Ethical Considerations for an Aerospace Engineer: An Examination of Approaches

How far does responsibility and culpability go for heinous crimes and human rights violations? When egregious violations of international law—say, indiscriminate bombings of civilian populations—are committed, it can be generally agreed that the direct perpetrators are primarily responsible. But what about all those who created the conditions that allowed for such crimes to happen? Governments, militaries, manufacturers: if you draw far back enough, you will see culpability in all of society. So, who must take responsibility? If a war crime occurs, does responsibility fall on the governments and corporations that sell these weapons? If so, do the employees of these states, agencies, and companies have blood on their hands? Finally- if that is the case, what should a conscientious employee do in such a predicament? Let us take an example in the aerospace sector, to examine this case.

On August 8, 2021, the world was shocked by footage coming out of the rural village of Dahyan in war-torn northern Yemen. Debris and dust covered the scene, and at its center stood the wreckage of a school bus. Around it lies the remains of its inhabitants: anywhere between forty and fifty-two dead, the most of them children under fifteen years old, on their way to a school picnic. These scenes inspired international outrage over the conduct of the Saudi intervention in Yemen. Debate roared once more over the United States’ funding and fueling of a regime infamous for human rights violations and war crimes. When an issue of such moral resonance and outrage occurs, one feels compelled to take a stand.

However, one side of the atrocity less examined is the domestic origins of these munitions. The bombs were Mk. 82 General Dynamics munitions, the bombers, likely McDonnell Douglas F-15s, the refueling aircraft, Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers. Engineers in America’s most prestigious and profitable aerospace firms designed and manufactured these aircraft and munitions. Millions in profits flow from Arabian oil fields to American defense contractors, money made from contracts facilitated by the U.S. government. When it comes to pointing fingers and accepting responsibility past the perpetrators the majority of the blame lies with the governments and corporations which made these deals for their own geopolitical and economic reasons. However, to what degree are the ordinary engineers implicated in this chain of profit and crime?

I would argue that engineers are, to a degree, implicated in this military-industrial complex. This ought to be an uncontroversial point. If you make a weapon with the knowledge that it can be used for purposes that go counter to any just, moral, or ethical use, then you are an abettor of violence; even if you do not know for sure, the ambiguity should lead to one to desire to secure an arrangement that guarantees ethical use. Engineers financially benefit from these unethical practices; the 2017 US-Saudi Arms Deal precipitated a significant rise in the stocks of many aerospace and defense contractors, and individual workers see the benefits of it in their wages and stock options—blood money, as it were. If you abet and benefit from exploitation and crime, you are, to an extent, responsible for it. .

In addition, this conduct is inconsistent with various professional and established codes of conduct that (supposedly) govern the practice of engineering. Article I of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code of Conduct states that engineers ought to honor their profession and dignity by “using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare”. I would consider creating tools that are used to kill children and violate the Geneva Convention are quite the opposite of the “enhancement” of the human condition. Furthermore, article II of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Code of Ethics says that engineers have an obligation to “report [...] contravention[s] of law, regulation, health, safety or ethical standards.” Once more, I need not explain how abetting war crimes violates this article, among others. According to these codes of ethics and good practice, it is dishonorable to do work as so.

In the face of such injustice and inability to change the status quo, resignation may seem like the only ethical option. Indeed, that is the route some individuals go. One model that may be worth learning from is the Google tech workers’ efforts organizing against involvement with the Pentagon and Project Maven. Through mass petitioning employees, Google workers were able to make the case to their employers that working on Project Maven violated Google’s core principles. This is a strategy that is much less likely to work in the aerospace sector, and a proposal that is likely to fall on deaf ears in companies purely engaged in defense contracting. However, in certain companies that engage in both the civilian and military sectors, petitioning may be one of the only routes open to conscientious engineers to reform the organization from within. Contributing to advocacy outside of work is another avenue; for example, volunteering for political campaigns that support ending exports to countries that violate international law. Ultimately, it is up to engineers to use whatever avenues they have to oppose corporate contributions to violations of human rights and international law, and if no possibility of change is possible, then perhaps a publicized resignation in protest really is the only way to resolve this ethical contradiction.

References

[1] “Guidelines to Practice under the AIAA Code of Ethics.” Www, https://www.aiaa.org/about/Governance/Guidelines-to-Practice-under-the-AIAA-Code-of-Ethics.

[2] Society Policy Ethics Code of Ethics of Engineers - ASME. https://www.asme.org/wwwasmeorg/media/resourcefiles/aboutasme/get%20involved/advocacy/policy-publications/p-15-7-ethics.pdf