Chapter 30 Is Engineering Philosophically Weak?

 

Abstract

This abstract discusses the paper "The Philosophical Weakness of Engineering as a Profession" by Carl Mitcham, and reflects on its arguments from the perspective of engineering practice. The key points are:

Philosophical Weakness of Engineering: Mitcham argues that engineering, as a profession, lacks a strong philosophical foundation compared to professions like law and medicine, which are grounded in the ideals of justice and health, respectively.

Different Sense of Weakness: The chapter acknowledges that engineering is philosophically weak, but suggests this weakness differs from Mitcham's original argument. It implies that the philosophical weakness of engineering lies not in its lack of aspirational ideals, but perhaps in other aspects related to its practice and goals.

Aspirational and Institutional Challenges: The complexity of engineering, involving multiple objectives and institutional settings, makes it difficult for the profession to have simple, overarching aspirational ideals like those in law or medicine. The nature of engineering work, often embedded in complex institutional structures and requiring teamwork, does not easily allow for the kind of straightforward client-practitioner relationship seen in other professions.

Comparison with Other Professions: The paper contrasts engineering with professions like law and medicine, which have clear and singular aspirational goals. In contrast, engineering involves diverse objectives and considerations, making it harder to define a single, guiding professional ideal.

Caution Against Simplification: The chapter warns against oversimplifying the professional and aspirational goals of engineering. Due to the inherent complexity of engineering work, simplistic approaches to defining its professional ethos or educational reforms are likely to be inadequate or misguided.

Inherent Complexity of Engineering: The chapter emphasizes that engineering's complexity, both in its aspirational goals and institutional context, cannot be easily reduced. This complexity needs to be acknowledged and addressed in discussions about the profession's philosophical foundations and educational reforms.

In summary, the chapter reflects on the philosophical underpinnings of engineering as a profession, recognizing its complexity and the challenges this poses for establishing strong, unified professional ideals akin to those in law and medicine.

30.1 Introduction

This chapter reflects on Carl Mitcham's argument presented in his 2008 paper "The Philosophical Weakness of Engineering as a Profession". Mitcham's paper, delivered at the Workshop on Philosophy and Engineering (WPE-2008), challenged engineers to aspire to the philosophical strength seen in professions like law and medicine, which are guided by the ideals of justice and health, respectively. The chapter offers a perspective largely from the standpoint of engineering practice and analyzes Mitcham's categorization of professions as philosophically weak or strong. Key points include:

Different Perspective on Philosophical Weakness: While Mitcham categorizes engineering as philosophically weak due to its lack of a guiding 'good-in-itself' ideal, this chapter reinterprets that weakness from a different angle, not necessarily aligning with Mitcham's reasoning.

Aspirational Strength or Weakness: The chapter reconsiders the professions using the criteria of aspirational strength or weakness, questioning whether law and medicine truly practice their ideals as strongly as theorized.

Institutional Settings of Professions: The chapter moves beyond individual practitioners to examine the institutional contexts of the professions. It argues that law and medicine are presumed to align their client interests with societal interests, a presumption not easily applied to engineering.

Challenges in Realignment for Engineering: The chapter explores whether engineering could achieve a similar ethical alignment through a simple aspirational ideal or institutional rearrangement, concluding negatively on both counts.

Practicality and Desirability of Institutional Rearrangement: Considering two extreme models of institutional rearrangement, the chapter finds neither practical nor desirable, suggesting the current regulated market framework as a moderate alternative.

Historical and Recent Developments: The chapter supports its institutional hypothesis by examining historical instances in engineering and recent developments in law and medicine.

Caution against Simplistic Aspirational Yearnings: In conclusion, the chapter advises caution against oversimplified aspirational goals within the engineering community, grounded in the complex institutional and aspirational nature of engineering work discussed throughout.

The chapter essentially argues for a nuanced understanding of the philosophical strengths and weaknesses of professions, especially engineering, and cautions against oversimplifying the professional aspirations and ethical alignments of these fields.

