Professional Ethics

In Chapter 1 we described "professional

ethics" as one of the three main
perspectives through which computer
ethics issues can be identified and
analyzed.
When applied to computing,
professional ethics is a field of applied
ethics concerned with moral issues that
impact computer professionals.
Why a Separate Category
of Professional Ethics?
The same ethical rules involving honesty,
fairness, and so forth should apply to
professionals as well as to ordinary
individuals.
So, if it is wrong for ordinary people to
steal, cheat, lie, and so forth, then it is
wrong for professionals to do so as well.
Thus, one might conclude that a separate
field of study called "professional ethics"
is not really needed.
Separate Category of
Professional Ethics
(continued)
Ethicists argue that some moral issues
affect- ing professionals are sufficiently
distinct and specialized to warrant a
separate field of study.
Some also argue that professionals can
have special moral obligations that
exceed those of ordinary individuals.
To grasp the arguments for this view, it is
useful first to understand what is meant
by the terms profession and professional.
What Exactly is a
Profession?
A profession can be understood in terms of
the attributes and requirements of a
professional practice, such as "calling in
which special knowledge and skill are used
in...the service of mankind." (Firmage, 1991)
Greenwood (1991) believes that professions
are occupational fields distinguishable in
terms of five characteristics: (i) systematic
theory, (ii) authority, (iii) community
sanction, (iv) ethical codes, and (v) a culture.
Who is a Professional?
Professionals who comprise a given
profession also tend to have certain defining
attributes and requirements.
Medical doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.
find themselves in situations in which their
decisions and actions can have significant
social effects, and have roles and
responsibili- ties that exceed those of
ordinary individuals.
Sometimes these roles and responsibilities
differentiate professionals from others.
Who is a Computer
Professional?
A computer professional might be
interpreted to mean anyone who is
employed in the computer, information-
technology, or information/communications
fields.
Or a computer professional might be thought
of in more narrow terms, in which case only
software engineers would be included.
There are various gradients in between the
two ends of this spectrum.
Definition of a Computer
Professional (Continued)
A computer professional could be defined in
such a way that, in addition to software
engineers, software quality analysts,
software technical writers, and software
managers and supervisors.
A software engineering team includes those
who contribute by direct participation to the
analysis, specification, design,
development, certification, maintenance,
and testing of software systems.
Do Computer Professionals
Have Special
Responsibilities?
Gotterbarn (1999) believes that because
software engineers and their teams are
have significant opportunities to:
(i) do good or cause harm
(ii) enable others to do good or cause harm
(iii) influence others to do good or cause
harm.
Critical-Safety Software
Gotterbarn suggests that the roles
and responsibilities involved in the
development of safety-critical
systems is a differentiating factor.
A "safety-critical system" is often
used to refer to computer systems
that can have a direct life-
threatening impact.
Safety-Critical Software
(Continued)
Examples of safety-critical software
systems and applications typically
include:
aircraft and air traffic control systems
mass transportation systems
nuclear reactors missile systems
medical treatment systems.
Additional Safety-Critical
Systems
Bowyer (2002) extends the range
of safety-critical applications to
include software used in the:
design of bridges and buildings;
election of water disposal sites;
development of analytical models
for medical treatment.
Professional Codes of
Ethics
Many professions have established
professional societies, which in turn
have adopted codes of conduct.
The medical profession established the
AMA (American Medical Association),
The legal profession established the
ABA (American Bar Association).
Both associations have formal codes of
ethics/conduct for their members.
Professional Codes for
Computer Societies
The computing profession has also has
professional societies.
The two largest are:
The Association for Computing Machinery
(ACM);
The Institute for Electrical and Electronics
Engineers Computer Society (IEEE-CS).
Both organizations have adopted
professional codes of ethics.
Purpose of Professional
Codes
Professional codes of ethics are often
designed to motivate members of an
association to behave in certain ways.
Four primary functions of codes are
to:
inspire
guide
educate
discipline the members.
Criticisms of Ethical Codes
Ladd (1995) argues that ethical codes rest on
a series of confusions that are both
"intellectual and moral."
His argument has three main points.
First, ethics is basically an "open-ended,
reflective, and critical intellectual activity."
Second, codes introduce confusions with
respect to micro-ethics vs. macro-ethics.
Third, giving codes a disciplinary function
makes them more like legal than ethical rules.
In Defense of
Professional Codes
Gotterbarn argues that we need to
distinguish between:
codes of ethics;
codes of conduct;
codes of practice.
In Defense of
Professional Codes
(Continued)
Codes of ethics as "aspirational,"
because they often serve as mission
statements for the profession and thus
can provide vision and objectives.
Codes of conduct are oriented more
toward the professional and the
professional's attitude and behavior.
Codes of practice relate to operational
activities within a profession.
 Table 4-1: Some
Strengths
Strengths
and
Weaknesses
Weaknesses of
Codes inspire the members of a profession
to behave ethically.
Directives included in many codes tend to
be too general and too vague.

