On rights and responsibilities

I haven't written anything in a while and I actually have a lot I'd like to talk about, but trying to say all that in a single topic is a sure way to get ideas confused and/or end-up in an infinite loop of editing (I tend to completely rewrite most of what I write before it's actually to my liking). So I will try to start with what I believe to be fundamental yet "necessary" notions: rights and responsibilities.

Rights

To the root of the idea lies an assumption one has to accept: every man is equal. I don't mean in any pragmatic or specific way, just that no man's happiness and well-being should be more important than another's. Why should it be so? Well to be honest, I don't have much of an argumentation beside empirical and/or circumstantial historical evidence that most groups of people who ever tried to impose on others the fact that they had some kind of god-approved birthright had to eventually give most of it up or face a timely death like most monarchies did (French, Russian, Japanese, ...).

That said, what is necessary to be happy? Well without elaborating on that specific subject, I will simply refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs; one can argue about the structure, terminology or some choices, but the general ideas are there. Those are, in my opinion, the basic human rights and you will notice in Maslow's hierarchy of needs that nowhere are physical possessions mentioned. That's simply because possessions are completely irrelevant, they are either a mean to something you need or a replacement for something you need (this is probably a case of neurosis or something). Does that means possessions aren't a right, yes and no since, for example, you might have to stock some food for the winter so you feel safe you have enough to pass winter (not much of an example in today's world, but still), but anything over foreseeable (and reasonable) needs should be considered superfluous.

Responsibilities

Where does responsibilities fit in all this? Well, having rights doesn't mean they are owed to you if you cannot fulfill them yourself; it just means that one's action should never negatively interfere with another's rights, directly or indirectly, actively or passively; this is therefore our responsibility toward another: respect their own rights and help them to the limit of our capabilities, but never beyond it.

Why should you help others if they cannot help themselves? Well if you have everything you need for yourself and have some to spare, but don't help, that would be admitting that you think your own happiness and comfort is more important than other's. Moreover isn't that what we instinctively do with our children? Cooperation is in our genes, it's something our whole world is built on and it is possibly one of our biggest edge compared to other species (see this TED Talk, the part specifically on cooperation starts in mid-video around 8 minutes).

Then why not helping other beyond our capability, sacrificing some of our "happiness" if it can make the life of another person much better, especially if a small sacrifice can make the other one much more happy (overall happiness level will be higher)? Well, this is probably where Mr. NiceGuy stopped and Mr. Pragmatic kicked in; this is the limit I felt needed to remedy the problem of the Free-Rider mentioned in the TED Talk above. Happiness is something hard to measure, so it could be easy for someone to claim that something would make him overly happier just to have it. Moreover, I think it might promote people not to fend for themselves, thinking that everything would be given to them no matter what; if people have already given all they can spare ... to bad for you you get nothing. It probably isn't the most "humane" way to go, but I feel a line must be drawn somewhere.

Revocation

Although I would like to believe the world is made of unicorns and Care Bears, it isn't and perhaps some people would try to abuse the system. As contradictory as this might sound, it is important to understand that having rights is actually a privilege, not a right. Although everybody should be born with equal rights, this equality should be partially or totally revocable if you do something clearly showing you disregard this right in others; if you willfully deny someone else's rights, you forfeit yours. Not that people should be able to do anything to you, but let say they could simply be cast out and never be taken care of in any way even if spare is available. Of course such harsh measures should be a last resort after attempt at rehabilitation, but society as a whole shouldn't have to care for people who actively doesn't want to acknowledge the same rights in others.

Conclusion

So to summarize: everyone has equal rights to happiness and our responsibility to one another is to help each other within limits, but infringing those rights should ultimately lead to a revocation of those same rights. I know all this is mostly rhetorical and probably impractical, but I also believe those can of topic must be debated as they can be guides to take more pragmatic and down-to-earth decisions.

On being an engineer

Given the number of construction-related scandals and roadwork problems that surfaced in the last few years in Quebec, my mother recently suggested people should, perhaps, be more aware of what is an engineer and what role it is supposed to serve (she came to my engagement ceremony so she had an idea of what it is supposed to be about). Thinking it was a very good idea and seeing how hard it can be to find some of the information on the internet, I though I could make a blog entry about this (it was also about time I kick myself and write another one). Being an engineer in Quebec (and possibly all Canada) is a three-fold thing: there is the actual academic formation, adherence to the professional order and the oath all of them related but not bound together (they exist independently as well).

