micro-ethics approach would teach our students to solve ethical problems by applying heuristics—giving our students a rational process to manipulate ethical dilemmas using the same principles simply referenced a priori by dogma. A macro-ethics approach—helping students to inductively construct a posteriori principles from case studies—goes beyond the simple statement or manipulation of principles, but falls short of linking personal moral principles to the larger, social context. Ultimately, it is this social context that requires both the application of ethical principles, and the negotiation of moral values—from an understanding of meta-ethics. The approaches to engineering ethics instruction (dogma, heuristics, case studies, and meta-ethics) can be associated with stages of moral development. If we leave our students with only a dogmatic reaction to ethical dilemmas, they will be dependent on the ethical decisions of others (a denial of their fundamental potential for moral autonomy). Heuristics offers a tool to deal independently with moral questions, but a tool that too frequently reduces to casuistry when rigidly applied to “simplified” dilemmas. Case studies, while providing a context for engineering ethics, can encourage the premature analysis of specific moral conduct rather than the development of broad moral principles—stifling our students’ facility with meta-ethics. Clearly, if a moral sense is developmental, ethics instruction should lead our students from lower to higher stages of moral development. engineering ethics meta-ethics ethical systems theoretical ethics applied ethics Enthalten in Science and engineering ethics Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995 10(2004), 2 vom: Juni, Seite 204-210 (DE-627)19230397X (DE-600)1304534-9 (DE-576)051378167 1353-3452 nnns volume:10 year:2004 number:2 month:06 pages:204-210 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-MAT SSG-OLC-TGE GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2006 AR 10 2004 2 06 204-210 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7 doi (DE-627)OLC2029168890 (DE-He213)s11948-004-0015-7-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 500 VZ 19,2 ssgn Haws, David R. verfasserin aut The importance of meta-ethics in engineering education 2004 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Opragen Publications 2004 Abstract Our shared moral framework is negotiated as part of the social contract. Some elements of that framework are established (tell the truth under oath), but other elements lack an overlapping consensus (just when can an individual lie to protect his or her privacy?). The tidy bits of our accepted moral framework have been codified, becoming the subject of legal rather than ethical consideration. Those elements remaining in the realm of ethics seem fragmented and inconsistent. Yet, our engineering students will need to navigate the broken ground of this complex moral landscape. A minimalist approach would leave our students with formulated dogma—principles of right and wrong such as the National Society for Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers—but without any insight into the genesis of these principles. A slightly deeper, micro-ethics approach would teach our students to solve ethical problems by applying heuristics—giving our students a rational process to manipulate ethical dilemmas using the same principles simply referenced a priori by dogma. A macro-ethics approach—helping students to inductively construct a posteriori principles from case studies—goes beyond the simple statement or manipulation of principles, but falls short of linking personal moral principles to the larger, social context. Ultimately, it is this social context that requires both the application of ethical principles, and the negotiation of moral values—from an understanding of meta-ethics. The approaches to engineering ethics instruction (dogma, heuristics, case studies, and meta-ethics) can be associated with stages of moral development. If we leave our students with only a dogmatic reaction to ethical dilemmas, they will be dependent on the ethical decisions of others (a denial of their fundamental potential for moral autonomy). Heuristics offers a tool to deal independently with moral questions, but a tool that too frequently reduces to casuistry when rigidly applied to “simplified” dilemmas. Case studies, while providing a context for engineering ethics, can encourage the premature analysis of specific moral conduct rather than the development of broad moral principles—stifling our students’ facility with meta-ethics. Clearly, if a moral sense is developmental, ethics instruction should lead our students from lower to higher stages of moral development. engineering ethics meta-ethics ethical systems theoretical ethics applied ethics Enthalten in Science and engineering ethics Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995 10(2004), 2 vom: Juni, Seite 204-210 (DE-627)19230397X (DE-600)1304534-9 (DE-576)051378167 1353-3452 nnns volume:10 year:2004 number:2 month:06 pages:204-210 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-MAT SSG-OLC-TGE GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2006 AR 10 2004 2 06 204-210 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Science and engineering ethics 10(2004), 2 vom: Juni, Seite 204-210 volume:10 year:2004 number:2 month:06 pages:204-210 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Science and engineering ethics 10(2004), 2 vom: Juni, Seite 204-210 volume:10 year:2004 number:2 month:06 pages:204-210 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
engineering ethics meta-ethics ethical systems theoretical ethics applied ethics |
| dewey-raw |
100 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Science and engineering ethics |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Haws, David R. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2004-06-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
19230397X |
| dewey-sort |
3100 |
| id |
