Department of English and Philosophy, Drexel University, MacAlister Hall, Room 5055, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2011 Mar;17(1):149-69. doi: 10.1007/s11948-009-9166-x. Epub 2009 Oct 10.
Engineering societies such as the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) and associated entities have defined engineering and professionalism in such a way as to require the benefit of humanity (NSPE 2009a, Engineering Education Resource Document. NSPE Position Statements. Governmental Relations). This requirement has been an unnecessary and unfortunate "add-on." The trend of the profession to favor the idea of requiring the benefit of humanity for professionalism violates an engineer's rights. It applies political pressure that dissuades from inquiry, approaches to new knowledge and technologies, and the presentation, publication, and use of designs and research findings. Moreover, a more politically neutral definition of engineering and/or professionalism devoid of required service or benefit to mankind does not violate adherence to strong ethical standards.
工程学会（如美国国家专业工程师学会）及其相关实体，对工程和专业精神进行了定义，要求其必须有益于人类（美国国家专业工程师学会，2009a，《工程教育资源文件》。专业立场声明。政府关系）。这一要求是不必要的，也是不幸的“附加条件”。这一职业趋势倾向于认为，专业精神必须有益于人类，这侵犯了工程师的权利。它对探究、新知识和新技术的应用、设计和研究成果的提出、发表和使用施加了政治压力，使其望而却步。此外，对工程和/或专业精神的定义更加中立于政治，不要求其必须服务于人类或有益于人类，这并不会违背强有力的道德标准。
