FREE FOR COURSE USE WITH WRITTEN PERMISSION; EMAIL THE MARKKULA CENTER FOR APPLIED
ETHICS AT ETHICS@SCU.EDU. NOT FOR PUBLICATION OR OTHER UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION.
An Introduction to Software Engineering Ethics
MODULE AUTHORS:
Shannon Vallor, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Philosophy, Santa Clara University
SPECIAL CONTRIBUTOR TO INTRODUCTION:
Arvind Narayanan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Princeton University
What do we mean when we talk about ‘ethics’?
Ethics in the broadest sense refers to the concern that humans have always had for
figuring out how best to live. The philosopher Socrates is quoted as saying in 399
B.C., “the most important thing is not life, but the good life.”1 We would all like to
avoid a life that is shameful and sad, wholly lacking in achievement, love,
kindness, beauty, pleasure or grace. Yet what is the best way to achieve the
opposite of this – a life that is not only acceptable, but even excellent and worthy
of admiration? This is the question that the study of ethics attempts to answer.
Today, the study of ethics can be found in many different places. As an academic
field of study, it belongs primarily to the discipline of philosophy, where scholars
teach and publish research about the nature and structure of ethical norms. In
community life, ethics is pursued through diverse cultural, political and religious
ideals and practices. On a personal level, it can be expressed in an individual’s
self-reflection and continual strivings to become a better person. In work life, it is
often formulated in formal codes or standards to which all members of a profession
are held, such as those of medical ethics. Professional ethics is also taught in
dedicated courses, such as business ethics. It can also be infused into courses such
as this one.
What is ethics doing in a course for software engineers?
Like medical, legal and business ethics, engineering ethics is a well-developed area
of professional ethics in the modern West. The first codes of engineering ethics
were formally adopted by American engineering societies in 1912-1914. In 1946
the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) adopted their first formal
Canons of Ethics. In 2000 ABET, the organization that accredits university programs
and degrees in engineering, began to formally require the study of engineering
ethics in all accredited programs: "Engineering programs must demonstrate that
their graduates have an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.”2
Professional engineers today, then, are expected to both learn about and live up to
ethical standards as a condition of their membership in the profession.
1 Plato, Crito 48b. In Cahn (2010).
2 ABET 2000 criterion 3(f) (ABET, 1998).
But the average computer/software engineering student might still be confused
about how and why this requirement should apply to them. Software engineering is
a relatively young practice and compared with other engineering disciplines, its
culture of professionalism is still developing. This is reinforced by the fact that most
engineering ethics textbooks focus primarily on ethical issues faced by civil,
mechanical or elecrical engineers. The classic case studies of engineering ethics
depict catastrophic losses of life or injury as a result of ethical lapses in these fields:
the Challenger explosion, the Ford Pinto fires, the Union Carbide/Bhopal disaster,
the collapse of the Hyatt walkway in Kansas City. When we think about the
engineer’s most basic ethical duty to “hold paramount the safety, health, and
welfare of the public,”3 it is clear why these cases are chosen - they powerfully
illustrate the importance of an engineer’s ethical obligations, and the potentially
devastating consequences of failing to live up to them.
But software engineers build lines of code, not cars, rockets or bridges full of
vulnerable human beings. Where is the comparison here? Well, one answer might
already have occurred to you. How many cars or rockets are made today that do
not depend upon critical software for their safe operation? How many bridges are
built today without the use of sophisticated computer programs to calculate
expected load, geophysical strain, material strength and design resilience? A failure
of these critical software systems can result in death or grievous injury just as easily
as a missing bolt or a poorly designed gas tank. This by itself is more than enough
reason for software engineers to take seriously the ethics of their professional lives.
Is it the only reason? What might be some others? Consider the following:
The software development and deployment process in the Internet era has some
peculiarities that make the ethical issues for software engineers even more acute in
some ways than for other types of engineers. First, the shortened lifecycle has
weakened and in some cases obliterated software review by management and legal
teams. In the extreme, for Web applications like Facebook, it is normal for
individual engineers or small groups of engineers to code and deploy features
directly, and indeed the culture takes pride in this. Even where more traditional
development practices prevail, at least some deployments like bug fixes are
shipped with only technical (and not ethical) oversight. At any rate, engineers at
least retain the ability to deploy code directly to end users, an ability that can easily
be abused.
All of this is in stark contrast to say, a civil engineering project with a years-long (or
decades-long) lifecycle and multiple layers of oversight. Nor does such a project
offer a malicious engineer any real means to obfuscate her output to sneak past
standards and safety checks.
3 NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, First Fundamental Canon.
2
Second is the issue of scale, perhaps the defining feature of the software revolution.
Typically the entire world is part of the addressable market. Of course, it is scale
that has led to the potential for individual engineers to create great good, but with it
naturally comes the ability to cause great harm, especially when combined with
the first factor above.
Here’s a rather benign but illustrative example. On June 9, 2011, Google released a
“doodle” honoring Les Paul which users found addictive to play with. This is a type
of project that’s typically done by an individual engineer on their “20% time” in a
day or two. A third party, RescueTime, estimated that 5.3 million hours were spent
playing this game.4 Let us pause to consider that 5.3 million hours equates to about
eight lifetimes.
Did the doodle make a positive contribution to the world? Do engineers at Google
have an obligation to consider this question before releasing the feature? What
principle(s) should they use to determine the answer? These are all valid questions,
but what is perhaps even more interesting here is the disproportionality between
the amount of time engineers spent creating the feature (at most a few person-days,
in all likelihood), and the amount of time users spent on it (several lifetimes). Often,
in today’s world, engineers must grapple with these questions instead of relying on
management or anyone else.
Finally, the lack of geographic constraints means that engineers are generally
culturally unfamiliar with some or most of their users. The cost-cutting imperative
often leaves little room for user studies or consultations with experts that would
allow software development firms to acquire this familiarity. This leads to the
potential for privacy violations, cultural offenses, and other such types of harm.
For example, people in many countries are notoriously sensitive to the
representation of disputed border territories on maps. In one recent example, an
error in Google maps led to Nicaragua dispatching forces to its border with Costa
Rica. Google then worked with US State Department officials to correct the error.5
On top of these considerations, software engineers share with everyone a basic
human desire to flourish and do well in life and work. What does that have to do
with ethics? Imagine a future where you are faced with a moral quandary arising
from a project you are working on that presents serious risks to users. In that
scenario, will you act in a way that you would be comfortable with if it later
became public knowledge? Would it matter to you whether your family was proud
or shamed by your publicly exposed actions? Would it matter to you whether,
looking back, you saw this as one of your better moments as a human being, or
one of your worst? Could you trust anyone to whom these outcomes didn’t matter?
4 “Google Doodle Strikes Again! 5.3 Million Hours Strummed,” Rescue Time, Jun 9
2011.
5 “Google Maps Embroiled in Central America Border Dispute,” AFP, Nov 6 2010.
3
Thus ethical obligations have both a professional and a personal dimension. Each
are essential to consider; without a sense of personal ethics, one would be
indifferent to their effect on the lives of others in circumstances where one’s
professional code is silent. To understand what’s dangerous about this, consider
any case in human history when a perpetrator of some grossly negligent, immoral
or inhumane conduct tries to evade their responsibility by saying, ‘I was just
following orders!’ So personal ethics helps us to be sure that we take full
responsibility for our moral choices and their consequences.
But for professionals who serve the public or whose work impacts public welfare, a
personal code of ethics is just not enough. Without a sense of professional ethics,
one might be tempted to justify conduct in one’s own mind that could never be
justified in front of others. Additionally, professional ethics is where one learns to
see how broader ethical standards/values (like honesty, integrity, compassion and
fairness) apply to one’s particular type of work. For example, wanting to have
integrity is great – but what does integrity look like in a software engineer? What
sort of specific coding practices demonstrate integrity, or a lack of it? This is
something that professional codes of ethics can help us learn to see. Finally, being
a professional means being a part of a moral community of others who share the
same profound responsibilities we do. We can draw strength, courage, and wisdom
from those members of our professional community who have navigated the same
types of moral dilemmas, struggled with the same sorts of tough decisions, faced up
to the same types of consequences, and ultimately earned the respect and
admiration of their peers and the public.
