ENGR0011/0711 Section
Group #
THE ETHICS OF WATER
Jordan Myers ()
3
Jordan Myers
PREFACE
Water: the most basic building block of life. No living thing on Planet Earth can survive without it. Thousands of years ago, there was pure, drinkable water available for every plant, animal, and man who required it. In the modern era, due to industrialization, war, and greed, clean water has become a scarcity in large portions of the world. In the battles of morality, ethics, consumption, and competition, water has shown through as a brazen issue that must be solved. There are many opinions and ideas on how to tackle this growing problem for 21st century Earth; considering all possible viewpoints may give way to a clear position from which action can be taken.
BACKGROUND
Firstly, a brief recap is needed of my researched solution: carbon nano-tubing desalination. Desalination in general is the removal of salt from water, making ocean water suitable for human consumption. Since the ocean accounts for around 75 percent of the Earth’s surface, it makes sense to search for ways to utilize this massive amount of water. While other outdated methods of desalination are already being used in the Middle East, these methods are costly, making it difficult for third-world or impoverished nations to use [1]. Unlike commonly used methods, the carbon nano-filter consists of a string of carbon one atom thick, facilitating efficient and streamline removal of salt and other large particles from water. I believe that carbon nano-filtration is the solution to this problem, due to its lower energy intake, and therefore, lower cost to produce and maintain. However, merely creating a technical solution to the water issue is not enough. Deliberations between engineers on where, how, and who should utilize this technology is an ongoing investigation, one that does not have a clear answer.
ETHICAL DILEMMA
Although this carbon nano-filtration technology is a giant step towards solving Earth’s distribution of water, there are several pressing conflicts that come along with it. The primary purpose of this technology is to provide a salt-free source of drinking water for impoverished nations and peoples. Thus, great care must be taken in determining how exactly the innovation should be distributed and utilized; life and death for hundreds of thousands of people depend on access to drinking water. I believe it is imperative that I and other future engineers consider not only the scientific pros and cons, but also the moral and ethical sides to each innovation.
CASE STUDIES
A case study presented by the National Institute for Engineering Ethics shines light on a possible dilemma. Although the case study is not focused on water treatment, it does bring up an interesting dilemma. In this scenario, Reilly Karful, an engineer, is conflicted between his own diagnosis and that of the fire code official’s of a possible building hazard. Reilly believes a situation warrants further investigation, which would be costly, while his boss and the fire code official insist that there are no problems with the building’s status [2]. This is a shadowing of a problem I encountered when deliberating on my own topic, water nano-desalination. The conflict that arose between the engineer and fire code official could be a mirroring of potential dispute with water desalination standards. It is unclear who would set and maintain standards of the water. Should it be the engineers who design the filtration, the government, or an individual party? The lines are further blurred to the international nature of this matter; its production would be in the U.S., but its use would be in the impoverished nations of the world.
The same conflict arises from another case study, this one by the National Society of Professional Engineers. In this scenario, an engineer reports a problem with a fire alarm to a building manager, who in turn tells the engineer that the problem will be fixed when money is available [3]. The engineer’s duty here is similar to an engineer’s duty in the instance of carbon nano-filtration. Just as a fire alarm should warn all members in the building of danger, the nano-technology should provide all people with access to desalinated water. But should the water be distributed equally, like the fire alarm? There is a wide spread need, but not all impoverished people can be aided at once. Should all penurious nations get the same number of filtration systems, or should some receive more than others?
Still further questions are raised when I scour through a third case study. This case, offered by the Taylor & Francis Corporation, was used in an MIT study on engineering and ethics. In the story, a young engineer was asked to work on a project with several other employees that would reduce the risk of autopilot failure on commercial aircraft. Meanwhile, there are still planes all over the world flying with faulty autopilot systems, prone to crashing [4]. Is it this young engineer’s responsibility to stop all flights from taking off until this system is fixed? Similarly, in the case of carbon nano-filtration, would it be my responsibility to halt usage of the filters if not enough was known about their long term effects? Should a model be produced and sent out as quickly as possible regardless of the unknown future effects?
These are all trying questions that I must attempt to answer. There are other sources I can look to for guidance, some being codes of ethics, and others articles or philosophical texts. Through a detailed look at all the arguments, I will challenge myself to answer these pressing matters if at all possible.
CODES OF ETHICS
The first logical place to look for guidance would be in an engineering code of ethics. I have consulted two codes, both nationally acclaimed. They are intended to be guidelines for current engineers and future ones, like myself. I will apply both codes to the issues raised in carbon nano-filtration, searching for an answer on the appropriate conduct.
NSPE CODE OF ETHICS
First, I will take a look at the most well-known code of ethics, provided by the National Society of Professional Engineers. The fundamental canons of this code do little to help me in my quest. The canons are vague and obvious, stating that I should be loyal to the public, work only in areas of my competence, and hold the safety of the public as top priority [5]. My situation does not conflict with any of these statements, and so the canons offer no assistance. Moving on to the Rules of Practice, I found something that, at first, appeared to be of value, but again, was not. The code stated that “engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are in conformity with applicable standards” [5]. This does not help me in establishing who should create these standards, or how they should be maintained.
