In professional criticism of professional work, it is easy to fall into
ways which are wrong, morally and professionally. Criticism which is
designed merely to advertise the critic serves no good purpose, and
savors of charlatanry or something worse. Only a small proportion of the
current critical literature of engineering serves any good or useful
purpose, since it has no other or higher object than to help the critics
to climb into notoriety on the shoulders of the older and wiser men with
whom they are brought into competition. I regard as unprofessional every
effort to discredit honest and intelligent work, and every form of
disguised advertising designed to give an engineer a greater prominence
than he has earned by successful and creditable work, or is entitled to
claim by virtue of fitness for more than average professional
achievements.

It is neither possible nor desirable to catalogue the unprofessional
practices which in one way or another come to the notice of those
observant of current happenings in the several departments of
engineering. It is the contention of some that right and wrong are
relative terms, applying to no action or line of conduct save as it is
considered in relation to coincident and contingent circumstances. I will
not deny that this may be true of all professional acts, but the
impossibility of an arbitrary classification under the heads right and
wrong, honorable and dishonorable, need not make it difficult for a man
to formulate a code of professional ethics by which his own conduct shall
be governed. There are certain broad ethical principles which never
change. One is that a man cannot serve two masters having conflicting
interests, and be faithful to each. Another is that, however skillfully
one may juggle words to conceal meanings or evade responsibility, if the
intent to deceive is there, he lies. Professional ethics are no different