30.2 The Mitcham Five, a Criterion, and a Classification

In the section titled "The Mitcham Five, a Criterion, and a Classification", the chapter discusses Carl Mitcham's categorization of five occupations: law, medicine, business, the military, and engineering. Mitcham evaluates these occupations based on whether they aspire to a good-in-itself ideal, which he uses as a criterion to determine their philosophical strength.

According to this criterion:

Medicine and Law: These professions are considered philosophically strong (PS) because they are guided by the good-in-themselves ideals of health (for medicine) and justice (for law).

Business, the Military, and Engineering: These are categorized as philosophically weak (PW) because, in Mitcham's view, they lack a guiding good-in-itself ideal for individual practitioners.

Mitcham's analysis initially describes these professions in terms of their philosophical orientation. He then moves from this descriptive analysis to a normative stance, suggesting or questioning whether engineering, as an occupation or profession, would be improved if it aspired to a higher ideal, similar to how medicine and law do. This shifts the discussion from what is currently the case (the descriptive aspect) to what ought to be the case (the normative aspect), indicating a potential direction for the development or improvement of these professions, particularly engineering.

30.3 Preliminary Concerns

In the section titled "Preliminary Concerns," the author reflects on Carl Mitcham's categorization of five occupations (medicine, law, business, the military, and engineering) as either philosophically strong or weak based on whether they aspire to a good-in-itself ideal. The author raises a few critical points regarding the assumptions underlying Mitcham's argument:

Challenge to Platonic Ideals: The author notes that in today's diverse philosophical landscape, which includes pragmatic and postmodern approaches, the Platonic notion of an ideal or something being good-in-itself (a key aspect of Mitcham's categorization) can be questioned. This is particularly relevant in a pragmatic context where practical outcomes are valued.

Historical Context and Relevance: The assumption that Greek values from a society 2,500 years ago should be uncritically accepted in contemporary discussions is problematized. This is especially pertinent for engineers who may not automatically prioritize the pursuit of pure knowledge over applied knowledge.

Philosophy's Status: An intriguing question raised is whether philosophy itself would be considered philosophically strong or weak according to Mitcham’s criteria. However, this question is set aside for the current discussion.

The author agrees to accept these assumptions for the sake of argument and proceeds within the framework established by Mitcham. The section indicates an openness to explore Mitcham's categorization, while also acknowledging the limitations and challenges of applying ancient philosophical concepts to modern professions.

30.4 Critical Examination of the PS/PW Distinction

In "Critical Examination of the PS/PW Distinction," the author examines Carl Mitcham's concept of professions being philosophically strong (PS) or weak (PW) based on their aspiration to a good-in-itself ideal. Mitcham categorizes law and medicine as PS because they aspire to the ideals of justice and health, respectively, while business, the military, and engineering are considered PW for lacking such ideals.

However, the author proposes a different approach to assessing philosophical strength, considering three areas: metaphysical reflection (history), epistemological reflection (knowledge transmission), and ethical reflection (code of ethics). Using these criteria, an occupation is deemed philosophically strong (PS′) if it is reflective in two of the three categories.

1. Metaphysically reflective if it considers its history.

2. Epistemologically reflective if it consciously transmits its knowledge in forms appropriate to the practice of the occupation.

3. Ethically reflective if it has a code of ethics.

Under this new framework, medicine, business, and engineering are metaphysically weak due to a lack of historical reflection. Engineering is epistemologically weak, failing to recognize its unique knowledge and methods distinct from math and science. Business lacks a universally accepted ethical standard, making it ethically weak.

Interestingly, philosophy itself would be considered PS′ but scores only 2/3 due to the absence of an ethical code. The author argues that while engineering is criticized by Mitcham for its lack of a higher aspirational ideal, it is unjust to overlook engineering's ethical reflection, where it does show strength.

