Engineering educators point to a persistent problem that positions the engineering profession in apolitical and neutral terms. We call this the "neutrality problem" and describe it as placing moral weight not on the work of engineers but instead the ad hoc uses of engineered artifacts. The problem appears in common assumptions that, for instance, guns are only as violent as their users intend them to be, absolving engineers of moral responsibility for the socio-technical outcomes that they helped to produce. The "neutrality problem" has a long history of being challenged by critically engaged engineering educators. Some challenge the problem by calling for "non-canonical engineering ethics canons,"1 others advocate for a "peace paradigm" to be included in the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET) criteria, and in the classroom they incorporate critical pedagogies to bear on macro-ethics, such as war and globalization. Building on this literature we interviewed undergraduate engineering students about the neutrality problem, specifically in relationship to the issue of violence. Based on these interviews, we argue that more nuanced understandings of violence-as conceived of by activists and scholars-can help educators construct pathways for non-neutral engineering education.
展开▼