Broadening our view of software engineering ethics
Certainly, software engineers must concern themselves primarily with the health,
safety and welfare of those who are affected by their work, as the so-called
‘paramountcy clause’ of NSPE’s Code of Ethics states. But we need to broaden our
understanding of a number of aspects of this claim, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The types of harms the public can suffer as result of this work;
How software engineers contribute to the good life for others;
Who exactly are the ‘public’ to whom the engineer is obligated;
Why the software engineer is obligated to protect the public;
What other ethical obligations software engineers are under;
How software engineers can actually live up to ethical standards;
What is the end goal of an ethical life in software engineering;
What are the professional codes of software engineering ethics;
Let’s begin with the first point.
4
PART ONE
What kinds of harm to the public can software engineers cause?
What kinds of harm can they prevent?
We noted above that failures of critical software systems can result in catastrophic
loss of life or injury to the public. If such failures result, directly or indirectly, from
software engineers’ choices to ignore their professional obligations, then these
harms are clearly the consequences of unethical professional behavior. Those
responsible each bear the moral weight of this avoidable human suffering, whether
or not this also results in legal, criminal or professional punishment.
But what other kinds of harms do software engineers have an ethical duty to
consider, and to try to prevent? Consider the following scenario:
Case Study 1
Mike is a father of 3, and in order to save for their college educations,
he has been working two jobs since his kids were born. His daughter
Sarah has worked as hard as she can in high school to get high grades
and SAT scores; as a result of her hard work she has been accepted to a
prestigious Ivy-League college, and the deposit for her first year is due
today. If the deposit goes unpaid, Sarah loses her spot in the freshman
class. Mike paid the bill last week, but today he gets an email from the
college admissions office saying that his payment was rejected for
insufficient funds by his bank, and if he does not make the payment by
the end of the day, Sarah will lose her place and be unable to attend in
the Fall. Panicked, Mike calls the bank – he had more than enough
money in his savings to cover the bill, so he cannot understand what
has happened. The bank confirms that his account had plenty of funds
the day before, but cannot tell him why the funds are gone now or why
the payment was rejected. They tell him there must be some ‘software
glitch’ involved and that they will open an investigation, but that it will
take weeks to resolve. They will only restore the funds in his account
once the investigation is completed and the cause found. Mike has no
other way to get the money for the deposit on such short notice, and
has to tell Sarah that he couldn’t cover the bill despite his earlier
promise, and that she won’t be attending college in the Fall.
5
Question 1.1:
What kinds of harm has Mike probably suffered as a result of this incident? What
kinds of harm has Sarah probably suffered? (Make your answers as full as possible;
identify as many kinds of harm done as you can think of).
Type your answer here
Question 1.2:
Could the problem with Mike’s account have been the result of an action (or a
failure to perform an action) by a software engineer? How many possible
scenarios/explanations for this event can you think of that involve the conduct of
one or more software engineers? Briefly explain the scenarios:
Type your answer here (continue answer on next page if needed)
6
(Continue your answer to 1.2 from previous page)
Question 1.3:
Taking into account what we said about ethics in the introduction, could any of
the scenarios you imagined involve an ethical failure of the engineer(s)
responsible? How? Explain:
*Note: An ethical failure would be preventable, and one that a good human being
with appropriate professional care and concern would and should have prevented
(or at least have made a serious effort to prevent).
Type your answer here
7
Let’s try a different scenario:
Case Study 2
Karen is a young lawyer at a prestigious firm with an incredibly hectic
and stressful schedule, who needs to organize what little free time she
has more efficiently. She has just downloaded a new app called Errand
Whiz onto her iPhone; this app merges information from Karen’s to-do
list, information on her purchasing habits from retail stores she shops at,
and GPS software to produce the most efficient map and directions for
running errands on her days off. Based on what it knows about what
she needs to purchase and her general shopping habits, it tells Karen
what locations of her favorite stores to visit on a given day, in what
order and by what routes – this way she can get her errands done in the
least amount of time, traveling the least number of miles.
To
accomplish this, the app aggregates information not only about where
she lives and shops, but also tracks what she typically buys in each
store, how much she buys, what she typically pays for each item. This
collected data is not stored on Karen’s phone, but on a separate server
that the app links to when it needs to create a shopping map. The app
encourages users to log in via Facebook, as the developers have made a
deal with Facebook to sell this data to third-party advertisers, for the
purpose of targeting Facebook ads to Karen and her friends.
Question 1.4: In what ways could Karen potentially be harmed by this app,
depending on how it is designed and how her shopping data is handled and used?
Identify a few harmful scenarios you can think of, and the types of harm she could
suffer in each:
Type your answer here (continue on next page if needed)
8
(Continue your answer to 1.4 from previous page)
Question 1.5: Which if any of these harms could result from ethical failings on
the part of the people who developed Errand Whiz? How, specifically?
Type your answer here (continue on next page if needed)
9
(Continue your answer to 1.5 from previous page)
Question 1.6: What actions could the people behind Errand Whiz take to prevent
these harms? Are they ethically obligated to prevent them? Why or why not?
Explain your answer.
Type your answer here (continue on next page if needed)
10
(Continue your answer to 1.6 from previous page)
Ideally, these scenarios have helped to broaden your understanding of the ethical
scope of software engineering. In considering and protecting the ‘health, safety and
welfare’ of the public, we must not limit our thinking to those contexts in which
our design choices or coding practices have the potential to cause someone’s
death, or cause them direct physical injury. The harms that people can suffer as a
result of failures by software engineers to consider their ethical obligation to the
public are far more numerous and more complex than we might think.
11
PART TWO
How do software engineers contribute to the good life for others?
There is a second way in which we need to broaden our understanding of
engineering ethics. Ethics is not just about avoiding harms, as a narrow focus on
preventing catastrophic events might make us believe. Ethics is just as much about
doing good. ‘Doing good’ is not something that matters only to missionaries, social
workers and philanthropists. To live a ‘good life’ is to make a positive contribution
to the world through your existence, to be able to say at the end of your life that in
your short time here, you made the world at least somewhat better than it would
have been without you in it. This is also how we think about the lives of those who
have left us: when we mourn our friends and loved ones, we comfort ourselves by
remembering the unique comforts and joys they brought to our lives, and the lives
of others; we remember the creative work they left behind, the problems they
helped us solve, and the beautiful acts they performed, great and small. Could a life
about which these things could not be said still be a good life?
If the good life requires making a positive contribution to the world in which others
live, then it would be perverse if we accomplished none of that in our professional
lives, where we spend many or most of our waking hours, and to which we devote
a large proportion of our intellectual and creative energies. Excellent doctors
contribute health and vitality to their patients and medical knowledge to their
interns and colleagues; excellent professors cultivate knowledge, insight, skill and
confidence in their students and contribute the benefits of their research to the
wider community; excellent lawyers contribute balance, fairness and intellectual
vigor to a larger system of justice.
Question 2.1: What sorts of things can excellent software engineers contribute to
the good life?
(Answer as fully/in as many ways as you are able):
12
Question 2.2: What kinds of character traits, qualities, behaviors and/or habits
do you think mark the kinds of people who tend to contribute most in these ways?
(Answer as fully/in as many ways as you are able):
PART THREE
To whom are software engineers obligated by their professional ethics? Who is
‘the public’ that deserves an engineer’s professional concern?