Professional Codes
Codes guide the members of a profession
in ethical choices.
Codes educate the members of a
profession about their professional
obligations.
Codes discipline members when they
violate one or more of the codes
directives.
Codes sensitize members of a profession
to ethical issues and alert them to ethical
aspects they otherwise might overlook.
Codes inform the public about the nature
and roles of the profession.
Codes enhance the profession in the eyes
of the public.
Codes are not always helpful when two or
more directives conflict.
A professional codes directives are never
complete or exhaustive.
Codes are ineffective (have no teeth) in
disciplinary matters.
Codes do not help us distinguish between
micro-ethics issues and macro-ethics
issues.
Directives in codes are sometimes
inconsistent with one another.
Codes can be self-serving for the
profession.
Conflicts of Professional
Responsibility: Employee Loyalty and
Whistle-blowing
What exactly is employee loyalty?

Do employees and employers have a

special obligation of loyalty to each

other?
Should loyalty to ones employer ever

preclude an employees "blowing the

whistle" in critical situations?
In which cases can whistle-blowing be

justified?
Do Employees Have a
Special Obligation to
Employers?
Some believe we have a prima

facie obligation of loyalty in

employment contexts.
In other words, all things being
equal, an employee should be loyal
to his or her employer and visa
versa.
Does employee loyalty still make sense in
the context of a large computer
corporation?
Duska (1991) argues that in
employment contexts, loyalty only
arises in special relationships based
on a notion that he calls "mutual
enrichment."
So in relationships in which parties are
pursuing their self-interests, the notion
of loyalty would not be applicable.
Duskas Argument
(continued)
Duska believes that employer-employee
relationships at least where corporations
are concerned are based on self-interest
and not on mutual enrichment.
He concludes that employees should not
necessarily feel any sense of obligation of
loyalty to corporate employers.
Corporations like employees to believe
that they have an obligation of loyalty to
their employers because believing that
serves the corporations interests.
Ladds Criticism of
Employee Loyalty
Ladd also believes that in the context of corp-
orations, loyalty can only be in one direction.
He argues that a corporation cannot be loyal to
an employee in the same sense that
employees are supposed to be loyal to it.
A corporation's goals are competitively linked
to the benefits employees bring to the corp.
A corporation can be good to employees only
because it is good for business, i.e., it is in the
company's own self interest.
Ladds and Duskas
Criticisms (Continued)
Both Duska and Ladd cite corporate self-
interest as an obstacle for a balanced
employer-employee relationship that is
required for mutual loyalty.
Consider that corporations often go
through downsizing phases in which
loyal employees who have served a
company faithfully for several years are
dismissed as part of restructuring plans.
Sometimes Employers
Have Been Loyal
Consider a case in which an employer
continues to keep an employee on the payroll
even though that employee has a chronic
illness, which causes her to miss several
months of work.
Also consider a case in which several
