It is not often that I find myself in tune with John's postings but I have
to agree with the general tone of his  last posting and with his suggestion
that we need more inventiveness. (I am an engineer after all). What follows
does not follow his thread exactly but it is related.

 I believe that engineers (and others) should work within the context of an
ethical code. At present however there are pressures at play which
challenge the perhaps over simplistic notion that engineers should act in
the public good. Firstly there are those (eg Florman, "The Existential
Pleasures of Engineering") who suggest that individual moral positions may
not be representative of a societies consensus view and that therefore
there is no guarantee that an engineer would be working toward an agreed
"public good". This is becoming increasingly relevant as consultancy
services become globally traded. Is it reasonable for engineers, whose
moral structure was formed within his/her own society, to export his/her
moral goals into another culture? (the codes of conduct of the professional
bodies do not help much)

Secondly we are, as engineers, being urged to identify more closely with
the ambitions of our clients. Since we are paid by them it is argued that
they deserve that our attention is focused on their needs. Is it ethical to
design something (a product or building) which satisfies a personally held
view of the public good but  which does not optimise the client's
satisfaction? This issue was brought into stark relief by a student on the
course that I run who, as a lawyer, was astonished that we could consider
any behaviour to be ethical that was not directed at the client's best
interest. How is a duty to act in the interest's of a client to be
reconciled with a, perhaps conflicting, idea of the "public good"?

I believe that sustainability  is an ethical issue, I agree that the only
way to solve the problems associated with economic and social development
is by more inventive "clean" (or green or whatever) thinking. I therefore
take it as an act of faith that I (and other engineers) should act  in an
environmentally responsible way. But I use words like "believe, and "faith"
(not in a religious sense) and I use these in the absence of a convincing,
philosophically  well founded  rationale. Which is why this list is so
useful.

Kind regards Paul K

(PS I have stumled about in a non-philosophically rigorous way to examine
these issues and have written a "discussion paper" for my course . (I call
it a discussion paper because It is more of an opinion piece than an
academic argument) If any body would like to read it and comment I would be
happy to send an RTF copy. This is probably best arranged off list.)