The author concludes that engineering is philosophically weak (PW′) not because of a lack of ethical consideration but due to insufficient attention to its nature (ontology) and knowledge (epistemology). This reevaluation suggests that philosophical strength in professions should encompass a broader range of reflections beyond just ethical aspirations.

30.5 Recovering Mitcham’s Distinction and a Concern

In "Recovering Mitcham’s Distinction and a Concern," the author revisits Carl Mitcham's distinction between philosophically strong (PS) and weak (PW) professions. Mitcham classifies professions as PS if they aspire to a good-in-itself ideal, such as medicine's aspiration to health and law's aspiration to justice. Other professions, like business, the military, and engineering, are considered PW because they lack such inherent aspirational ideals.

The author acknowledges the usefulness of Mitcham's distinction but suggests a more nuanced view. They point out that while medicine and law are theoretically driven by noble ideals, the practical application of these professions is more complex and sometimes diverges from their aspirational goals. For example, the medical field often focuses more on treating diseases than promoting overall wellness, and the legal system sometimes prioritizes procedural correctness over achieving actual justice.

The chapter highlights that individual practitioners in these fields are often motivated by personal compensation rather than selfless pursuit of these ideals. This suggests that the approximation to health and justice achieved in these fields is not solely due to the lofty aspirations of individual professionals but rather the result of broader institutional frameworks that guide these professions towards their ideals.

In summary, the author argues that while Mitcham's distinction between PS and PW professions is valuable, it's essential to recognize the complexity and practical limitations within these professions. The effectiveness in approaching their aspirational goals is significantly influenced by their respective institutional structures and systems.

30.6 Institutions and Their Discontents

In "Institutions and Their Discontents," the author explores the role of institutions in shaping the practices of various professions, contrasting these with the individualistic nature of philosophical thinking. The chapter examines the institutional settings of five professions (law, medicine, the military, business, and engineering) and highlights how these settings influence ethical alignment and the pursuit of profession-specific ideals.

A comparison of the institutional settings of the Mitcham 5 is instructive:

Lawyer: Officer of court, monopoly on practice by state. Work in private firms and in government.

Doctor: Member of regulated profession, in regulated institutions, monopoly on practice of medicine by state. Works in private practice, HMO, or government.

Military person: State has monopoly on force, military members are employees/conscripts of state, and follow direct orders of civilian leaders through chain of command.

Businessperson: Free agent to contract with others, obeying laws of the state.Works in private enterprise.

Engineer: Free agent to contract with others, obeying laws of the state. Some licensed for some types of work. Work in free enterprise or public sector.

To this list, we might add the following:

Philosopher: Free agent to contract with others obeying laws of the state. Academic practitioners require PhD for tenure-track position. Work in private or public sector.

Key points include:

Institutional Frameworks: Each profession operates within a distinct institutional framework that governs its practice. For instance, lawyers and doctors are regulated by state licenses and work within a structured system, whereas businesspeople and engineers largely function as free agents within the constraints of state laws.

Local vs. Global Ethical Alignment: The author introduces the concepts of local ethical alignment (the alignment of a professional's work with their client's interest) and global ethical alignment (the alignment of this work with societal good). In professions like law and medicine, there's a presumption that serving the client's interest also aligns with the broader societal good, termed "ethical simplicity."

Aspirational Ideals: Medicine and law are seen as "aspirational" professions because their practice is assumed to inherently contribute to societal ideals (health and justice). This is contrasted with professions like engineering, which lack a clear, overarching societal ideal.

Engineering's Institutional Position: The chapter questions whether engineering can be restructured to achieve a similar kind of ethical simplicity as law or medicine. Two paths are considered: defining a simple aspirational ideal for engineering or restructuring its institutional framework to align individual practice with societal good.

Challenges in Engineering: The author suggests that engineering's diverse objectives and complex institutional contexts make it challenging to establish a simple aspirational ideal or attain ethical simplicity. Engineering often involves teamwork and operates within multifaceted institutional environments, complicating the alignment of individual actions with a singular societal good.