The NSPE’s paramountcy clause asks engineers to recognize that their primary
professional duty is to ‘hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the
public.’ But who exactly is this ‘public?’ Of course, one can respond simply with,
‘the public is everyone.’ But the public is not an undifferentiated mass; the public
is composed of our families, our friends and co-workers, our employers, our
neighbors, our church or other local community members, our countrymen and
women, and people living in every other part of the world. To say that we have
ethical obligations to ‘everyone’ is to tell us very little about how to actually work
responsibly as an engineer in the public interest, since each of these groups and
individuals that make up the public are in a unique relationship to us and our
work, and are potentially impacted by it in very different ways. We also have
special obligations to some members of the public (our children, our employer, our
friends, our fellow citizens) that exist alongside the broader, more general
obligations we have to all of them.
13
One concept that ethicists often use to clarify our obligations to the public is that of
a stakeholder. A stakeholder is anyone who is potentially impacted by my actions.
Clearly, certain persons have more at stake than other stakeholders in any given
action I might take; when I consider, for example, how much effort to put into
cleaning up a buggy line of code in a program that will be used to control a
pacemaker, it is obvious that the patients in whom the pacemakers with this
programming will be implanted are the primary stakeholders in my action; their
very lives are potentially at risk in my choice. And this stake is so ethically
significant that it is hard to see how any other stakeholder’s interest could weigh as
heavily.
Still, in most ethical contexts, including those that arise in software engineering,
there are a variety of stakeholders potentially impacted by my action, and their
interests may not always align with each other. For example, my employer’s
interests in cost-cutting and an on-time product delivery schedule may frequently
be in tension with the interest of other stakeholders in having the highest quality
and most reliable product.
Yet even these stakeholder conflicts are rarely so
simple as they might first appear; the consumer also has an interest in an affordable
product, and my employer also has an interest in earning a reputation for product
excellence, and in maintaining the profile of a responsible corporate citizen.
Of course, while my own trivial, short-sighted and self-defeating interests (say, in
gaining extra leisure time by taking reckless coding shortcuts) will never trump a
critical moral interest of another stakeholder (say, their interest in not being unjustly
killed by my product), it remains true that I myself am a stakeholder, since my
actions also impact my own life and well-being. A decision to ignore my welldefined contractual obligations to my employer, or my obligations to my fellow
product team members, will have weighty consequences for me. But ignoring the
health, safety and welfare of those who rely upon the code I produce has
consequences that are potentially even graver – for me as well as for those persons
whose well-being I have chosen to discount or ignore.
Ethical decision-making thus requires cultivating the habit of reflecting carefully
upon the range of stakeholders who together make up the ‘public’ to whom I am
obligated, and weighing what is at stake for each of us in my choice.
Here is a scenario to help you think about what this reflection process can entail:
14
Case Study 3
You are a new hire in a product design team for a start-up company
that is developing new and more powerful versions of the kind of
packet-sniffing and email scanning software systems used by law
enforcement agencies and large corporations to monitor data traffic for
illegal activities. This kind of software might, for example, be
programmed to detect illegal downloads of copyrighted materials, or to
flag for review email keywords like ‘bomb,’ ‘steal,’ or ‘bribe.’ You are a
young parent of two small children, with parents and friends who are
deeply proud of your achievements. You are looking forward to using
this first job to cultivate a reputation in your industry for being an
excellent software engineer.
One day, you happen to overhear your supervisor chatting with
another supervisor about a new contract the company has recently
received from a foreign government. You happen to recognize the
name of this country as one that is currently run by an oppressive
military regime that routinely imprisons its citizens without trial or
other due process. In this country, people perceived as political
dissidents and their families are often sent to labor camps with
deplorable living conditions, without hope of appeal, for an indefinite
period. Your own nation has strongly criticized this country’s human
rights record, and many international organizations as well as the
United Nations have condemned its practices.
You realize now that the product your team is working on is part of
your company’s contract with this government; and in fact, you have
been assigned specifically to develop the part of the product that
searches for specific keyword strings in private emails, texts, social
networking messages, Skype and phone conversations. Reviewing the
specs for your task, you realize that your contribution to the product
will almost certainly be used to identify for extraction and review
conversations between private citizens of this country in which there is
any specific discussion of their government or its policies, and
especially those in which words like ‘reform,’ ‘injustice,’ ‘corruption,’
‘due process’ or ‘human rights’ occur.
15
Question 3.1: Who are the various stakeholders in this scenario, and what do they
each have at stake in your action? Reflect carefully and deeply, and answer as
fully as possible.
Type answer here
Question 3.2: What do you think is your ethical obligation in this situation? What
do you think an excellent software engineer would do in this situation? Are they
the same thing, or different? Please explain your answer.
Type answer here (continue on next page if needed)
16
(Continue answer from 3.2 on previous page)
PART FOUR
Why do software engineers have ethical obligations to the public at all? Where
do these obligations come from?
As you might expect by now, there is a simple answer to this question that will
nevertheless lead us into a far more complex and profound set of considerations.
The simple answer is, ‘because software engineers are human beings, and all
human beings have ethical obligations to each other.’ Unless you believe, for
example, that you have no ethical obligation to stop a small toddler who you
happen to see crawling toward the opening to a deep mineshaft6, then you accept
that you have some basic ethical obligations toward other human beings.
What those obligations are, precisely, is a matter of ethical theory, and many such
theories have been developed over the course of human history. Some of these
theories developed in folk or religious traditions, others are articulated in scholarly
philosophical discourse from the ancient world to today. Among the most wellknown and influential types of theory are those of virtue ethics found in diverse
6 This example is adapted from one given by the Confucian philosopher Mencius (in
Ivanhoe and Van Norden 2001), who argued that anyone who would be unmoved by
the child’s peril was not truly human. In the contemporary medical vernacular we
would more likely diagnose such a person as a psychopath or sociopath.
17
cultures from Confucian ethics to ancient Greek, Roman and Christian philosophy,
along with the consequentialist group of theories that include utilitarianism, and
finally deontological theories of ethics that emphasize rules and principles. We
will briefly revisit these types of ethical theory in the next section.
Our question here, however, was not ‘what are my ethical duties?’ but rather ‘why
do I have them?’ That is not a question for ethical theory, it is a question of
metaethics, or the study of where our ethical duties come from and why they
obligate us to act as they say we should. Many answers have been given to this
question, but before we get lost in a profound philosophical problem, let us
remember that in our case we are exploring the special ethical obligations of
software engineers, which while not wholly independent of our broader ethical
obligations as human beings, may have a more clearly identifiable source and
justification.
The first explanation of this source involves the concept of a profession. What is a
professional? You may not have considered that this word is etymologically
connected with the English verb ‘to profess.’ What is it to profess something? It is
to stand publicly for something, to express a belief, conviction, value or promise to
a general audience that you expect that audience to hold you accountable for, and
to identify you with. When I profess something, I assert that this is something about
which I am serious and sincere; and which I want others to know about me. So
when we identify someone as a professional X (whether ‘X’ is a lawyer, physician,
soldier or engineer), we are saying that being an ‘X’ is not just a job, but a vocation,
a form of work to which the individual is committed and with which they would
like their lives to be identified.
This is part of why professionals are generally expected to undertake advanced
education and training in their field; not only because they need the expertise
(though that too), but also because this is a important sign of their investment and
commitment to the field. When students who have completed an arduous degree
program enter the work world, this is taken as evidence that they are sincere in
their interest in this kind of work, that they understand and uniquely value the
contribution that this work makes to the world, and that they want their own
personal good and sense of self to be enduringly intertwined and identified with the
good of their chosen profession. Of course, people do change professions – but not
as frequently, or as lightly, as people change mere jobs.
So what does being a professional have to do with ethics? How does it create
special ethical obligations for the software engineer? First, I stated above that a
professional has stated implicitly a desire to have their own good intertwined and
identified with the good of their profession. But what is the good of their
profession? Look back at your answers to Question 2.1 above. Do they suggest an
answer to this question?
