Vilece 1

Joseph Vilece
27 April 2016

Rhetorical Analysis of Engineering Ethics Cases

The research project is concerned with determining the causes for bridge failures to the
present day and forming an action plan to prevent future failures based upon the findings in the
research. The text chosen for rhetorical analysis is a collection of ethics related cases that
provide evaluation of the subjects within the case. The author of the source is a professor within
the University of Washington. This is a public research university located in Seattle,
Washington. Public opinion of the ethics within the engineering field has room for improvement,
as Butler and Hamilton exemplify in their book that found that about 40 percent of the public
believe that engineers operate with less than high ethical standard (13). The purpose of
analyzing this text is to evaluate the source based on its utility for the research project if and
how it is a source that will be helpful for my research project. The source was determined to be
an evaluation of the actual cases taken from the National Society of Professional Engineers
(NSPE) likely done by a professor for a course.
This subject is not prominent in todays society and there is little public debate about the
matter. It is virtually never discussed in the mainstream media nor is it likely to be a subject
discussed by families or friends. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that safety of engineered
products (cars, food processing equipment, appliances, etc.) is of the highest importance because
of the potential effect on billions of people. The safety of these products is directly dependent
upon the ethical standards behind their production. The lack of a prominent public debate on this
issue is a result of the rarity of bridge failures and the fact that many people use many bridges

Vilece 2

every day without issue. This leads to overlooking of the possibility of unsafe bridges, as
personally I realize is true for myself. I simply do not think about bridges while driving and
especially not in everyday life (when Im not contemplating the safety of the products of the
engineering field). Generally, the public believes that products of all sorts are safe, until
shocking reminders occur and are made well known. Examples include bridges collapsing,
airplanes being lost, poisonous lead being discovered in products made for children.
The cases within this source are adapted from the NSPE case study of a whistleblowing
engineer. Whistleblowing refers to the act of notifying the proper people of a safety related issue
in their professional field. This source presents a summary of the case of one engineers actions
along with an evaluation of those actions based on ethical standards and background given about
the responsibility of an engineer in their profession. Specifically, the case within this source
utilized for the research paper follows this format: (1) the situation and actions taken by the
engineer and his peers directly involved in the situation are explained, (2) questions are posed to
the reader about their reaction and assessment of the description, (3) definitions are given
relating to the responsibilities of an engineer in general, (4) further discussion of the situation
and an evaluation of the engineers actions based upon the question of whether they fulfilled
their ethical responsibility is presented, and (5) conclusion of the evaluation and members of the
Board of Ethical Review are stated.
The cultural codes of the NSPE are those that are to be followed by all engineers. These
include (paraphrased) to put public welfare, safety, honesty, professionalism, and excellence
above all else (NSPE.) The explicit statement by the author of the definitions of obligations and
responsibility, coupled with official and professional responsibility, gives the reader the
background on which they evaluate the actions and present their end stance. The author conveys

Vilece 3

a fundamental basis for their stance by claiming where an engineer determines that a case
may involve a danger to the public safety, the engineer has not merely an "ethical right" but has
an "ethical obligation" to report the matter to the proper authorities and withdraw from further
service on the project (Pilat 1.) The authors statements appear objective and the rhetorical
framework (appeals, fallacies, visuals) is obvious. Fallacies and appeals (like logos, pathos,
ethos) are not present within the case since this is not the type of rhetorical work in which they
would ordinarily be used. Statements such as the case contamination of the water supply
we believe Engineer A had an ethical obligation under the Code to go considerably farther
exemplify the objectivity and fact basis of their stances (Pilat 1.) Claims the authors make such
as In the context of this case, we do not believe that Engineer A's act of reporting his concerns
to City Administrator C or certain members of the city council constituted a reporting to the
"proper authorities" as intended under the Code show their views as unbiased and not reliant
upon any non-rational appeals such as sarcasm, irony and humor (Pilat 1.) The article is written
explicitly and the purpose/background of the text is the reason these appeals are not necessary
and would not be positive for a professional type of case. The piece itself is merely a review of
the facts and the evaluation of the engineer based on data submitted to the Board of Ethical
Review. The case study is a useful source because it provides insight into how failures can occur
even under the strictly managed field of engineering and maintenance of safety-essential
products/structures.
The authors evaluation is based upon the background criteria they provide. The views
they convey are apparent by their statement that After several attempts to modify the views of
her superiors, it is our view that Engineer A knew or should have known that the "proper
authorities" were not the city officials, but more probably state officials, and this is just one

Vilece 4

example of the general form of their arguments (Pilat 1.) The overall argument of the text is that
the engineer did not fulfill his ethical obligations as an engineer based upon the evidence and
background presented. The total background given forms the basis upon which the authors
deduce all of their findings. The authors fulfillment of their purpose shows that they are not
concerned with making any general induction and are solely concerned with explicitly evaluating
the engineers actions based on deductions. The goal of the text is to present the evaluation of
the case based on the background they provide; the purpose is to educate the readers (students of
the course in which it was used) on less than ideal occurrences in the engineering field in order to
learn from these issues. They do not attempt to persuade any parties, but merely convey basis for
their evaluation and the results of their evaluation.
The author obviously uses logical framework to base their evaluation, and this is the
closest statement that can be made when analyzing the appeals made. In the evaluation, they rely
on the stated codes and constructs used for their basis to build a result/stance. The piece is
concrete and explicit, and does not contain any emotional types of statements or information for
appeal (pathos.) The facts presented are used as the basis for the evaluation of the case for the
conclusory determination.
The research paper this source is being evaluated for is concerned with bridge failures,
their causes, and what must be done in order to prevent them. This is an issue with the
engineering field and the ethics behind it. This source provides information that highlights how
issues can occur at any step in the engineering process (design, production, progressive
validation, etc.) due to the way an engineer(s) decide to handle a situation. The author highlights
this referring to an engineer deciding to report an issue with the way their company is handling a
situation, to expose the facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of

Vilece 5

employment., and gives the brutal truth behind the engineers dilemma with He is warned that
if he discusses the matter further, he will be terminated. (Pilat 1.) The information presented in
this text highlights a possible source of negligence that can lead to disastrous failures simply due
to the conflicting obligations that those within a company may face.
This source is somewhat valuable for the research paper because it gives insight into a
possible cause for bridge failures specifically. However, the original publication of the cases is a
better option because it provides the initial presentation of the case. Rhetorically, the case does
not seek to persuade the reader. It intends to present the case and the reasons for the
determinations made by the NSPE. This case will still be used to speak on the possible effect on
bridge failures that pressures on those considering blowing the whistle may cause, and show how
this could be a significant underlying factor behind the continued occurrences of failures.

Works Cited
"Code of Ethics." Code of Ethics. National Society of Professional Engineers, n.d. Web. 30 Mar.
2016.
Pilat, Michael. "Engineering Ethics Cases." Online Ethics. University of Washington, n.d. Web.
23 Mar. 2016.
Hamilton, Cheryl, and Jeff Butler. The Essentials of Public Speaking for Technical
Presentations. Mason, OH: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2006. Print.