The chapter concludes that overly simplistic professional aspirations are likely to be unfeasible due to the inherent complexities in engineering practice and the need for nuanced understanding of its institutional dynamics.

30.7 Quest for an Ideal: Engineering Version

In "Quest for an Ideal: Engineering Version," the author discusses the challenge of identifying a singular, overarching ideal for the field of engineering, akin to the ideals of justice in law and health in medicine. The key points of this discussion include:

Multiplicity of Values in Engineering: Engineering involves a broad spectrum of values ranging from basic survival to εὐδαιμονία (human flourishing). This variety makes it challenging to pinpoint a single guiding ideal that universally applies to all engineering endeavors.

Individual Value Preferences: People prioritize different values differently. This diversity in value weighting complicates the establishment of a unanimous ideal for engineering.

Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem: This theorem, proposed by economist Kenneth Arrow, implies that it's impossible to aggregate individual preferences into a collective decision that satisfies everyone. The application of this theorem to engineering suggests the impracticality of finding a universally accepted ideal for the field.

Sustainability as a Potential Ideal: The author briefly mentions sustainability as a possible overarching ideal for engineering. However, they also recognize that even sustainability is fraught with complexities and challenges when considered as a unifying principle for the field.

Comparison with Military Context: To illustrate the difficulty of establishing a simple ideal in engineering, the author shifts the focus to the military context. Here, a more straightforward ideal might be peace or the prevention of conflict. However, the author suggests that even in this seemingly clearer context, the pursuit of a singular ideal is fraught with complexities.

This section of the chapter emphasizes the inherent challenges in defining a singular guiding principle for engineering, given the field's diverse objectives and the varying value systems of individuals and societies. The discussion suggests that seeking a simple, unifying ideal for engineering, similar to those in law or medicine, may not be feasible due to the complex and multifaceted nature of engineering practice.

30.8 Quest for an Ideal: Military Version

In "Quest for an Ideal: Military Version," the author explores the concept of identifying a single, overarching ideal for the military, akin to how justice serves law or health serves medicine. The main points of this discussion include:

Peace as a Potential Military Ideal: The author proposes peace as a possible aspirational ideal for the military, similar to health for medicine or justice for law. This shifts the focus from the multifaceted objectives of engineering to the more specific goal of the military.

Four Key Problems in Pursuing Peace:

Predictability Problem: It's uncertain whether specific military actions will effectively contribute to the broader goal of peace.

Effectiveness Detection Difficulty: There's a challenge in determining if a particular outcome actually promotes long-term peace.

Individual Decomposition Problem: It's difficult for individual military personnel to discern if their actions are positively or negatively impacting the pursuit of peace.

Social Effectiveness Problem: If individual soldiers independently pursued their own interpretation of peace, it could undermine military cohesion and effectiveness. A cohesive military strategy is crucial for effective action.

Analogy with Engineering: The author draws an analogy between these challenges in the military and the pursuit of a singular ideal in engineering. Just as individual soldiers can't effectively pursue peace independently without compromising military effectiveness, engineers can't unilaterally pursue a broader societal goal without considering the larger system they operate within.

Institutional and Ethical Complexity: The author emphasizes that both soldiers and engineers often work within larger institutional hierarchies. Their ability to independently pursue a higher ideal is limited by the objectives and directives of these institutions. While they have a duty to oppose unlawful or unethical orders, the complexity of their situations often necessitates adherence to institutional goals.

Respect for Ethical Complexity: The discussion concludes with a call for greater respect and understanding of the ethical complexities faced by those in "instrumental occupations" like the military and engineering. This respect is crucial given the challenges of aligning individual actions with broader societal ideals.

