To achieve great projects, great attention should be attached to ethical issues of engineering. But endless immoralities in the field of engineering expose the lack of attention and the ineffectiveness of implementation of engineering ethical evaluation. The “Mirror” and the “Lamp” — these two metaphors used by M. H. Abrams vividly expose the differences in people’s way of understanding which inspires author’s study of the model of engineering ethical evaluation. With four elements of the project —artifact, engineer, user and environment, a tetrahedral model of integrity, strong restoring force and high stability is built. While their roles and responsibilities differ, each has to demonstrate a commitment to professional and ethical standards. In this model, four “Lamps” — i. e, four elements of engineering — in four corners provide light while four “Mirrors” — the result of reflection of four elements — reflect whether the tetrahedral model can truthfully evaluate the level of engineering ethics. The combination of the “Lamps” and “Mirrors” illuminates engineering ethical evaluation and leads to a plurality of evaluation standards, while simultaneously fostering both the avoidance of simple de-instrumentalization and the sustainability of ethical evaluation. Plurality of evaluation standards means the consideration of value differences in a multi-value state. The avoidance of de-instrumentalization means to prevent the engineer’s expertise from fossilization. The sustainability of ethical evaluation accelerates the fulfillment of our dream, for the ultimate benefit of humankind. Ethical evaluation of the project not only helps more engineers to use expertise in pursuit of the public good, but also make more projects to meet people’s short-term expectations and long-term cares. To achieve great projects, great attention should be attached to ethical issues of engineering. But endless immoralities in the field of engineering expose the lack of attention and the ineffectiveness of implementation of engineering ethical evaluation. The “Mirror” and the “Lamp ”- these two metaphors used by MH Abrams vividly expose the differences in people’s way of understanding which inspires author’s study of the model of engineering ethical evaluation. With four elements of the project -artifact, engineer, user and environment, a tetrahedral model of While their roles and responsibilities differ, each has to demonstrate a commitment to professional and ethical standards. In this model, four “Lamps ” - i. e, four elements of engineering - in four corners provide light while four “Mirrors ” - the result of reflection of four elements - reflect whether the tetrahedral model can truthfully evaluate the level of engineering ethics. The combination of the “Lamps” and “Mirrors” illuminates engineering ethical evaluation and leads to a multiple of evaluation standards, while simultaneously fostering both the avoidance of simple de-instrumentalization and the sustainability of ethical evaluation. Plurality of evaluation differences means in the multi-value state. The avoidance of de-instrumentalization means to prevent the engineer’s expertise from fossilization. The sustainability of ethical evaluation accelerates the fulfillment of our dream, for the ultimate benefit of humankind. Ethical evaluation of the project not only helps more engineers to use expertise in pursuit of the public good, but also make more projects to meet people’s short-term expectations and long-term cares.