Goldberg, David E. (2009) Is Engineering Philosophically Weak? A Linguistic and Institutional Analysis. [Preprint]

Preview

PDF deg-philosophical-weakness-spt2009.pdf Download (49kB)

Abstract

This paper follows a paper by Mitcham and considers whether engineering is among a group of occupations he calls philosophically weak, in the sense that engineering does not aspire to good-in-themselves ideals as do medicine and law. The paper agrees that engineering is philosophically weak, but in the different sense that engineering is not as reflective upon its nature and place in the world as some other professions. The paper recovers Mitcham's distinction by consider the institutional complexity of a given occupation, suggesting that engineering's practice in the context of complex institutional arrangements precludes the relative ethical simplicity of such occupations as medicine and law.

---

Export/Citation:

EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL

Social Networking:

Share |

---

Item Type:	Preprint
Creators:	Creators Email ORCID Goldberg, David E.
Keywords:	philosophically weak, ethically simple, ideals, institutionally complex, profession, occupation
Subjects:	General Issues > Ethical Issues
Depositing User:	David E. Goldberg
Date Deposited:	24 Mar 2009
Last Modified:	07 Oct 2010 15:17
Item ID:	4532
Subjects:	General Issues > Ethical Issues
Date:	January 2009
URI:	https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/4532

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Actions (login required)

View Item