18
Consider that members of most professions enjoy an elevated status in their
communities; doctors, professors, scientists and lawyers generally get more respect
from the public (rightly or wrongly) than retail clerks, manicurists, toll booth
operators, and car salespeople. But why? It can’t just be the difference in skill; after
all, car salespeople have to have very specialized skills in order to thrive in their
job. The distinction lies in the perception that professionals secure a vital public
good, not something of merely private and conditional value. For example, without
doctors, public health would certainly suffer – and a good life is virtually
impossible without some measure of health. Without lawyers and judges, the
public would have no formal access to justice – and without recourse for injustice
done to you or others, how can the good life be secure? Without scientists, the
public would be deprived of reliable and carefully tested knowledge – and how
can a life filled with ignorance and error be good? So each of these professions is
supported and respected by the public precisely because they deliver something
vital to the good life, and something needed not just by a few, but by us all.
We are nearing the conclusion of our inquiry in this section. We started with the
question of why we have ethical obligations as software engineers. Well, software
engineering is a profession, and one that like all professions, receives distinctive
public support and respect. What do software engineers do to earn that respect?
How must they act in order to continue to earn it? After all, special public respect
and support are not given for free or given unconditionally – they are given in
recognition of some service or value that actually warrants support and respect.
That support and respect is also something that translates into real power; the
power of public funding and consumer loyalty, the power of influence over how
people live and what systems they use to organize their lives; in short, the power to
guide the course of other human beings’ technological future. And as we are told
in the popular Spiderman saga, “With great power comes great responsibility.” This
is a further reason, even above their general ethical obligations as human beings,
that software engineers have special ethical obligations to the public they serve.
Question 4.1: Which of the contributions in your answer to 2.1 are related to
vital public good(s)? What vital public goods might software engineers help to
secure that you did not mention in your initial answer to 2.1?
Type answer here
19
PART FIVE
What general ethical obligations are software engineers under, beyond their
distinctive professional obligations?
We noted above that software engineers, in addition to their special professional
obligations to the public, also have the same ethical obligations to their fellow
human beings that we all share. What might those obligations be, and how should
they be evaluated alongside our professional obligations? There are a number of
familiar concepts that we already use to talk about how, in general, we ought to
treat others. Among them are the concepts of rights, justice and the common good.
But how do we define the concrete meaning of these important ideals? Here are
three common frameworks for understanding our general ethical duties to others:
Virtue Ethics: Virtue approaches to ethics are found in the ancient Greek and
Roman traditions, in Confucian, Buddhist and Christian moral philosophies, and in
modern secular thinkers like Hume and Nietzsche. Virtue ethics focuses not on
rules for good or bad actions, but on the qualities of morally excellent persons (e.g.,
virtues). Such theories are said to be character based, insofar as they tell us what a
person of virtuous character is like, and how that moral character develops. Such
theories also focus on the habits of action of virtuous persons, such as the habit of
moderation (finding the ‘golden mean’ between extremes), as well as the virtue of
prudence or practical wisdom (the ability to see what is morally required even in
new or unusual situations to which conventional moral rules do not apply).
How can virtue ethics help us to understand what our moral obligations are? It can
do so in three ways. The first is by helping to see that we have a basic moral
obligation to make a consistent and conscious effort to develop our moral character
for the better; as the philosopher Confucius said, the real ethical failing is not
having faults, ‘but rather failing to amend them.’7 The second thing virtue theories
can tell us is where to look for standards of conduct to follow; virtue theories tell us
to look for them in our own societies, in those special persons who are exemplary
human beings with qualities of character (virtues) to which we should aspire. The
third thing that virtue ethics does is direct us toward the lifelong cultivation of
practical wisdom or good moral judgment: the ability to discern which of our
obligations are most important in a given situation and which actions are most
likely to succeed in helping us to meet those obligations. Virtuous persons with
this ability flourish in their own lives by acting justly with others, and contribute to
the common good by providing a moral example for others to admire and follow.
7 Confucius, Analects. In Ivanhoe and Van Norden (2001).
20
Question 5.1: How would a conscious habit of thinking about how to be a better
human being contribute to a person’s character, especially over time?
Question 5:2: Do you know what specific aspects of your character you would
need to work on/improve in order to become a better person? (Yes or No)
Type answer here
Question 5:3: Do you think most people make enough of a regular effort to work
on their character or amend their shortcomings? Do you think we are morally
obligated to make the effort to become better people? Why or why not?
Type answers here
21
Question 5:4: Who do you consider a model of moral excellence that you see as
an example of how to live, and whose qualities of character you would like to
cultivate? Who would you want your children (or future children) to see as
examples of such human (and especially moral) excellence?
Type answer here
Consequentialist/Utilitarian Ethics: Consequentialist theories of ethics derive
principles to guide moral action from the likely consequences of those actions.
The most famous form of consequentialism is utilitarian ethics, which uses the
principle of the ‘greatest good’ to determine what our moral obligations are in any
given situation.8 The ‘good’ in utilitarian ethics is measured in terms of happiness
or pleasure (where this means not just physical pleasure but also emotional and
intellectual pleasures). The absence of pain (whether physical, emotional, etc.) is
also considered good, unless the pain somehow leads to a net benefit in pleasure,
or prevents greater pains (so the pain of exercise would be good because it also
promotes great pleasure as well as health, which in turn prevents more suffering).
When I ask what action would promote the ‘greater good,’ then, I am asking which
action would produce, in the long run, the greatest net sum of good (pleasure and
absence of pain), taking into account the consequences for all those affected by my
action (not just myself). This is known as the hedonic calculus, where I try to
maximize the overall happiness produced in the world by my action.
Utilitarian thinkers believe that at any given time, whichever action among those
available to me is most likely to boost the overall sum of happiness in the world is
the right action to take, and my moral obligation. This is yet another way of
thinking about the ‘common good.’ But utilitarians are sometimes charged with
ignoring the requirements of individual rights and justice; after all, wouldn’t a good
utilitarian willingly commit a great injustice against one innocent person as long as
it brought a greater overall benefit to others? Many utilitarians, however, believe
that a society in which individual rights and justice are given the highest
importance just is the kind of society most likely to maximize overall happiness in
the long run. After all, how many societies that deny individual rights, and freely
sacrifice individuals/minorities for the good of the many, would we call happy?
8 John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1861). In Shafer-‐Landau (2007).
22
Question 5:5: What would be the hardest part of living by the utilitarian principle
of the ‘greatest good’? What would be the most rewarding part?
Type answer here
Question 5:6: What different kinds of pleasure/happiness are there? Are some
pleasures more or less valuable or of higher or lower quality than others? Why or
why not? Explain your intuitions about this:
Type answer here
23
Question 5:7: Utilitarians think that pleasure and the absence of pain are the
highest goods that we can seek in life, and that we should always be seeking to
produce these goods for others (and for ourselves). They claim that every other
good thing in life is valued simply because it produces pleasure or reduces pain.
Do you agree? Why or why not?
Type answer here
Question 5:8: A utilitarian might say that to measure a ‘good life,’ you should ask:
‘how much overall happiness did this life bring into the world?’ Do you agree
that this is the correct measure of a good life, or not? Briefly explain.
Type answer here
24
Deontological Ethics: Deontological ethics are rule or principle-based systems of
ethics, in which one or more rules/principles are claimed to tell us what our moral
obligations are in life. In Judeo-Christian thought, the Ten Commandments can be
thought of as a deontological system. Among modern, secular forms of ethics,
many deontological systems focus on lists of ‘rights’ (for example, the rights not to
be unjustly killed, enslaved, or deprived of your property). Consider also the
modern idea of ‘universal human rights’ that all countries must agree to respect. In
the West, moral rights are often taken as a basis for law, and are often invoked to
justify the making of new laws, or the revision or abolition of existing ones. In
many cultures of East Asia, deontological systems may focus not on on rights but
on duties; these are fixed obligations to others (parents, siblings, rulers, fellow
citizens etc.) that must be fulfilled according to established rules of conduct that
govern various types of human relationships.