OLC2029168890 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2029168890</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230402075425.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2004 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2029168890</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11948-004-0015-7-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="a">500</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">19,2</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Haws, David R.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">The importance of meta-ethics in engineering education</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Opragen Publications 2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Our shared moral framework is negotiated as part of the social contract. Some elements of that framework are established (tell the truth under oath), but other elements lack an overlapping consensus (just when can an individual lie to protect his or her privacy?). The tidy bits of our accepted moral framework have been codified, becoming the subject of legal rather than ethical consideration. Those elements remaining in the realm of ethics seem fragmented and inconsistent. Yet, our engineering students will need to navigate the broken ground of this complex moral landscape. A minimalist approach would leave our students with formulated dogma—principles of right and wrong such as the National Society for Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers—but without any insight into the genesis of these principles. A slightly deeper, micro-ethics approach would teach our students to solve ethical problems by applying heuristics—giving our students a rational process to manipulate ethical dilemmas using the same principles simply referenced a priori by dogma. A macro-ethics approach—helping students to inductively construct a posteriori principles from case studies—goes beyond the simple statement or manipulation of principles, but falls short of linking personal moral principles to the larger, social context. Ultimately, it is this social context that requires both the application of ethical principles, and the negotiation of moral values—from an understanding of meta-ethics. The approaches to engineering ethics instruction (dogma, heuristics, case studies, and meta-ethics) can be associated with stages of moral development. If we leave our students with only a dogmatic reaction to ethical dilemmas, they will be dependent on the ethical decisions of others (a denial of their fundamental potential for moral autonomy). Heuristics offers a tool to deal independently with moral questions, but a tool that too frequently reduces to casuistry when rigidly applied to “simplified” dilemmas. Case studies, while providing a context for engineering ethics, can encourage the premature analysis of specific moral conduct rather than the development of broad moral principles—stifling our students’ facility with meta-ethics. Clearly, if a moral sense is developmental, ethics instruction should lead our students from lower to higher stages of moral development.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">engineering ethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">meta-ethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">ethical systems</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">theoretical ethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">applied ethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Science and engineering ethics</subfield><subfield code="d">Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995</subfield><subfield code="g">10(2004), 2 vom: Juni, Seite 204-210</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)19230397X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1304534-9</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)051378167</subfield><subfield code="x">1353-3452</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:10</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2004</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">month:06</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:204-210</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-TEC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHY</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-CHE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-MAT</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-TGE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">10</subfield><subfield code="j">2004</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="c">06</subfield><subfield code="h">204-210</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Haws, David R. |
| spellingShingle |
Haws, David R. ddc 100 ssgn 19,2 misc engineering ethics misc meta-ethics misc ethical systems misc theoretical ethics misc applied ethics The importance of meta-ethics in engineering education |
| authorStr |
Haws, David R. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)19230397X |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
100 - Philosophy & psychology 500 - Natural sciences & mathematics |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1353-3452 |
| topic_title |
100 500 VZ 19,2 ssgn The importance of meta-ethics in engineering education engineering ethics meta-ethics ethical systems theoretical ethics applied ethics |
| topic |
ddc 100 ssgn 19,2 misc engineering ethics misc meta-ethics misc ethical systems misc theoretical ethics misc applied ethics |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 100 ssgn 19,2 misc engineering ethics misc meta-ethics misc ethical systems misc theoretical ethics misc applied ethics |
| topic_browse |
ddc 100 ssgn 19,2 misc engineering ethics misc meta-ethics misc ethical systems misc theoretical ethics misc applied ethics |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Science and engineering ethics |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
19230397X |
| dewey-tens |
100 - Philosophy 500 - Science |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Science and engineering ethics |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)19230397X (DE-600)1304534-9 (DE-576)051378167 |
| title |
The importance of meta-ethics in engineering education |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2029168890 (DE-He213)s11948-004-0015-7-p |
| title_full |
The importance of meta-ethics in engineering education |
| author_sort |
Haws, David R. |
| journal |
Science and engineering ethics |
| journalStr |
Science and engineering ethics |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
100 - Philosophy & psychology 500 - Science |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2004 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
204 |
| author_browse |