The chapter emphasizes the inherent complexities and challenges in defining a singular guiding principle for professions like the military and, by analogy, engineering. It suggests that the pursuit of simple, overarching ideals is often impractical due to the nuanced and institutionally embedded nature of these professions.

30.9 Ideal Quest Through Institutional Redesign

In the section titled "Ideal Quest Through Institutional Redesign" of the chapter, the author explores the possibility of achieving a simple ethical framework in engineering through the redesign of institutional structures. This is in response to the challenge that even if a singular ideal for engineering could be established, the current institutional and organizational settings in engineering often limit an individual engineer’s ability to act independently or align with such an ideal. The key points of this section include:

Institutional Limitations: The author acknowledges that the institutional and organizational contexts in which engineers operate can restrict their ability to adhere to a simple, overarching ethical ideal. This is similar to the constraints faced by individuals in a military setting, where the organizational needs and roles dictate their actions.

Exploring New Models for Ethical Simplicity: To address this challenge, the author proposes considering alternative models that could allow for ethical simplicity in engineering. This simplicity is defined as a state where local ethical alignment (i.e., actions beneficial to the client or immediate task) leads to a presumed global ethical alignment (i.e., actions beneficial to society as a whole).

Two Proposed Models:

Absolute Control Model: This model implies a scenario where engineering activities are controlled by a central authority that ensures alignment with the chosen ethical ideal. This could mean strict regulations and oversight mechanisms that guide engineering practices towards the desired ethical outcomes.

Absolute Fail-Safe Model: In contrast, this model suggests creating systems where even if individual engineers act independently or against the ethical ideal, the overall system is designed in such a way that it prevents negative societal outcomes. This could involve fail-safe mechanisms or checks and balances within the engineering process.

The section explores the feasibility and implications of these models, recognizing that reshaping the institutional framework of engineering to achieve ethical simplicity is a complex and challenging task. The author suggests that while both models offer theoretical solutions, they might be impractical or undesirable in real-world settings, leading to a conclusion that the current regulated market framework, though not ideal, may offer a more balanced approach.

30.10 Absolute Control Model

In the section titled "30.10 Absolute Control Model," the author discusses a hypothetical model for engineering practice, termed the "Absolute Control Model." This model envisions a scenario where engineers are granted extensive control over both the process and outcomes of their work, aligning with a simple ethical ideal. The key aspects of this model include:

Engineer's Authority: In the Absolute Control Model, engineers are given significant authority to ensure that their vision of a good outcome is achieved. This implies that their directives and decisions would be followed rigorously in both space and time, ensuring that the engineering process leads to the desired ethical and practical outcomes.

Technocracy Concept: The model aligns with the concept of technocracy, where technical experts, in this case, engineers, are in control of decision-making processes. In its most extreme form, this would see engineers having control over state mechanisms, thereby implementing their vision of what is good or beneficial.

Historical and Philosophical Background: The idea of technocracy or rule by experts has historical roots. The author references Plato's concept from "The Republic," where philosophers are envisioned as rulers (philosopher-kings). This analogy is used to highlight the ethical responsibilities that would fall upon engineers (or philosophers) when their ideas are implemented in real-world scenarios.

Implications of the Model: The Absolute Control Model raises questions about the ethical responsibilities of those in positions of authority and control, particularly in the context of engineering. It suggests that if engineers were to be given such control, they would also need to be accountable for the outcomes of their decisions, much like how philosophers would be responsible for the real-world implications of their ideas.

This model is presented as a theoretical exploration of how engineering practice could be structured to align with a singular ethical ideal, but it also highlights the complexities and potential pitfalls of granting extensive control and decision-making power to a specific group of experts.

30.11 Fail-Safe Action Model

In the section titled "30.11 Fail-Safe Action Model," the author presents another hypothetical model for engineering practice, known as the "Fail-Safe Action Model." This model is positioned at the opposite end of the spectrum from the "Absolute Control Model" discussed earlier. Key aspects of the Fail-Safe Action Model include:

Engineer as Free Agent: Unlike the Absolute Control Model, here engineers operate as free agents within a market economy. This suggests more autonomy in decision-making and less centralized control.