Later on in the code, I found a statement that begins to point me in the right direction. In section 2-d of the Professional Obligations, it states that “engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations” [5]. Reading on reveals that the principles of sustainable development entails “the challenge of meeting human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural resource base essential for future development” [5]. Although this also is not incredibly helpful, it does provide a sort of lens with which to look at ethical problems. It is clear that the code does not evaluate human life differently, based on country of birth, economic status, or the like. This can be carried over and added on to other sources in order to gain a more clear perspective.
ASME CODE OF ETHICS
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code of Ethics proved to be very similar to the NSPE code, and thus also unaccommodating. There was one section of the code, however, that yielded an aid in my ethical considerations. Section 8-1 explained that engineers should focus themselves on the aftermath of their projects: namely, the environmental and the welfare of the public. It further continues to uphold that no direct or indirect effect of an engineer’s work should harm the public [6]. This could be interpreted to mean an engineer should not only avoid harm to the public at all costs, but also seek to aid the general public if at all possible. The general public in this case would be the impoverished people in third world countries. But this again leaves the question open as to what is the most help. Is the greatest benefit from providing the worst-off with large supplies of drinking water, or is it supplying less water to larger populations of the generally poor? Optimally, both these would occur, but a realistic view hints at only one being a viable option for the immediate future. Therefore, more information must be utilized in the debate.
ARTICLES ON ETHICS
SCIENCE ENGINEERING ETHICS
The first article I will consider is the Water Management article written for the Science Engineering Ethics publication. In this article, much information can be found regarding traditional and normative practices, and the differences between the two. The first few paragraphs lend a hand in determining our (engineers) responsibility for the current water allocation issue. The article explains that industrialization and capitalism have created a modernistic world, one concerned with the pleasures of oneself. Through this increase in technology also came the disproportionate distribution of water; the countries with advanced technology were able to secure water sources for themselves, thus leaving impoverished countries in the wake of their conquest [7]. Since aspiring engineers like myself have reaped the benefits of this past acquisition of water, it therefore is my duty to correct the lack of water in the countries my ancestors took it from. This at least provides me with the conviction needed to undertake the ethical dilemmas around water distribution.
Later on in the article, a specific water supply company in the Middle East was discussed. The company has gone through ethical reforms that can be applied to other companies around the world, and to my current dilemma. The company has dealt with water distribution issues and border control over the local river. Because of this, it has developed a formal code of conduct that can be helpful to my position. The local government enforces border control of the river, and after that, the company is free to manage itself [7]. If I apply this to my situation, this would mean that the local governments of the countries in need would still remain in control of their water. I agree with this; allowing the governments to control their ocean borders could add stability and deposit hope for the people. Since my technology does not interfere with inland water supplies, this does not require attention. The United States government could then set a reasonable standard for the desalination filter, and after meeting the minimum, any company or benefactor could finance a “missionary.” The minimum in question should be set to the lowest level of salt concentration that is safe for human drinking water. This clears up the issue of a standard for the filters.
PRINCIPLES OF WATER ETHICS
My second article comes from the Center for Humans & Nature, a scientifically based ethics publication. This was by far the most useful conventional source of information I found. In the article, several principles are established. The first is the Principle of Equity and Proportionality. This states that “…equity and proportionate response are required in the face of limited resources to give priority to the least well off, those most immediately at risk, and those who are made vulnerable by past discrimination, exclusion, and powerlessness” [8]. This gives a very clear and distinct answer to one of my ethical dilemmas: who should receive this aid? According to this principle, those who are in the most need of water should receive it first, and then those with less of an immediate need. This would entail providing assistance to the countries with a higher mortality rate first. I agree with this statement, and it solidifies my stance on the subject.
The second section describes the Principle of Solidarity, which gives a clear moral reasoning for why I and other aspiring engineers should take our surroundings into consideration. Humans have a duty to both other humans and to the biotic communities of the world, meaning that I should be conscious of how my decisions affect the world [8]. This has obviously been ignored in the past, which is the cause of the lack of clean water in third-world countries. But, if I apply this principle to the water shortage solution, it only strengthens my conviction. Carbon nano-technology is a cheaper alternative, so it can help more people per dollar, and it has minimal energy use and waste, making it efficient enough for any location. Relating these two principles found in the Center for Humans and Nature solidified my view on my solution, and provided me with a clearer vision as to the methods of distribution.
UTILITARIANISM
A third main source of knowledge for me was the basic views of utilitarianism, defined as basically the greatest good for the greatest number. Through the views of Utilitarianism, I can approach a more concrete stance on the ethical quandaries faced with nano-filtration. An overview from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following about Utilitarian views: “utilitarian moral theory requires that moral judgments be based on…the ‘equal consideration of interests’” [9]. This equal consideration of interests translates to the famous statement that “every man to count for one, nobody for more than one” [9]. Combining these two results in something that I believe is very powerful. Evaluating all human lives as equal makes it possible to analytically reason through the issue of who to help first. It may sound crass and brutish to some, but it is the only way to adequately and impartially solve these problems. By taking all lives as equal, I believe those closest to death should be aided first. This means the third-world countries with the highest mortality rate due to lack of clean water. The first and most immediate efforts should be directed towards those countries, and then the less needy ones. Additionally, we should only provide enough water to maintain life, and nothing more. By only giving enough to survive, we would allow more people to be saved due to a greater distribution of the filters. I found this source to be the most helpful of those I came across in my research.