Another well-known deontological system is that of the 18th century philosopher
Immanuel Kant, who identified a single moral rule called the categorical
imperative.9 This principle tells us to only act in ways that we would be willing to
have all other persons follow, all of the time. He related this to another principle
that tells us never to treat a human being as a ‘mere means to an end,’ that is, as an
object to be manipulated for our own purposes. For example, I might want to tell a
lie to get myself out of trouble in a particular case. But I certainly would not want
everyone in the world to lie every time they felt like it would help them avoid
trouble. And if someone lies to me to get me to do something that benefits them, I
am rightly upset about being treated as a mere object to be manipulated for gain.
So I cannot logically give myself permission to lie, since there is nothing about me
that exempts me from my own general moral standards for human behavior. For if I
am willing to give myself permission to act in this way for this reason, how could I
logically justify withholding the same permission from others?
According to this principle, human lives are the ultimate sources of all moral value.
I thus have a universal moral obligation to treat other human lives in ways that
acknowledge and respect their unconditional value, and to not treat them merely
as tools to manipulate for lesser purposes. And since I myself am human, I cannot
morally allow even my own existence to be used as a mere tool for some lesser
purpose (for example, to knowingly sell out my personal integrity for money, fame
or approval). This principle highlights my duty to always respect the dignity of all
human lives. This theory is also linked with a particular idea of justice, as treatment
that recognizes the basic equality and irreplaceable dignity of every human being,
no matter who they are or where they live. Such thinking is often considered to be
at the heart of the modern doctrine of inalienable human rights.
9 Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785). In Shafer-‐
Landau (2007).
25
Question 5:9: How often, when making decisions, do you consider whether you
would willingly permit everyone else to act in the same way that you are choosing
to act?
Type answer here
Question 5:10: What are two other examples you can think of, beyond those
given in the text above, in which someone is treated as a ‘mere means to an end’?
Example 1:
Example 2:
26
Question 5:11: Do you agree that human lives are of the highest possible value
and beyond any fixed ‘price’? In your opinion, how well does our society today
reflect this view on morality and justice? Should it reflect this view?
Type answer here
Question 5:12: While each of the 3 distinct types of ethical frameworks/theories
reviewed in this section is subject to certain limitations or criticisms, what aspects
of the good life/ethics do you think each one captures best?
Type answer here
27
PART SIX
How can software engineers live up to their ethical obligations, both
professionally and in their private lives?
There are a number of common habits and practices that create obstacles to living
well in the moral sense; fortunately, there are also a number of common habits and
practices that are highly conducive to living well:
Five Ethically Constructive Habits of Mind and Action:
1. Self- Reflection/Examination: This involves spending time on a regular basis
(even daily) thinking about the person you want to become, in relation to the
person you are today. It involves identifying character traits and habits that you
would like to change or improve in your private and professional life; reflecting on
whether you would be happy if those whom you admire and respect most knew all
that you know about your actions, choices and character; and asking yourself how
fully you are living up to the values you profess to yourself and others.
2. Looking for Moral Exemplars: Many of us spend a great deal of our time, often
more than we realize, judging the shortcomings of others. We wallow in irritation
or anger at what we perceive as unfair, unkind or incompetent behavior of others,
we comfort ourselves by noting the even greater professional or private failings of
others, and we justify ignoring the need for our own ethical improvement by noting
that many others seem to be in no hurry to become better people either. What we
miss when we focus on the shared faults of humanity are those exemplary actions
we witness, and the exemplary persons in our communities, that offer us a path
forward in our own self-development. Exemplary acts of forgiveness, compassion,
grace, courage, creativity and justice have the power to draw our aspirations
upward; especially when we consider that there is no reason why we would be
incapable of these actions ourselves. But this cannot happen unless we are in the
habit of looking for, and taking notice of, moral exemplars in the world around us.
3. Exercising our Moral Imaginations: It can be hard to notice our ethical
obligations, or their importance, because we have difficulty imagining how what
we do might affect others. In some sense we all know that our personal and
professional choices almost always have consequences for the lives of others,
whether good or bad. But rarely do we try to really imagine what it will be like to
suffer the pain that our action is likely going to cause someone – or what it will be
like to experience the joy, or relief of pain or worry that another choice of ours
might bring. This becomes even harder as we consider stakeholders who live
outside of our personal circles and beyond our daily view. The pain of your best
friend who you have betrayed is easy to see, and not difficult to imagine before you
act - but it is easy not to see, and not to imagine, the pain of a person on another
continent, unknown to you, whose life has been ruined by identity theft because
you knowingly allowed a product with gaping security holes to be released without
28
providing customers a patch. The suffering of that person, and your responsibility
for it, would be no less great simply because you had difficulty imagining it.
Fortunately, our powers of imagination can be increased. Seeking out news, books,
films and other sources of stories about the human condition can help us to better
envision the lives of others, even those in very different circumstances from our
own. This capacity for imaginative empathy, when habitually exercised, enlarges
our ability to envision the likely impact of our actions on other stakeholders. Over
time, this can help us to fulfill our ethical obligations and to live as better people.
4. Acknowledging Your Own Moral Strength: For the most part, living well in the
ethical sense makes life easier, not harder. Acting like a person of courage,
compassion and integrity is, in most circumstances, also the sort of action that
garners respect, trust and friendship in both private and professional circles, and
these are actions that we ourselves can enjoy and look back upon with satisfaction
rather than guilt, disappointment or shame. But it is inevitable that sometimes the
thing that is right will not be the easy thing, at least not in the short term. And all
too often our moral will to live well gives out at exactly this point – under pressure,
we take the easy (and wrong) way out, and try as best we can to put our moral
failure and the harm we may have done or allowed out of our minds.
One of the most common reasons why we fail to act as we know we should is that
we think we are too weak to do so, that we lack the strength to make difficult
choices and face the consequences of doing what is right. But this is often more of
a self-justifying and self-fulfilling fantasy than a reality; just as a healthy person may
tell herself that she simply can’t run five miles, thus sparing her the effort of trying
what millions of others just like her have accomplished, a person may tell herself
that she simply can’t tell the truth when it will greatly inconvenience or embarrass
her, or that she simply can’t help someone in need when it will cost her something
she wants for herself. But of course people do these things every day; they tell the
morally important truth and take the heat, they sell their boat so that their disabled
friend’s family does not become homeless, they report frauds from which they
might otherwise have benefited financially. These people are not a different species
from the rest of us; they just have not forgotten or discounted their own moral
strength. And in turn, they live very nearly as they should, and as we at any time
can, if we simply have the will.
5. Seeking the Company of Other Moral Persons – many have noted the
importance of friendship in moral development; in the 4th century B.C. the Greek
philosopher Aristotle argued that a virtuous friend can be a ‘second self,’ one who
represents the very qualities of character that we value and aspire to preserve in
ourselves.10 He notes also that living well in the ethical sense requires ethical
actions, and that activity is generally easier and more pleasurable in the company
of others. Thus seeking the company of other moral persons can keep us from
10 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII.
29
feeling isolated and alone in our moral commitments; friends of moral character
can increase our pleasure and self-esteem when we do well alongside them, they
can call us out when we act inconsistently with our own professed ideals and
values, they can help us reason through difficult moral choices, and they can take
on the inevitable challenges of ethical life with us, allowing us to weather them
together. Aside from this, and as compared with persons who are ethically
compromised, persons of moral character are direct sources of pleasure and
comfort – we benefit daily from their kindness, honesty, mercy, wisdom and
courage, just as they find comfort and happiness in ours.
Question 6:1: Of these five moral habits and practices, which do you think you
are best at presently? Which of these habits, if any, would you like to do more to
cultivate?
Type answer here
Question 6.2: In what specific ways, small or large, do you think adopting some
or all of these habits could change a person’s personal and professional life?
Type answer here
30
PART SEVEN
Question 7:1: What might be the end goal of an ethical life as a software
engineer? What professional goals or other valuable ends could a software
engineer achieve by living well in the ethical sense? What personal goals or values
could it help such a person achieve? Answer in as much detail as you are able.
