Aline Medeiros Ramos’s scientific contributions

Chapter 1, ‘The purposes of engineering ethics education’ by Qin Zhu, Lavinia Marin, Aline Medeiros Ramos, and Satya Sundar Sethy, contributes to this discourse on the purposes of EEE by presenting a novel framework. The authors’ framework highlights individual aspects such as knowledge, actions, personal habit formation, and values in artifacts and addresses more holistic considerations, emphasizing relationships, the environment, and other systems. We consider this contribution essential for reigniting and broadening discussions about the objectives of engineering ethics education. We also see that this should be regarded as part of a debate that needs to be re-ignited. And perhaps more importantly, this is a call to engineering ethics educators and researchers to bring a reflexive discussion about purposes into our daily practices. In contemporary EEE, the role of normative ethical theories – such as consequentialism, deontology, rights-based theories, virtue ethics, relational ethics, ethics of care, existential ethics, theories of justice and fairness, and environmental ethics – is a subject of ongoing debate. The designation of the field as ‘engineering ethics education’ inherently connects it to normative ethical theories as discussed within philosophy. Yet, alternative labels like ‘responsible engineering’ may challenge the centrality of normative ethical theories, although responsible engineering, of course, would include some other normative framework. In any case, within EEE, a significant divergence exists in the treatment of such theories. Whereas some courses emphasize including normative ethical theories, others intentionally omit them, either because of knowledge or resource constraints or because the theories might not seem practical enough. There is a contentious discussion surrounding which theories should be included, the rationale for their inclusion, and how they should be applied. Consequently, the role of normative ethical theory within EEE remains a pressing concern that requires comprehensive discussion. Moreover, there have been notable criticisms regarding the perceived Eurocentric, speciesist, anthropocentric, and male-centric nature of some normative ethical theories. Over the past five decades, efforts to diversify the discourse have intensified, with increasing emphasis on incorporating a spectrum of alternative theories, such as ethics of care and ethical frameworks from diverse cultural contexts.