Michael Davis

Abstract：This article evaluates a family of criticism of how engineering ethics is now generally taught. The short version of the criticism might be put this way: Teachers of engineering ethics devote too much time to individual decisions and not enough time to social context. There are at least six version of this criticism, each corresponding to a specific subject omitted. Teachers of engineering ethics do not (it is said) teach enough about: 1) the culture of organizations; 2) the organization of organizations; 3) the legal environment of organizations; 4) the role of professions in organizations; 5) the role of organizations in professions; or 6) the political environment of organizations. My conclusion is that, while all six are worthy subjects, there is neither much reason to believe that any of them are now absent from courses in engineering ethics nor an obvious way to decide whether they (individually or in combination) are (or are not) now being given their due. What we have here is a dispute about how much is enough. Such disputes are not to be settled without agreement concerning how we are to tell we have enough of this or that. Right now we seem to lack that agreement—and not to have much reason to expect it any time soon.

Key words：Ethics, teaching, culture, moral theory, social sciences, context

总  结：本文评估一个家庭的工程伦理批评现在一般教。短的批评可能是这样的：工程伦理的教师花太多的时间而不是个人的决定足够的时间来的社会背景。至少有六个版本的这种批评，每个对应一个特定的主题省略。工程伦理的教师不（它是说够了：1））教组织的文化；2）组织组织；3）组织的法律环境；4）行业中的作用组织；5）组织在职业角色；或6）政治环境组织。我的结论是，在所有六个是值得的主题，没有充分的理由相信，任何人现在缺席课程工程伦理学不是一种明显的方式来决定是否（单独或组合）是（或不是）现正考虑其应有的。我们在这里是一个多少是足够的。这类纠纷没有得到解决协议有关我们如何告诉我们有足够的或者说。现在我们似乎缺乏该协议，而不是有太多的理由期待它的任何时间很快

出处：《Science and Engineering Ethics》