The Engineer as Ethical Actor1) Downey, Gary Lee, Juan C. Lucena, and Carl Mitcham. Engineering Ethics and Identity: Emerging
Initiatives in Comparative Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics. 13:4 (December 2007) 463-487.
2) Harris, Charles E. The Good Engineer: Giving Virtue its Due in Engineering Ethics Science and
Engineering Ethics 14:2 (June 2008) 153-164.
3) Lynch, William and Kline Ronald. Engineering Practice and Engineering Ethics. Science, Technology and
Human Values. 25.2 (Spring 2000): 195-225.
4) Davis. Michael. Engineering Ethics, Individuals, and Organizations Engineering Ethics 12:2 (2006) 223-
231
5) Davis, Michael. Thinking like an Engineer: The Place of a Code of Ethics in the Practice of a Profession.
Philosophy and Public Affairs 20.2 (1991): 150-167
6) Moriarty, Gene. Fall 2001. Three Kinds of Ethics for Three Kinds of Engineering IEEE Technology and Society
Magazine pp. 31-38
7) Vesilind, P. Aarne. 1999. The Good Engineer. Science and Engineering Ethics 5(4), pp. 437-442.
8) Van den Hoven, Jeroen, Lokhorst, Gert-Jan, and Van de Poel, Ibo. 2012. Engineering and the Problem of Moral
Overload. Science and Engineering Ethics 18(1), pp. 143-155.6- Content: Each paper must begin with a strong introduction, including a clear thesis statement that presents your argument and a corresponding outline of your paper to guide the reader. As you write the response paper, briefly summarize only the ideas which you think are most relevant to the topic, present your argument and the logical/evidentiary points in its favor, identify other authors implicit assumptions or perspectives (if using them), and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of your argument in comparison with others. The purpose of your paper is to take a definitive position, which you then support with substantive argumentation and sound reasons. End your paper with a strong conclusion, summarizing your work and the position you have taken.

The Engineer as Ethical Actor

1) Downey, Gary Lee, Juan C. Lucena, and Carl Mitcham. “Engineering Ethics and Identity: Emerging
Initiatives in Comparative Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics. 13:4 (December 2007) 463-487.
2) Harris, Charles E. “The Good Engineer: Giving Virtue its Due in Engineering Ethics” Science and
Engineering Ethics 14:2 (June 2008) 153-164.
3) Lynch, William and Kline Ronald. “Engineering Practice and Engineering Ethics.” Science, Technology and
Human Values. 25.2 (Spring 2000): 195-225.
4) Davis. Michael. “Engineering Ethics, Individuals, and Organizations” Engineering Ethics 12:2 (2006) 223-
231
5) Davis, Michael. “Thinking like an Engineer: The Place of a Code of Ethics in the Practice of a Profession”.
Philosophy and Public Affairs 20.2 (1991): 150-167
6) Moriarty, Gene. Fall 2001. “Three Kinds of Ethics for Three Kinds of Engineering” IEEE Technology and Society
Magazine pp. 31-38
7) Vesilind, P. Aarne. 1999. “The Good Engineer.” Science and Engineering Ethics 5(4), pp. 437-442.
8) Van den Hoven, Jeroen, Lokhorst, Gert-Jan, and Van de Poel, Ibo. 2012. “Engineering and the Problem of Moral
Overload.” Science and Engineering Ethics 18(1), pp. 143-155.

6- Content: Each paper must begin with a strong introduction, including a clear thesis statement that presents your argument and a corresponding outline of your paper to guide the reader. As you write the response paper, briefly summarize only the ideas which you think are most relevant to the topic, present your argument and the logical/evidentiary points in its favor, identify other authors’ implicit assumptions or perspectives (if using them), and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of your argument in comparison with others. The purpose of your paper is to take a definitive position, which you then support with substantive argumentation and sound reasons. End your paper with a strong conclusion, summarizing your work and the position you have taken.

The Engineer as Ethical Actor

1) Downey, Gary Lee, Juan C. Lucena, and Carl Mitcham. “Engineering Ethics and Identity: Emerging
Initiatives in Comparative Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics. 13:4 (December 2007) 463-487.
2) Harris, Charles E. “The Good Engineer: Giving Virtue its Due in Engineering Ethics” Science and
Engineering Ethics 14:2 (June 2008) 153-164.
3) Lynch, William and Kline Ronald. “Engineering Practice and Engineering Ethics.” Science, Technology and
Human Values. 25.2 (Spring 2000): 195-225.
4) Davis. Michael. “Engineering Ethics, Individuals, and Organizations” Engineering Ethics 12:2 (2006) 223-
231
5) Davis, Michael. “Thinking like an Engineer: The Place of a Code of Ethics in the Practice of a Profession”.
Philosophy and Public Affairs 20.2 (1991): 150-167
6) Moriarty, Gene. Fall 2001. “Three Kinds of Ethics for Three Kinds of Engineering” IEEE Technology and Society
Magazine pp. 31-38
7) Vesilind, P. Aarne. 1999. “The Good Engineer.” Science and Engineering Ethics 5(4), pp. 437-442.
8) Van den Hoven, Jeroen, Lokhorst, Gert-Jan, and Van de Poel, Ibo. 2012. “Engineering and the Problem of Moral
Overload.” Science and Engineering Ethics 18(1), pp. 143-155.

6- Content: Each paper must begin with a strong introduction, including a clear thesis statement that presents your argument and a corresponding outline of your paper to guide the reader. As you write the response paper, briefly summarize only the ideas which you think are most relevant to the topic, present your argument and the logical/evidentiary points in its favor, identify other authors’ implicit assumptions or perspectives (if using them), and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of your argument in comparison with others. The purpose of your paper is to take a definitive position, which you then support with substantive argumentation and sound reasons. End your paper with a strong conclusion, summarizing your work and the position you have taken.