Haws, David R. |
| container_volume |
10 |
| class |
100 500 VZ 19,2 ssgn |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Haws, David R. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7 |
| dewey-full |
100 500 |
| title_sort |
the importance of meta-ethics in engineering education |
| title_auth |
The importance of meta-ethics in engineering education |
| abstract |
Abstract Our shared moral framework is negotiated as part of the social contract. Some elements of that framework are established (tell the truth under oath), but other elements lack an overlapping consensus (just when can an individual lie to protect his or her privacy?). The tidy bits of our accepted moral framework have been codified, becoming the subject of legal rather than ethical consideration. Those elements remaining in the realm of ethics seem fragmented and inconsistent. Yet, our engineering students will need to navigate the broken ground of this complex moral landscape. A minimalist approach would leave our students with formulated dogma—principles of right and wrong such as the National Society for Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers—but without any insight into the genesis of these principles. A slightly deeper, micro-ethics approach would teach our students to solve ethical problems by applying heuristics—giving our students a rational process to manipulate ethical dilemmas using the same principles simply referenced a priori by dogma. A macro-ethics approach—helping students to inductively construct a posteriori principles from case studies—goes beyond the simple statement or manipulation of principles, but falls short of linking personal moral principles to the larger, social context. Ultimately, it is this social context that requires both the application of ethical principles, and the negotiation of moral values—from an understanding of meta-ethics. The approaches to engineering ethics instruction (dogma, heuristics, case studies, and meta-ethics) can be associated with stages of moral development. If we leave our students with only a dogmatic reaction to ethical dilemmas, they will be dependent on the ethical decisions of others (a denial of their fundamental potential for moral autonomy). Heuristics offers a tool to deal independently with moral questions, but a tool that too frequently reduces to casuistry when rigidly applied to “simplified” dilemmas. Case studies, while providing a context for engineering ethics, can encourage the premature analysis of specific moral conduct rather than the development of broad moral principles—stifling our students’ facility with meta-ethics. Clearly, if a moral sense is developmental, ethics instruction should lead our students from lower to higher stages of moral development. © Opragen Publications 2004 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Our shared moral framework is negotiated as part of the social contract. Some elements of that framework are established (tell the truth under oath), but other elements lack an overlapping consensus (just when can an individual lie to protect his or her privacy?). The tidy bits of our accepted moral framework have been codified, becoming the subject of legal rather than ethical consideration. Those elements remaining in the realm of ethics seem fragmented and inconsistent. Yet, our engineering students will need to navigate the broken ground of this complex moral landscape. A minimalist approach would leave our students with formulated dogma—principles of right and wrong such as the National Society for Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers—but without any insight into the genesis of these principles. A slightly deeper, micro-ethics approach would teach our students to solve ethical problems by applying heuristics—giving our students a rational process to manipulate ethical dilemmas using the same principles simply referenced a priori by dogma. A macro-ethics approach—helping students to inductively construct a posteriori principles from case studies—goes beyond the simple statement or manipulation of principles, but falls short of linking personal moral principles to the larger, social context. Ultimately, it is this social context that requires both the application of ethical principles, and the negotiation of moral values—from an understanding of meta-ethics. The approaches to engineering ethics instruction (dogma, heuristics, case studies, and meta-ethics) can be associated with stages of moral development. If we leave our students with only a dogmatic reaction to ethical dilemmas, they will be dependent on the ethical decisions of others (a denial of their fundamental potential for moral autonomy). Heuristics offers a tool to deal independently with moral questions, but a tool that too frequently reduces to casuistry when rigidly applied to “simplified” dilemmas. Case studies, while providing a context for engineering ethics, can encourage the premature analysis of specific moral conduct rather than the development of broad moral principles—stifling our students’ facility with meta-ethics. Clearly, if a moral sense is developmental, ethics instruction should lead our students from lower to higher stages of moral development. © Opragen Publications 2004 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Our shared moral framework is negotiated as part of the social contract. Some elements of that framework are established (tell the truth under oath), but other elements lack an overlapping consensus (just when can an individual lie to protect his or her privacy?). The tidy bits of our accepted moral framework have been codified, becoming the subject of legal rather than ethical consideration. Those elements remaining in the realm of ethics seem fragmented and inconsistent. Yet, our engineering students will need to navigate the broken ground of this complex moral landscape. A minimalist approach would leave our students with formulated dogma—principles of right and wrong such as the National Society for Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers—but without any insight into the genesis of these principles. A slightly deeper, micro-ethics approach would teach our students to solve ethical problems by applying heuristics—giving our students a rational process to manipulate ethical dilemmas using the same principles simply referenced a priori by dogma. A macro-ethics approach—helping students to inductively construct a