Type answer here
31
PART EIGHT
What are the professional codes of software engineering ethics? How do they
actually help us to be ethical in our working lives?
Each professional society of engineers adopts and enforces its own codes of
practice, including codes for ethical practice; in Appendix A and B below we have
included the codes of ethics adopted by the professional societies most relevant to
software engineers in the United States: the NSPE (National Society of Professional
Engineers) and the ACM/IEEE-CS (Association for Computing Machinery/Institute of
Electrical and Electronic Engineers Computing Society).
These codes are not meant to serve as formal checklists or exhaustive accounts of
how to be an ethical engineer in any given situation; the latter can only be
determined through the engineer’s skillful, sincere and habitual practice of ethical
reflection, analysis and deliberation in his or her professional life. Ethical codes are
just one tool that help us to “develop an ‘eye’ for what would be appropriate” in
various circumstances.11 As another scholar puts it, “The principles of the Code do
not constitute an algorithmic Turing machine that solves ethical problems.
Professional judgments are still necessary.”12 Good judgment, what Aristotle called
phronesis or ‘practical wisdom’, is something that is acquired through a
combination of experience, good habits, and conscious attention to ethical
concerns. Ethical rules and codes are no substitute for it, nor are they meant to be.
In fact, such codes can only be used effectively by persons with good judgment.
The codes aim simply to express as fully as possible the scope of professional
actions governed by ethics and to indicate the specific ethical duties that engineers
of the highest professional standing expect their present and future colleagues to
respect, and to fulfill.
In describing the character of exemplary software engineers, one scholar identifies
seven qualities of ‘superprofessionals’ who embody the highest ideals of their field:
A strong sense of individual responsibility, acute awareness of the world around
them, brutal honesty, resilience under pressure, a heightened sense of fairness,
attention to detail while maintaining perspective, and pragmatism in applying
professional standards.13 Each of these qualities contributes to the practical wisdom
that allows us to apply ethical codes intelligently and successfully. Yet
“Superprofessionals behave ethically not because it’s prescribed by a code of
conduct, but because not doing so would violate their personal professional
standards.”14
11 Ruth Chadwick, quoted in Rashid, Weckert and Lucas (2009), 39.
12 Gotterbarn and Miller (2009), 68.
13 Erdogmus (2009).
14 Ibid., 6.
32
Question 8:1: Read over Appendix A and B. Identify two code items from
Appendix A and two from Appendix B about which you have either: a question
concerning its meaning, a comment about its importance, or a concern about its
ability to be well implemented. Pose those questions/comments/concerns below.
Type your four questions/comments/concerns about Appendix A and B here.
Question 8:2: How might the qualities of a ‘superprofessional’ engineer with
practical wisdom, as described in this section, assist such a person in applying
these codes successfully? Be specific.
Type your answer here.
33
APPENDIX A.
NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
CODE OF ETHICS FOR ENGINEERS
Preamble
Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession,
engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity.
Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people.
Accordingly, the services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality,
fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health,
safety, and welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard of professional
behavior that requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.
I. Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
Perform services only in areas of their competence.
Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
Avoid deceptive acts.
Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to
enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
II. Rules of Practice
Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or
property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may
be appropriate.
Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are in
conformity with applicable standards.
Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent
of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.
34
Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business
ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or
dishonest enterprise.
Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a
person or firm.
Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report
thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public
authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such
information or assistance as may be required.
Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence.
Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or
experience in the specific technical fields involved.
Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing
with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document
not prepared under their direction and control.
Engineers may accept assignments and assume responsibility for coordination
of an entire project and sign and seal the engineering documents for the entire
project, provided that each technical segment is signed and sealed only by the
qualified engineers who prepared the segment.
Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or
testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports,
statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was
current.
Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon
knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter.
Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on technical
matters that are inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced
their comments by explicitly identifying the interested parties on whose behalf they
are speaking, and by revealing the existence of any interest the engineers may have
in the matters.
Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could
influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.
35
Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or otherwise, from more
than one party for services on the same project, or for services pertaining to the
same project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosed and agreed to by all
interested parties.
Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration,
directly or indirectly, from outside agents in connection with the work for which
they are responsible.
Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or employees of a
governmental or quasi-governmental body or department shall not participate in
decisions with respect to services solicited or provided by them or their
organizations in private or public engineering practice.
Engineers shall not solicit or accept a contract from a governmental body on
which a principal or officer of their organization serves as a member.
Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts.
Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of
their or their associates' qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate
their responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior assignments. Brochures or
other presentations incident to the solicitation of employment shall not
misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint
venturers, or past accomplishments.
Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either directly or indirectly,
any contribution to influence the award of a contract by public authority, or which
may be reasonably construed by the public as having the effect or intent of
influencing the awarding of a contract. They shall not offer any gift or other
valuable consideration in order to secure work. They shall not pay a commission,
percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work, except to a bona fide
employee or bona fide established commercial or marketing agencies retained by
them.
III. Professional Obligations
Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of
honesty and integrity.
Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts.
Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project
will not be successful.
36
Engineers shall not accept outside employment to the detriment of their
regular work or interest. Before accepting any outside engineering employment,
they will notify their employers.
Engineers shall not attempt to attract an engineer from another employer by
false or misleading pretenses.
Engineers shall not promote their own interest at the expense of the dignity
and integrity of the profession.
Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public interest.
Engineers are encouraged to participate in civic affairs; career guidance for
youths; and work for the advancement of the safety, health, and well-being of their
community.
Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are
not in conformity with applicable engineering standards. If the client or employer
insists on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and
withdraw from further service on the project.
Engineers are encouraged to extend public knowledge and appreciation of
engineering and its achievements.
Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable
development1 in order to protect the environment for future generations.
Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the public.
Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material
misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.
Consistent with the foregoing, engineers may advertise for recruitment of
personnel.
Consistent with the foregoing, engineers may prepare articles for the lay or
technical press, but such articles shall not imply credit to the author for work
performed by others.
Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information
concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former
client or employer, or public body on which they serve.
Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, promote or
arrange for new employment or practice in connection with a specific project for
which the engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge.
37
Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, participate in
or represent an adversary interest in connection with a specific project or
proceeding in which the engineer has gained particular specialized knowledge on
behalf of a former client or employer.
Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting
interests.
Engineers shall not accept financial or other considerations, including free
engineering designs, from material or equipment suppliers for specifying their
product.
Engineers shall not accept commissions or allowances, directly or indirectly,
from contractors or other parties dealing with clients or employers of the engineer
in connection with work for which the engineer is responsible.
Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or
professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other
improper or questionable methods.
Engineers shall not request, propose, or accept a commission on a contingent
basis under circumstances in which their judgment may be compromised.
Engineers in salaried positions shall accept part-time engineering work only to
the extent consistent with policies of the employer and in accordance with ethical
considerations.
Engineers shall not, without consent, use equipment, supplies, laboratory, or
office facilities of an employer to carry on outside private practice.
Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly,
the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present
such information to the proper authority for action.
Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for
the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the
connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
Engineers in governmental, industrial, or educational employ are entitled to
review and evaluate the work of other engineers when so required by their
employment duties.
Engineers in sales or industrial employ are entitled to make engineering
comparisons of represented products with products of other suppliers.
38
Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional activities,
provided, however, that engineers may seek indemnification for services arising out
of their practice for other than gross negligence, where the engineer's interests
cannot otherwise be protected.
Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of
engineering.
Engineers shall not use association with a nonengineer, a corporation, or
partnership as a "cloak" for unethical acts.
Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due,
and will recognize the proprietary interests of others.
Engineers shall, whenever possible, name the person or persons who may be
individually responsible for designs, inventions, writings, or other
accomplishments.
Engineers using designs supplied by a client recognize that the designs remain
the property of the client and may not be duplicated by the engineer for others
without express permission.
