ABSTRACT
The myths seem to share a common source, a misunderstanding of the role of interpretation in the use of codes. Codes consist of rules, and rules are supposed to guide conduct. A profession's code of ethics is generally the central statement of the obligations. Guide assumes that codes do not require interpretation that many who teach engineering ethics want to reject codes. Luegenbiehl seems to assume that codes of ethics necessarily lay down hard and fast rules, rules so clear that there is little or no room for interpretation. Martin seems to have identified three distinct failings of codes, that is, indeterminacy, vagueness, and lack of clear priorities when duties conflict. Even a fully justified code will include "numerous areas" exhibiting each of these failings.