posteriori principles from case studies—goes beyond the simple statement or manipulation of principles, but falls short of linking personal moral principles to the larger, social context. Ultimately, it is this social context that requires both the application of ethical principles, and the negotiation of moral values—from an understanding of meta-ethics. The approaches to engineering ethics instruction (dogma, heuristics, case studies, and meta-ethics) can be associated with stages of moral development. If we leave our students with only a dogmatic reaction to ethical dilemmas, they will be dependent on the ethical decisions of others (a denial of their fundamental potential for moral autonomy). Heuristics offers a tool to deal independently with moral questions, but a tool that too frequently reduces to casuistry when rigidly applied to “simplified” dilemmas. Case studies, while providing a context for engineering ethics, can encourage the premature analysis of specific moral conduct rather than the development of broad moral principles—stifling our students’ facility with meta-ethics. Clearly, if a moral sense is developmental, ethics instruction should lead our students from lower to higher stages of moral development. © Opragen Publications 2004 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-MAT SSG-OLC-TGE GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2006 |
| container_issue |
2 |
| title_short |
The importance of meta-ethics in engineering education |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| ppnlink |
19230397X |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T21:57:04.272Z |
| _version_ |
1803596673087176704 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2029168890</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230402075425.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2004 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2029168890</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11948-004-0015-7-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="a">500</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">19,2</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Haws, David R.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">The importance of meta-ethics in engineering education</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Opragen Publications 2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Our shared moral framework is negotiated as part of the social contract. Some elements of that framework are established (tell the truth under oath), but other elements lack an overlapping consensus (just when can an individual lie to protect his or her privacy?). The tidy bits of our accepted moral framework have been codified, becoming the subject of legal rather than ethical consideration. Those elements remaining in the realm of ethics seem fragmented and inconsistent. Yet, our engineering students will need to navigate the broken ground of this complex moral landscape. A minimalist approach would leave our students with formulated dogma—principles of right and wrong such as the National Society for Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers—but without any insight into the genesis of these principles. A slightly deeper, micro-ethics approach would teach our students to solve ethical problems by applying heuristics—giving our students a rational process to manipulate ethical dilemmas using the same principles simply referenced a priori by dogma. A macro-ethics approach—helping students to inductively construct a posteriori principles from case studies—goes beyond the simple statement or manipulation of principles, but falls short of linking personal moral principles to the larger, social context. Ultimately, it is this social context that requires both the application of ethical principles, and the negotiation of moral values—from an understanding of meta-ethics. The approaches to engineering ethics instruction (dogma, heuristics, case studies, and meta-ethics) can be associated with stages of moral development. If we leave our students with only a dogmatic reaction to ethical dilemmas, they will be dependent on the ethical decisions of others (a denial of their fundamental potential for moral autonomy). Heuristics offers a tool to deal independently with moral questions, but a tool that too frequently reduces to casuistry when rigidly applied to “simplified” dilemmas. Case studies, while providing a context for engineering ethics, can encourage the premature analysis of specific moral conduct rather than the development of broad moral principles—stifling our students’ facility with meta-ethics. Clearly, if a moral sense is developmental, ethics instruction should lead our students from lower to higher stages of moral development.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">engineering ethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">meta-ethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">ethical systems</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">theoretical ethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">applied ethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Science and engineering ethics</subfield><subfield code="d">Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995</subfield><subfield code="g">10(2004), 2 vom: Juni, Seite 204-210</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)19230397X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1304534-9</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)051378167</subfield><subfield code="x">1353-3452</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:10</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2004</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">month:06</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:204-210</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-004-0015-7</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-TEC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHY</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-CHE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-MAT</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-TGE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">10</subfield><subfield code="j">2004</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="c">06</subfield><subfield code="h">204-210</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3983355 |