employees are kept on by a company despite
the fact that their medical conditions have
caused the corporation's health insurance
costs to increase significantly, thereby
reducing the company's overall earnings.
Employer Loyalty
(continued)
Consider a recent case involving the owner
of Malden Mills, whose physical plant in
Massachusetts was destroyed by fire.
The mill's proprietor, Aaron Feurestein,
could have chosen to rebuild his facility in
a different state or country where
employees would work for lower wages.
Instead, Feurestein continued to pay and
provide benefits for his employees while a
new facility was being built in Mass.
Do Computer Professionals Have
Special obligations of Loyalty to
Their Employers?
They have to balance their obligation of
loyalty owed to an employer against other
obligations of loyalty they also may have?
Loyalty is not something that an
employee must give exclusively or blindly
to ones employer.
Loyalty should also be seen as an
obligation that individuals have to society
as a whole, especially where safety and
health issues are at stake.
Divided Loyalties
Divided loyalties can result in
serious conflicts for employees.
In certain cases, the moral
dilemmas they generate are so
profound that an employee must
determine whether to "blow the
whistle."
Whistle-blowing
Bowie (1982) defines whistle-blowing as
"the act of an employee informing the
public on the immoral or illegal behavior
of an employee or supervisor."
Bok (1997) defines whistle blowing as
an act in which one "makes revelations
meant to call attention to negligence,
abuses, or dangers that threaten the
public interest."
Whistle-blowing
(continued)
Whistle-blowing situations can
arise in cases of overt wrongdoing
(i.e., involving specific acts that
are either illegal or immoral).
They can also arise in instances of
negligence where one or more
individuals have failed to act.
When Should an Employee
Blow the Whistle?
Colleen Rowley, an FBI employee, came forth
to describe the way in which critical
messages had failed to be sent up the
Federal Bureau's chain of command in the
days immediately preceding the tragic
events of September 11, 2001.
Was it appropriate for this individual to blow
the whistle on her supervisor?
Was she also possibly being disloyal to her
supervisor and fellow employees in doing so?
When Should an Employee
Blow the Whistle
(continued)
Should individuals in positions of authority
in corporations such as Enron and
WorldCom have blown the corporate whistle
about the illegal accounting practices in
those firms?
One could argue that failing to blow the
whistle in the Enron case resulted in
thousands of individuals losing their
retirement savings, and in some cases their
entire life savings.
Cases Where Whistle-
blowing Could Have Saved
Lives
Three cases:

Challenger Space Shuttle (O-rings);

Ford Pinto (faulty gas tank);
BART case (controversial).
Controversial Political
Issues in Whistle-blowing
SDI (Star Wars) Case
Parnas blew the whistle on Star Wars
because of three factors:
1. The specifications for the software could not
be known with any confidence.
2. The software could not undergo realistic
testing.
3. There would not be sufficient time during an
attack to repair and reinstall failing software (no
"real-time" debugging).
Criteria for Blowing the
Whis- tle in an Engineering
Context
De George (1981) offers some

