" 1. to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment."

Therefore all Professional Electrical and Electronic engineers, especially chartered ones, who work for arms manufaturers making weapons are in breach of their professional code of ethics. as the populations of third world countries where the weapons are generally used are still the "public".

These Engineers are therefore liable for expulsion from professional membership and lose chartered status."

Professor M, are you under the impression that there are engineers out there who claim that the weapons upon which they work are harmless? Unable to endanger "the public"? USELESS as weapons? (when in fact they ARE useful weapons)

Now THAT would be a violation of the ethics statement.

Or are you under the impression (possible, but you need to show evidence) that there are engineers out there who are making weapons but denying the responsibility for doing so -- "hey man, not me, I didn't work on that weapon".

Sorry "Prof", but you fail in logic. Words of a pledge mean what the words do and as intepreted by the people speaking them. NOT as according to how somebody else might feel the words SHOULD mean.

"Professor M, are you under the impression that there are engineers out there who claim that the weapons upon which they work are harmless? Unable to endanger "the public"? USELESS as weapons? (when in fact they ARE useful weapons)
Now THAT would be a violation of the ethics statement. "

You are completely missing the point - the fact that their work is used to kill and injure is unethical in itself. According to the ethics statement any work that endangers the public is unethical. Therefore they are in violation of it!

Or are you under the impression (possible, but you need to show evidence) that there are engineers out there who are making weapons but denying the responsibility for doing so -- "hey man, not me, I didn't work on that weapon".

It is irellevant wether they deny responsibility or not, the fact that they chose to work on weapons which kill people shows them to be unethical and unworthy of being chartered.

"Sorry "Prof", but you fail in logic. Words of a pledge mean what the words do and as intepreted by the people speaking them. NOT as according to how somebody else might feel the words SHOULD mean."

I am afraid that an ethics statement is not open to interpretation by the person saying it, otherwise it would be absolutely worthless - If a pledge it to mean anything it must have a legal meaning enterpreted by the law.

It would be interesting to see some test cases brought before the courts to get Engineers working in this industry to evaluate their morals and ethics.

Robert Fisk recently brought shards of a bomb that he saw hit an ambulance in lebanon back to the factory where it was made in the US. People have to accept responsiblity for their choice of work and their Ethics/Morals or lack thereof.

Prof M -- you were referring to THEIR statement of ethics and claiming that they were in violation of THAT.

Now you propose to switch to your own definitions of ethical conduct. It is beside the point whether yours is a better definition than theirs. It isn't theirs, so they are not in violation of THEIR statement of ethics just because they might be in violation of yours.

PROFESSIONAL ethics have little to nothing to do with general personal ethics.

What do you imagine "ethics" are?

For example -- in light of the way you seem to wish to apply ethics, are you denying the possibility of professional ethics for "the profession of arms"?

"Prof M -- you were referring to THEIR statement of ethics and claiming that they were in violation of THAT.

Now you propose to switch to your own definitions of ethical conduct. It is beside the point whether yours is a better definition than theirs. It isn't theirs, so they are not in violation of THEIR statement of ethics just because they might be in violation of yours."

No, I said that they are in violation of the Engineer's code of ethics, it is not in dispute that bombs e.t.c. harm the public, this is not my definition, it is a universial truism.

"PROFESSIONAL ethics have little to nothing to do with general personal ethics."

An astonishing statement - professional ethics have everything to do with personal ethics and morals, they are intertwined, otherwise there would be no whitleblowers and everyone would simply - "go with the flow".

"What do you imagine "ethics" are?"

Professional Ethics are moral guidelines and a code of conduct for the profession.

"For example -- in light of the way you seem to wish to apply ethics, are you denying the possibility of professional ethics for "the profession of arms"?"

I am not applying "ethics" the IEEE is.
There may be profesional ethics for arms manufacturers just as there may be honour amoung thieves or mass murderers. The mafia have some code of conduct as they carry out their crimes.
However most of the engineers chartered or otherwise with the IEEE have to agree to their code of ethics if they wish to become members, the small minority who make weapons have violated the ethical code of Engineers.

Your arguments are tenuous and confused, playing the devils advocate in a clear cut case.
looking at your posts here and other posts you have made there is a common thread of defending the indefensible, i.e. murderers, arms dealers, IOF e.t.c.

Kill you with compassion.

Prof M, if you interpret the sort of stuff I tend to write as "defending" any of a number of things from ill conceived attack you are totally missing the point.

I am saying "rethink, rework your attack".

If I were really as much on "the other side" as you seem to suppose I would let the sort of illogical thing you have posted stand unchallenged.

What you should be arguing (if your position is what I think it is) is that the engineers ethical statement inadequate, that they are NOT promising/requiring considerations of all sorts of ethical situations which you think important. Make THAT case. Arguing that they are in violation of THEIR professional ethics statement which is clearly not including these things you think SHOULD be in their statement (because some of them are violating THOSE things) is silly.

IF you took what I just said as a "defense" of the engineers (or scientists) NOT including among their professional ethics these "other things" then you simply are reading MUCH more into what I said than is there. You simply do not know what my position is on that matter.

"to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment."

---

I do believe then that all the engineer is required to do is to disclose promptly the actual factors that might endanger the public or the environment.

Therefore all they have to do is tell people they make weapons, and what the weapons are, and how they might endanger them. I read enough on New Scientist about fancy new weapon systems to get the impression that they do anyway.

Assuming they don't get arrested under official secrets acts, that's basically all they have to do. It might be an interesting argument in court if they were arrested for that reason though.