Institutional Constraint for No Harm: The model introduces a strong institutional constraint that prevents engineers from inventing, creating, or maintaining any artifact that could cause harm. This is likened to an extreme version of the precautionary principle.

Minimizing Harm: The model would require engineers to adopt a strategy that minimizes harm, acknowledging the potential for adversaries to maximize misuse and negative outcomes. This is akin to a game-theoretic 'minimax' strategy.

Impact on Engineering Innovation: The conservative nature of this strategy, focused on avoiding harm at all costs, would likely inhibit engineering creativity and innovation. The model would essentially prevent engineers from taking risks, which are often necessary for technological advancement and innovation.

Engineering and Error: The author references Henry Petroski's work, highlighting that engineering advancement often depends on learning from errors. The Fail-Safe Action Model's restrictive approach to risk and error would thus fundamentally challenge the very nature of engineering progress.

Overall, the Fail-Safe Action Model is presented as a theoretical counterpoint to the Absolute Control Model, exploring the implications of a highly risk-averse and conservative approach to engineering practice. This model underscores the challenges of instituting a framework that ensures ethical simplicity while also fostering innovation and progress in engineering.

30.12 Making in the Middle

In the section titled "30.12 Making in the Middle," the author discusses a middle-ground approach to engineering practice, positioned between the extremes of the "Absolute Control Model" and the "Fail-Safe Action Model." Key points of this approach include:

Intermediate Tradeoff: This model represents a balance between the extremes of absolute control (where engineers dictate the entire process according to their vision) and a fail-safe action approach (where engineers are constrained to avoid any possible harm).

Regulated Market Environment: Engineers operate within self-organizing institutions that are part of a larger, regulated market. This setup allows for more flexibility and innovation compared to the extremes while maintaining certain controls and standards.

Democratic Governance Analogy: The author draws an analogy with democratic governance as described in "The Calculus of Consent" by Buchanan and Tullock. Just like democracy, this middle-ground approach doesn't adhere strictly to individual choices but allows for a broader, collective progress.

Benefits of Market Plurality: Unlike a single political decision, the market allows multiple products and services to flourish within regulatory boundaries. This diversity offers various choices to consumers with different preferences and needs, reflecting a variety of opinions about what is good.

Engineering in a Real-World Context: This model is presented as more reflective of real-world engineering practice. Engineers work within a framework that balances control and freedom, enabling innovation and practical application while adhering to societal and regulatory standards.

Overall, the "Making in the Middle" approach suggests that engineering, as practiced in real-world scenarios, benefits from a balance between strict control and absolute caution. This balance allows for innovation, diversity of solutions, and practical application, all within a regulated and socially responsible framework.

30.13 Through an Institutional Lens: HMOs, Large Legal, and the Revolt Revisited

The section "Through an Institutional Lens: HMOs, Large Legal, and the Revolt Revisited" from the chapter discusses how the ethical complexity of professions like medicine, law, and engineering is influenced by their institutional complexity.

Medicine and HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations): The transition from private practice to HMOs in the US has increased institutional complexity in medicine. This change has inserted layers like account managers between doctors and patients, complicating the ethical landscape. The direct, patient-focused approach of doctors is now influenced by organizational priorities, moving away from the ideal of solely acting in patients' interests.

Law and Large Legal Firms: Similar to medicine, the rise of large legal firms, often influenced by third-party payers like insurance companies, has increased the ethical complexity in law. This shift impacts the lawyer-client relationship, introducing additional considerations beyond pure client advocacy, deviating from the ideal legal practice model.

Engineering Professional Societies: The history of engineering, as seen in civil, mining, and electrical engineering societies, shows varying degrees of alignment with Mitcham's aspirational ideal. Civil engineering, with its emphasis on public safety and ethical standards, aligns more closely with this ideal. Mining engineering, focused more on serving the mining companies, and electrical engineering, which transitioned from individual prominence to corporate dominance, show increased ethical complexity due to institutional influences.

