Agreed. I only mention engineering students as my only experience with ethics classes are in that domain. However it's still a good example for engineers, particularly how the design failures resulted in deaths, the role of whistleblowers and how disastrous self-certification can be.

I would be utterly shocked if any MBA program in the world had a mandatory ethics component, for all that an unethical MBA is in a position to kill many more people than an unethical engineer.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they had some ethics classes. I doubt any class is going to have instill ethics in someone who has none.

I've seen fiduciary duty to shareholders in publicly traded companies and how it force managers to chase unsustainable immediate gains repeated as cliche, template, criticisms in this types of topics. Privately owned companies of course aren't much different OTOH, so personally it feels to me that incentive design that rewards ethical corporate behaviors is an open question passed from the modern era to the post-modern world(or is that one label behind this one? I'm totally out of my depth).

I will remark that, excluding cases where some idiot is offering several times what the company is worth, it is rare that the fiduciary duty issue would force the management of a company to choose unsustainable immediate gains.

The value of a company's equity is based on the net present value of future returns. That means that while short term earnings are important, so are earnings in the moderately distant future. (depending on risk free interest rates)

If a company like Boeing were properly managed, they'd give suitable priority to engineering excellence, at least to the point of not having critical failures like these, because that's core to their ability to compete with Airbus/etc in the future.

The real issue you're concerned about is that it is very difficult to align the interests of corporate managers with the interests of the company. It is relatively easy to align senior management with short term stock prices, but it is difficult for the public to figure out that the gains they see (less engineering cost, faster turnaround time, etc) come at the expense of the longer term viability of the company, so the former gets priced into the short term stock price (and so executive compensation) and the latter does not.

"All the engineering ethics in the world does nothing against the greed of Boeing's management. "

Sure managers are guilty.

But managers did not write the code. "Engineers" did.

As long as there are engineers writing that code (also see VW and #Dieselgate) there will be managers who do this. Engineers need to take a stand and don't do everything. Like professionals. "He made me do it" is not an excuse for hundreds of dead people.

I generally agree that one has an ethical duty to be accountable for the output of one’s work, but I also worked with a fellow at a previous job who stuck around long after I’d pulled the chute because his daughter had a medical issue and he couldn’t risk losing insurance. It’s not always that cut and dry, and until we’ve got UBI, universal health care, and a reasonable immigration system, the blame is and must remain on the managers first and foremost.

"UBI, universal health care"

I have UBI.

You have BI. It’s not UBI until the rest of us have it, too.

Managers are the ones with the authority to tell engineers what to do. If an engineer refuses, they'll simply be replaced with someone more pliable.

See the Challenger disaster for a high profile example.

"replaced with someone more pliable."

If I don't rob the bank, someone else will!

Yes, and then the other engineer is responsible for the dead people, not you. But if your job is more important than other peoples lifes, I guess, yes, you do as you have been told.

"If I don't rob the bank, someone else will!"

Or maybe we stop people from trying to force others to rob banks. Nip the problem in the bud.

Why do you want to let managers get away with toxic behavior and then blame the subordinates?

Me: "Sure managers are guilty."

You: "Why do you want to let managers get away with toxic behavior."

Okay, then that replacement should also refuse or go to jail.

Crazy idea, but maybe the manager trying to force engineers to do these things should be held accountable.

They're just following orders, is that it?

We Germans know how to do that!

Since when did we start apologizing for people in positions of authority forcing others to bad things?

"Forcing"? Are they holding a gun to the devs' heads and "forcing" them to implement safety circumvention features? I doubt it.

As long as writing code is not an actual engineering profession with the associated authority and liability -- no, you're wrong. The code was not written by (certified) engineers, it was written by programmers. And programmers do not have the authority to refuse their manager's orders.

>And programmers do not have the authority to refuse their manager's orders.

All free people have the authority to refuse their manager's orders.

But people like money.

They don't like money, they need it to survive (e.g. to not lose employer provided health insurance)

> it is an MBA culture.

The MBA program should include more ethics courses and perhaps an adapted version of the Hippocratic Oath.

--> MBA Oath : https://mbaoath.org/