This research examines what should have been the proper role taken by the engineers in the NASA Space Shuttle Challenger incident. Engineers are often faced with conflicting responsibilities that “blur the line” as to what is the correct decision the engineer should make regarding their design. This research focuses particularly on such blurred lines faced by the Morton Thiokol company’s vice president and engineer, Robert Lund, in the case of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion. An examination is done of the social role identity of the engineer as defined by James Fearon, a political scientist, and its impact on engineering decision-making. That understanding of identity is combined with an analysis of the philosopher Immanuel Kant’s works on moral deontology and an application of Kant’s categorical imperatives. As a result of that analysis, a solution to the ethical dilemma is proposed. The application of Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperatives, grounded in the social role identity of the engineer, is found to be able to clarify to a certain extent the ethical dilemma faced by the engineers. The research goes on to indicate that Robert Lund should have refused to sign off on the Challenger launch regardless of any backlash that he may have faced. Such an approach can be universalized beyond its application to the Challenger incident to engineers of all fields, addressing the problematic ethical dilemmas concerning risk while providing greater safety for the public.