Engineers, before undertaking work for others in connection with which the
engineer may make improvements, plans, designs, inventions, or other records that
may justify copyrights or patents, should enter into a positive agreement regarding
ownership.
Engineers' designs, data, records, and notes referring exclusively to an
employer's work are the employer's property. The employer should indemnify the
engineer for use of the information for any purpose other than the original purpose.
Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their
careers and should keep current in their specialty fields by engaging in professional
practice, participating in continuing education courses, reading in the technical
literature, and attending professional meetings and seminars.
*Footnote 1 "Sustainable development" is the challenge of meeting human needs
for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and
effective waste management while conserving and protecting environmental
quality and the natural resource base essential for future development.
39
APPENDIX B.
SOFTWARE ENGINEERING CODE OF ETHICS
AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE (Version 5.2)
ADOPTED BY THE ACM/IEEE-CS JOINT TASK FORCE ON SOFTWARE
ENGINEERING ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES
PREAMBLE
Computers have a central and growing role in commerce, industry, government,
medicine, education, entertainment and society at large. Software engineers are
those who contribute by direct participation or by teaching, to the analysis,
specification, design, development, certification, maintenance and testing of
software systems. Because of their roles in developing software systems, software
engineers have significant opportunities to do good or cause harm, to enable others
to do good or cause harm, or to influence others to do good or cause harm. To
ensure, as much as possible, that their efforts will be used for good, software
engineers must commit themselves to making software engineering a beneficial and
respected profession. In accordance with that commitment, software engineers
shall adhere to the following Code of Ethics and Professional Practice.
The Code contains eight Principles related to the behavior of and decisions made
by professional software engineers, including practitioners, educators, managers,
supervisors and policy makers, as well as trainees and students of the profession.
The Principles identify the ethically responsible relationships in which individuals,
groups, and organizations participate and the primary obligations within these
relationships. The Clauses of each Principle are illustrations of some of the
obligations included in these relationships. These obligations are founded in the
software engineer’s humanity, in special care owed to people affected by the work
of software engineers, and the unique elements of the practice of software
engineering. The Code prescribes these as obligations of anyone claiming to be or
aspiring to be a software engineer.
It is not intended that the individual parts of the Code be used in isolation to justify
errors of omission or commission. The list of Principles and Clauses is not
exhaustive. The Clauses should not be read as separating the acceptable from the
unacceptable in professional conduct in all practical situations. The Code is not a
simple ethical algorithm that generates ethical decisions. In some situations
standards may be in tension with each other or with standards from other sources.
These situations require the software engineer to use ethical judgment to act in a
manner, which is most consistent with the spirit of the Code of Ethics and
Professional Practice, given the circumstances.
40
Ethical tensions can best be addressed by thoughtful consideration of fundamental
principles, rather than blind reliance on detailed regulations. These Principles
should influence software engineers to consider broadly who is affected by their
work; to examine if they and their colleagues are treating other human beings with
due respect; to consider how the public, if reasonably well informed, would view
their decisions; to analyze how the least empowered will be affected by their
decisions; and to consider whether their acts would be judged worthy of the ideal
professional working as a software engineer. In all these judgments concern for the
health, safety and welfare of the public is primary; that is, the "Public Interest" is
central to this Code.
The dynamic and demanding context of software engineering requires a code that
is adaptable and relevant to new situations as they occur. However, even in this
generality, the Code provides support for software engineers and managers of
software engineers who need to take positive action in a specific case by
documenting the ethical stance of the profession. The Code provides an ethical
foundation to which individuals within teams and the team as a whole can appeal.
The Code helps to define those actions that are ethically improper to request of a
software engineer or teams of software engineers.
The Code is not simply for adjudicating the nature of questionable acts; it also has
an important educational function. As this Code expresses the consensus of the
profession on ethical issues, it is a means to educate both the public and aspiring
professionals about the ethical obligations of all software engineers.
PRINCIPLES
Principle 1: PUBLIC
Software engineers shall act consistently with the public interest. In particular,
software engineers shall, as appropriate:
1.01. Accept full responsibility for their own work.
1.02. Moderate the interests of the software engineer, the employer, the client and
the users with the public good.
1.03. Approve software only if they have a well-founded belief that it is safe, meets
specifications, passes appropriate tests, and does not diminish quality of life,
diminish privacy or harm the environment. The ultimate effect of the work should
be to the public good.
1.04. Disclose to appropriate persons or authorities any actual or potential danger
to the user, the public, or the environment, that they reasonably believe to be
associated with software or related documents.
41
1.05. Cooperate in efforts to address matters of grave public concern caused by
software, its installation, maintenance, support or documentation.
1.06. Be fair and avoid deception in all statements, particularly public ones,
concerning software or related documents, methods and tools.
1.07. Consider issues of physical disabilities, allocation of resources, economic
disadvantage and other factors that can diminish access to the benefits of software.
1.08. Be encouraged to volunteer professional skills to good causes and contribute
to public education concerning the discipline.
Principle 2: CLIENT AND EMPLOYER
Software engineers shall act in a manner that is in the best interests of their client
and employer, consistent with the public interest. In particular, software engineers
shall, as appropriate:
2.01. Provide service in their areas of competence, being honest and forthright
about any limitations of their experience and education.
2.02. Not knowingly use software that is obtained or retained either illegally or
unethically.
2.03. Use the property of a client or employer only in ways properly authorized,
and with the client's or employer's knowledge and consent.
2.04. Ensure that any document upon which they rely has been approved, when
required, by someone authorized to approve it.
2.05. Keep private any confidential information gained in their professional work,
where such confidentiality is consistent with the public interest and consistent with
the law.
2.06. Identify, document, collect evidence and report to the client or the employer
promptly if, in their opinion, a project is likely to fail, to prove too expensive, to
violate intellectual property law, or otherwise to be problematic.
2.07. Identify, document, and report significant issues of social concern, of which
they are aware, in software or related documents, to the employer or the client.
2.08. Accept no outside work detrimental to the work they perform for their
primary employer.
42
2.09. Promote no interest adverse to their employer or client, unless a higher
ethical concern is being compromised; in that case, inform the employer or another
appropriate authority of the ethical concern.
Principle 3: PRODUCT
Software engineers shall ensure that their products and related modifications meet
the highest professional standards possible. In particular, software engineers shall,
as appropriate:
3.01. Strive for high quality, acceptable cost and a reasonable schedule, ensuring
significant tradeoffs are clear to and accepted by the employer and the client, and
are available for consideration by the user and the public.
3.02. Ensure proper and achievable goals and objectives for any project on which
they work or propose.
3.03. Identify, define and address ethical, economic, cultural, legal and
environmental issues related to work projects.
3.04. Ensure that they are qualified for any project on which they work or propose
to work by an appropriate combination of education and training, and experience.
3.05. Ensure an appropriate method is used for any project on which they work or
propose to work.
3.06. Work to follow professional standards, when available, that are most
appropriate for the task at hand, departing from these only when ethically or
technically justified.
3.07. Strive to fully understand the specifications for software on which they work.
3.08. Ensure that specifications for software on which they work have been well
documented, satisfy the users’ requirements and have the appropriate approvals.
3.09. Ensure realistic quantitative estimates of cost, scheduling, personnel, quality
and outcomes on any project on which they work or propose to work and provide
an uncertainty assessment of these estimates.
3.10. Ensure adequate testing, debugging, and review of software and related
documents on which they work.
3.11. Ensure adequate documentation, including significant problems discovered
and solutions adopted, for any project on which they work.
43
3.12. Work to develop software and related documents that respect the privacy of
those who will be affected by that software.
3.13. Be careful to use only accurate data derived by ethical and lawful means, and
use it only in ways properly authorized.
3.14. Maintain the integrity of data, being sensitive to outdated or flawed
occurrences.
3.15 Treat all forms of software maintenance with the same professionalism as new
development.
Principle 4: JUDGMENT
Software engineers shall maintain integrity and independence in their professional
judgment. In particular, software engineers shall, as appropriate:
4.01. Temper all technical judgments by the need to support and maintain human
values.
