For reference, this is 495 words (1.5 pages double-spaced, .75 page single):
74.362
Davis set out to prove that professional ethics is a guide for how engineers conduct themselves and that it is an important part of their profession. He uses Challenger as an example, but fails to tie his example to his argument.
Davis begins by examining the Challenger disaster, which is not particularly relevant. What the reader needs to realize is the choice that Lund, who was the vice-president of engineering, made. When it was time to decide whether or not to allow the launch, he opted allow it. It is believed that this was because he was told not to think like an engineer. The question then becomes, did he make the right decision from a professional standpoint?
Davis explores how a code of ethics comes into being. Typically, a code of ethics is a convention between professionals who are pursuing their common ideal. The code minimizes the chances that an engineer will be taken advantage by one who is willing to compromise his ethics. Furthermore, a profession gains certain privileges after adopting a code, such as the sole right to do certain works, which benefits all members. Assuming the astronauts' safety was paramount (which is explained later), Davis argues that Lund's engineers had the right to expect Lund to obey their professional code.
Next, Davis discusses the reasons for obeying a code. The code isn't obeyed by engineers because society demands it or because she took an oath; instead, she obeys it because she knows that all engineers are better off if they all follow it. Otherwise, engineers would be forced to keep opinions to themselves or risk being replaced by somebody who is willing to risk lives. Doing so would endanger the lives of everybody; clearly, it is beneficial to for engineers to accept the restrictions. This section demonstrated that, by accepting the rewards of being an engineer, all engineers must obey the code. This leave an important question: did Lund break the code?
Davis then considers the code's meaning. The relevant part of the code says that an engineer must “[hold] paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” Assuming that engineers are basically good people, then this is the cardinal principle. If this is the case, then who does “public” refer to? Clearly, it does not refer to “anyone” or “everyone,” as both are too broad. What “public” refers to are people who are “innocent, passive, and helpless;” that is, people who do not understand or recognize the risk. The conclusion drawn from this section is that, because the astronauts were unaware of the risks they were assuming, Lund had a responsibility to protect their safety.
Davis concluded that the code helped engineers by: protecting them from each other, giving them a safer environment, making their profession a real profession, and helping them benefit from their work. Although these are somewhat alluded to in Davis' essay, there does not seem to be any solid arguments supporting these conclusions.
Of course, that's not my final draft. I have already done a lot of editing, and will probably edit much more.
And you're right, it's *hard* to write that short. Summarizing a
9+ page paper into 450 words is no easy task, but it's a very important skill.
