Class Date: Thursday, 21st July, 2011
The first half of the lecture provided an overview of the course and the expectations of we the students. The only point to ponder was what it was to be a professional. Prof. Shortis listed and dismissed the attributes of pay, status, career, and, education and training. His suggestion was that the right attitude is the mark of the professional. The right attitude has four aspects: lifelong learning; respect for a code of ethics; membership of an organisation, and; awareness of the public. Of these aspects I'm only unsure about membership of an organisation. I can see how both the field and the individual make gains from organisations but I don't see it as being as necessary to being a professional as the other three.
The second hour was taken by Prof. John Buckeridge and he delivered a lecture on ethics. Within his talk he covered ethics by bringing up examples, both hypothetical and real, based on how our actions affect the surrounding world. There notion of biodiversity and it's importance was queried without the being clearly stated. He alluded to it's importance but did not declare that our actions are possibly leading to it's, and possibly our, disappearance. It was a strong discussion point because engineers, and also surveyors, have major roles in projects that change the world on a grand scale.
His brief summary of ethics was that it codifies moral values in society. Within a profession an ethics code will confine the actions of the members to good practice (only do what you are qualified to do); do no harm to society, other colleagues and the environment; and, be honorable and sustainable. This is obviously not a specific list but a set of parameters that any code of ethics is to cover. It is interesting to note that while the professional may be ethical at work these guidelines do not lay claim to the actions of their personal life. Perhaps there is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde surveyor out there who is the perfect gentleman at work but completely amoral once out of uniform. Also, since the morals of society are not static an ethics code can not be carved in stone and need to be changed as required. This is like the Humanist Manifesto that had to be changed after the atrocities of the Second World War.
His final point was that the professional behaves responsibly and in an accountable manner. As an example of unprofessional behavior he discussed Rupert Murdoch, who is currently being scrutinised due to phone hacking at one of his news papers. While neither being responsible or aware of the phone hacking, as head of the company he undoubtably weilded great influence over the culture. It is likely that he allowed the climate to develop that let people feel justified in the phone hacking. It is for these reasons that Prof.Buckeridge believed that Mr. Murdoch should have held himself accountable and resigned.
I enjoyed his talk immensely. He was very erudite without being technical or abstract. Early on I felt I was listening to an episode of Ockham's Razor. He would not sound out of place chatting away with Robyn Williams on Radio National on a weekend afternoon.
I like your Jekyll and Hyde analogy - one issue that John did not bring out is that the professional engineer at the BBQ next door is still responsible, and possibly even accountable, for any professional opinions that they express. The Mechanical Engineer is still liable for their opinion on the retaining wall, irrespective of it not being his or her area of expertise.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, John would absolutely be in his element on a radio science show!