The first step most people will take toward becoming an engineer is getting a university degree in an engineering field such as electrical engineer. Although many programs end-up with "engineering" in their title, not all can bestow the "B. Eng." title, most will lead to a "B. Sc." title. What is the difference? To be allowed to give the "B. Eng." title, an undergraduate program must be accredited by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB, "Bureau canadien d’agrément des programmes d'ingénirie" (BCAPI) in French). I'm not aware of all the details of this accreditation, but some of the criteria involve having a minimum number of credits in mathematics and fundamental sciences as part of the program and I think it also requires a minimum percentage of teachers that must be engineers themselves. This alone does not grant someone the "Engineer" title as it is something usually managed by a provincial "order".

All professional orders in Canada (to my knowledge) have one single and very precise mandate: protect the public; that is, public safety should be the utmost concern driving their decisions and policies. To do that, most order's action plan is divided in three aspects:

1. Define which professional acts can only be done by their members (this must be supported by provincial and/or federal legislation);
2. Establish criteria that must be met by an individual in order to be accepted and stay in the order (usually involves an code of ethic, continuous formation and a professional exam of some sort);
3. Create and maintain a process that can investigate possible faults committed by members (retroactively following a complaint or proactively though professional audits) and punish them if necessary.

So basically an order is a legal framework built to protect the public by making sure only qualified people can accomplish specific professional acts. Each order is supposed to have a code of ethic, but it is often written in a way to be "legally workable", that is be applicable in a rigorous way without to much interpretation. Although this serves the benefit of being "fair", it does leave the door open for "loopholes", gaps that one could fall into and do reprehensible things without being punishable. There is, however, a moral binding that most engineer agreed to and should be accountable to: their engineering oath.

Like the well known Hippocratic Oath for doctors, engineers too have an oath they took during their (unfortunately optional) engagement ceremony. I don't know if the oath has an official name, but the ceremony during which it is pledged is called "The Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer". Participation to the ceremony is completely voluntary and there is no professional prejudice if you never participated; the ceremony doesn't make you an engineer nor it is necessary to become one. The ceremony is an old tradition kept (and possibly trademarked) by The Corporation of the Seven Wardens. The two most important components of that tradition is the oath and the famous engineering ring worn on the little finger of the working hand (the ring aspect IS trademarked by the Seven Wardens). Although not tied to the profession of engineering, the ring IS TIED to the ceremony, so if you see anyone with the ring, he is supposed to have pledged the oath. What is that oath and why it should matter? To me, the oath is possibly what SHOULD define an engineer rather than just education and adherence to a professional order and I hope that, by sharing it with you, you will understand why:

I <name of the engineer>, in the presence of these my betters and my equals in my Calling, bind myself upon my Honour and Cold Iron, that, to the best of my knowledge and power, I will not henceforward suffer or pass, or be privy to the passing of, Bad Workmanship or Faulty Material in aught that concerns my works before mankind as an engineer, or in my dealings with my own Soul before my Maker.

My Fair Wages for that work I will openly take.  My Reputation in my Calling I will honourably guard; but I will in no way go about to compass or wrest judgement or gratification from any one with whom I may deal.  And further, I will early and warily strive my uttermost against professional jealousy and the belittling of my working- colleagues in any field of their labour. 

For my assured failures and derelictions I ask pardon beforehand of my betters and my equals in my Calling here assembled, praying that in the hour of my temptations, weakness and weariness, the memory of this my Obligation and of the company before whom it was entered into, may return to me to aid, comfort and restrain. 

Upon Honour and Cold Iron, God helping me, these things I purpose to abide.

There you have it, the oath most engineers took in which they pledged to put the quality of the work being done (by themselves or under their supervision) above all else. This, to me is what defines an engineer and should define any professional working people.

So now you know more about the three facets of engineering as a profession and I hope it will help you make you mind about the events we see unfolding in the news and be able to rightfully ask that people that committed reprehensible acts be accountable for what they did as they should be aware of their responsibilities both social and moral.