These examples illustrate that as professions become more entangled with complex institutional structures, their ethical considerations become more multifaceted, moving away from simpler, aspirational ideals. This suggests that any efforts to reshape the aspirations of these professions should consider the inherent ethical and institutional complexities involved.

30.14 Educating Engineers and the Grand Challenges

The section "Educating Engineers and the Grand Challenges" in the chapter discusses recent developments in engineering education and the National Academy of Engineering's Grand Challenges. It critically examines the proposals to reshape engineering education towards addressing broader societal needs and ethical aspirations.

National Academy of Engineering's Grand Challenges: This initiative lists societal needs identified by elite groups, challenging engineers and engineering education to address them. The Grand Challenges advocate for engineering efforts that are more aligned with societal and global needs.

Carnegie Foundation's Report on Engineering Education: A report by Sheppard et al. recommends a new approach to engineering education, emphasizing professionalism to overcome the limitations of traditional engineering curricula. This neoprofessionalism is seen as a way to realign engineering education with contemporary societal needs.

Critique and Institutional Considerations: While both the Grand Challenges and the Carnegie Foundation's report are well-intentioned, their success hinges on significant institutional changes. The chapter argues that without such changes, these initiatives might not have a lasting impact on the profession. The current proposals lack depth in addressing the complex institutional and ethical dimensions of engineering practice.

Potential for Institutional Reconfiguration: The chapter suggests that to realize the aspirations of these initiatives, there might be a need for a shift towards either a command-and-control economy or a more pervasive regulatory regime. However, such shifts are inherently political and value-laden, requiring careful consideration of their implications.

Conclusion: The chapter concludes that while these initiatives aim to steer engineering education and practice towards greater societal good, achieving this goal requires more than just aspirational changes. It necessitates a thorough understanding and restructuring of the institutional frameworks within which engineering operates, acknowledging the political and value-laden nature of such transformative efforts.

30.15 Conclusions

This chapter critically examines Carl Mitcham's paper, "The Philosophical Weakness of Engineering as a Profession," presented at the 2008 Workshop on Philosophy and Engineering. Mitcham categorizes professions based on whether they possess well-defined aspirational ideals. The chapter questions this approach and suggests an alternative criterion based on epistemological, ontological, and ethical considerations.

Key points include:

Reevaluation of Philosophical Strength and Weakness: The chapter proposes a new classification criterion that focuses on a profession's awareness of its knowledge, nature, and ethics rather than Mitcham's emphasis on aspirational ideals.

Practicality of Ethical Urgings: The chapter discusses how the success of professions like medicine and law in approaching their ideals is more due to their institutional arrangements and ethical simplicity rather than the pursuit of aspirational ideals by individual practitioners.

Institutional Arrangements: It argues that the institutional settings of professions significantly influence their ability to align ethical practices with societal goals.

Exploring an Ideal for Engineering: The chapter explores the feasibility of establishing a simple ideal for engineering, similar to health for medicine or justice for law, and finds it problematic due to the inherently complex nature of engineering.

Bounding Models of Institutional Rearrangement: Two extreme models are discussed - absolute control and fail-safe action. Both are found to be problematic, suggesting that current market-driven, regulated practices are a balanced approach.

Critique of Recent Calls for Higher Aspirational Engineering: The chapter briefly reviews recent initiatives like the NAE Grand Challenges and reforms in engineering education. It argues that without institutional redesign, these calls for higher aspirations are unlikely to effect significant change.

Conclusion: The chapter concludes that the ethical complexity in professions like engineering is largely shaped by their institutional forms. Recognizing this can encourage the search for innovative institutional forms, possibly aided by technology. However, until such innovations are realized, the ethical challenges in these professions will likely persist.