3 ms·
That’s the question I had in a recent engineering law course. It’s clearer IMO when engineering licenses are involved, but most manufacturing (like aerospace)
by bumby 3y ago
That’s the question I had in a recent engineering law course. It’s clearer IMO when engineering licenses are involved, but most manufacturing (like aerospace) operate under industrial exemptions for PE licenses.
But saying “no, they’ll just be jobless and hire an engineer who’ll rubber stamp it” feels like a cop out to me. Why couldn’t you also extend that further? “no, the board/shareholders will just hire a CEO who prioritizes schedule and profit” fits in the same domain, and nobody is clamoring to hold shareholders accountable.
My personal opinion is that there are a few professions (doctor, lawyer, engineer) who have ethical duties to the public, irrespective of the consequences to their personal career. That’s a legal duty, as opposed to a personal duty to your family.
- givemeethekeys 3y agoThe company will try to find a a hungry PE to replace the ethical PE.
- bumby 3y agoNow replace “PE” with “CEO” and you have the same dynamic, which is what the previous post was trying to point out. The question is about who has an ethical duty to the public and how to hold them accountable as such. I’m not sure why it applies only to one group when there’s a reasonable precedent that engineers also have an ethical duty to the public.
- intotheabyss 3y agoIn aerospace, the engineers that have responsibility are called delegates, or DERs. It's a step above a PE, but your comment still applies.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]