4.02 Only endorse documents either prepared under their supervision or within
their areas of competence and with which they are in agreement.
4.03. Maintain professional objectivity with respect to any software or related
documents they are asked to evaluate.
4.04. Not engage in deceptive financial practices such as bribery, double billing, or
other improper financial practices.
4.05. Disclose to all concerned parties those conflicts of interest that cannot
reasonably be avoided or escaped.
4.06. Refuse to participate, as members or advisors, in a private, governmental or
professional body concerned with software related issues, in which they, their
employers or their clients have undisclosed potential conflicts of interest.
Principle 5: MANAGEMENT
Software engineering managers and leaders shall subscribe to and promote an
ethical approach to the management of software development and maintenance .
In particular, those managing or leading software engineers shall, as appropriate:
44
5.01 Ensure good management for any project on which they work, including
effective procedures for promotion of quality and reduction of risk.
5.02. Ensure that software engineers are informed of standards before being held to
them.
5.03. Ensure that software engineers know the employer's policies and procedures
for protecting passwords, files and information that is confidential to the employer
or confidential to others.
5.04. Assign work only after taking into account appropriate contributions of
education and experience tempered with a desire to further that education and
experience.
5.05. Ensure realistic quantitative estimates of cost, scheduling, personnel, quality
and outcomes on any project on which they work or propose to work, and provide
an uncertainty assessment of these estimates.
5.06. Attract potential software engineers only by full and accurate description of
the conditions of employment.
5.07. Offer fair and just remuneration.
5.08. Not unjustly prevent someone from taking a position for which that person is
suitably qualified.
5.09. Ensure that there is a fair agreement concerning ownership of any software,
processes, research, writing, or other intellectual property to which a software
engineer has contributed.
5.10. Provide for due process in hearing charges of violation of an employer's
policy or of this Code.
5.11. Not ask a software engineer to do anything inconsistent with this Code.
5.12. Not punish anyone for expressing ethical concerns about a project.
Principle 6: PROFESSION
Software engineers shall advance the integrity and reputation of the profession
consistent with the public interest. In particular, software engineers shall, as
appropriate:
6.01. Help develop an organizational environment favorable to acting ethically.
6.02. Promote public knowledge of software engineering.
45
6.03. Extend software engineering knowledge by appropriate participation in
professional organizations, meetings and publications.
6.04. Support, as members of a profession, other software engineers striving to
follow this Code.
6.05. Not promote their own interest at the expense of the profession, client or
employer.
6.06. Obey all laws governing their work, unless, in exceptional circumstances,
such compliance is inconsistent with the public interest.
6.07. Be accurate in stating the characteristics of software on which they work,
avoiding not only false claims but also claims that might reasonably be supposed to
be speculative, vacuous, deceptive, misleading, or doubtful.
6.08. Take responsibility for detecting, correcting, and reporting errors in software
and associated documents on which they work.
6.09. Ensure that clients, employers, and supervisors know of the software
engineer's commitment to this Code of ethics, and the subsequent ramifications of
such commitment.
6.10. Avoid associations with businesses and organizations which are in conflict
with this code.
6.11. Recognize that violations of this Code are inconsistent with being a
professional software engineer.
6.12. Express concerns to the people involved when significant violations of this
Code are detected unless this is impossible, counter-productive, or dangerous.
6.13. Report significant violations of this Code to appropriate authorities when it is
clear that consultation with people involved in these significant violations is
impossible, counter-productive or dangerous.
Principle 7: COLLEAGUES
Software engineers shall be fair to and supportive of their colleagues. In particular,
software engineers shall, as appropriate:
7.01. Encourage colleagues to adhere to this Code.
7.02. Assist colleagues in professional development.
7.03. Credit fully the work of others and refrain from taking undue credit.
46
7.04. Review the work of others in an objective, candid, and properly-documented
way.
7.05. Give a fair hearing to the opinions, concerns, or complaints of a colleague.
7.06. Assist colleagues in being fully aware of current standard work practices
including policies and procedures for protecting passwords, files and other
confidential information, and security measures in general.
7.07. Not unfairly intervene in the career of any colleague; however, concern for
the employer, the client or public interest may compel software engineers, in good
faith, to question the competence of a colleague.
7.08. In situations outside of their own areas of competence, call upon the opinions
of other professionals who have competence in that area.
Principle 8: SELF
Software engineers shall participate in lifelong learning regarding the practice of
their profession and shall promote an ethical approach to the practice of the
profession. In particular, software engineers shall continually endeavor to:
8.01. Further their knowledge of developments in the analysis, specification,
design, development, maintenance and testing of software and related documents,
together with the management of the development process.
8.02. Improve their ability to create safe, reliable, and useful quality software at
reasonable cost and within a reasonable time.
8.03. Improve their ability to produce accurate, informative, and well-written
documentation.
8.04. Improve their understanding of the software and related documents on which
they work and of the environment in which they will be used.
8.05. Improve their knowledge of relevant standards and the law governing the
software and related documents on which they work.
8.06 Improve their knowledge of this Code, its interpretation, and its application to
their work.
8.07 Not give unfair treatment to anyone because of any irrelevant prejudices.
8.08. Not influence others to undertake any action that involves a breach of this
Code.
8.09. Recognize that personal violations of this Code are inconsistent with being a
professional software engineer.
47
This Code was developed by the ACM/IEEE-CS joint task force on Software
Engineering Ethics and Professional Practices (SEEPP):
Executive Committee: Donald Gotterbarn (Chair), Keith Miller and Simon
Rogerson;
Members: Steve Barber, Peter Barnes, Ilene Burnstein, Michael Davis, Amr El-Kadi,
N. Ben Fairweather, Milton Fulghum, N. Jayaram, Tom Jewett, Mark Kanko, Ernie
Kallman, Duncan Langford, Joyce Currie Little, Ed Mechler, Manuel J. Norman,
Douglas Phillips, Peter Ron Prinzivalli, Patrick Sullivan, John Weckert, Vivian Weil,
S. Weisband and Laurie Honour Werth.
This Code may be published without permission as long as it is not changed in any
way and it carries the copyright notice. Copyright (c) 1999 by the Association for
Computing Machinery, Inc. and the Institute for Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc.
48
APPENDIX C.
BIBLIOGRAPHY/FURTHER READING
ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology). http://www.abet.org/
ACM/IEEE-Computer Society. Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional
Practice. Version 5.2. http://www.acm.org/about/se-code
Aristotle (2011). Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by R.C. Bartlett and S.D. Collins.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Berenbach, Brian and Broy, Manfred (2009). “Professional and Ethical Dilemmas in
Software Engineering.” Computer 42:1, p. 74-80.
Bynum, Terrell, "Computer and Information Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/ethics-computer/
Cahn, Steven M. (2010). Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology, 2nd Edition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Erdogmus, Hakan (2009). “The Seven Traits of Superprofessionals.” IEEE Software
26:4, p. 4-6.
Gotterbarn, Donald and Miller, Keith W. (2009). “The Public is the Priority: Making
Decisions Using the Software Engineering Code of Ethics.” Computer 42:6, p. 6673.
Hall, Duncan (2009). “The Ethical Software Engineer.” IEEE Software 26:4, p. 9-10.
Ivanhoe, Philip J. and Van Norden, Bryan W. (2001). Readings in Classical Chinese
Philosophy, 2nd Edition. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
National Academy of Engineering’s Center for Engineering, Ethics and Society
(CEES). http://www.nae.edu/26187.aspx
NSPE (National Society of Professional Engineers). Engineering Ethics.
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/index.html
Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Research. http://www.onlineethics.org/
Rashid, Awais; Weckert, John and Lucas, Richard (2009). “Software Engineering
Ethics in a Digital World.” Computer 42:6, p. 34-41.
Shafer-Landau, Russ (2007). Ethical Theory: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
49
Purchase answer to see full
attachment