specific conditions for when an

engineer is:
(a) permitted to blow the whistle;
(b) obligated to do so.
When an Engineer is
Permitted to Blow the
Whistle
1) The harm that will be done by the product
to the public is serious and considerable.
2) The engineers (or employees) have made
their concerns known to their superiors.
3) The engineers (or employees) have received
no satisfaction from their immediate
supervisors and they have exhausted the
channels available within the corporation,
including going to the board of directors.
When an Engineer is
Required to Blow the
Whistle
De George claims that two additional
criteria are needed for requiring an
engineer to blow the whistle.
4) The engineer has documented evidence
that would convince a reasonable, impartial
observer that his/her view of the situation is
correct and the company policy wrong.
5) There is strong evidence that making the
information public will in fact prevent the
threatened serious harm.
Evaluating De Georges
Criteria
James (1991) believes that De George's
conditions are too lenient.
An individual has a moral obligation to
blow the whistle when the first three
conditions are met, as well.
We have a prima facie obligation to
"disclose organizational wrongdoing"
that we are unable to prevent, which
could also occur when De George's first
three conditions are satisfied.
James Critique of De
Georges Criteria
(continued)
For James, the degree of the obligation
depends on the extent to which we are
capable of foreseeing the severity and the
consequences of the wrongdoing.
He worries that De George's model leaves us
with no guidance when we are confronted
with cases involving sexual harassment,
violations of privacy, industrial espionage,
and so forth.
Also there is a problem with the word
harm.
Alperns Criticism of De
Georges Criteria
Alpern (1991) argues that De George's
model lets engineers off too easily from
their whistle-blowing responsibilities.
Alpern believes that engineers must be
willing to make greater sacrifices than
others because they are in a greater
position to do certain kinds of social harm.
He believes that these obligations come
from a fundamental principle of "ordinary
morality" viz., we must do no harm.
Ladds Defense of De
Georges Criteria
Ladd (1991) believes that requiring
engineers to blow the whistle in non-
extraordinary cases (such as in De
George's conditions 1-3) can be
undesirable from an ethical point of
view because it demands that these
individuals be "moral heroes."
Engineers should not have to be heroes
or "saints."
An Alternative Strategy
De George and Ladd seem correct in
claiming that engineers should not be
required to be moral heroes or saints.
James and Alpern also seem to be
correct in noting that engineers,
because of the positions of
responsibility they hold, should be
expected to make greater sacrifices.
A Compromise View
McFarland (1991) argues that, collectively,
engineers might be held to a higher standard
of social responsibility than ordinary
individuals.
However, the onus of responsibility should
not fall directly on engineers as individual
engineers.
Rather, it should be shouldered by engineers
as members of the engineering profession.
McFarlands View
(Continued)
McFarland's model is based on the
assumption that, as moral agents,
we have a prima facie obligation to
come to the aid of others.
In describing the nature of this
obligation, he uses a non-
engineering analogy involving the
infamous Kitty Genovese case.
McFarlands Argument
(continued)
The analogy for engineers, McFarland
draws from the Genovese case is that
when no other sources of help are
available, engineers should take
responsibility by banning together.
If engineers act as individuals, they
might not always have the ability to help.
If they act collectively, however, they
might be able to accomplish goals that
would otherwise not be possible.
McFarlands Argument
(continued)
McFarland believes that an engineer's
work must be seen in a wider social
context, i.e., in its relation to society.
Without that context, an adequate
account of moral responsibility for
engineers cant be given.
Unless engineers work collaboratively
on ethical matters, they will not be able
to meet all of their responsibilities.
McFarlands Argument
(continued)
McFarland's model encourages
engineers to shift their thinking
about responsibility issues from:
the level of individual responsibility
(at the micro-ethical level), to
responsibility at the broader level
of the profession itself (i.e., the
macro-ethical level).
Responsibility, Liability,
and Accountability
Responsibility requires that two
conditions must be satisfied:
causality
intent.
Some agent, X, is held morally
responsible for an act, Y, if X
caused Y.
Responsibility (Continued)
A person could be held responsible even
if he or she did not intend the outcome.
Robert Morris, who launched the
"Internet worm" in 1988, claimed that
he did not intend for the Internet to be
brought to a standstill.
Morris was held responsible for the
outcome caused by his act of
unleashing the computer worm.
Responsibility (continued)
Agents can also be held responsible when
they intend for something to happen, even if
they ultimately fail to cause (or bring about)
the intended outcome.
Suppose a disgruntled student intends to
blow up a computer lab, but is discovered at
the last minute and prevented from doing so.
Even though the student failed to carry out
his objective, we hold the student morally
culpable because of his intentions.
Liability vs. Responsibility
Liability is a legal concept.
It is sometimes used in the narrow sense
of "strict liability."
To be strictly liable for harm is to be liable
to compensate for it even though one did
not necessarily bring it about through
faulty action (e.g., when a someone is
injured on a persons property).
The moral notion of "blame" may be left
out.
Accountability (vs. Liability
and Responsibility)
Responsibility is only part of what is covered
by the notion of accountability. (Nissenbaum)
Accountability means that someone, or some
group of individuals, or perhaps even an
entire organization is answerable.
...there will be someone, or several people to
answer not only for malfunctions in life-critical
systems that cause or risk grave injuries and cause
infrastructure and large monetary losses, but even
for the malfunctions that cause individual losses of
time, convenience, and contentment.
 Table 4-2: Responsibility,
Liability, and
Accountability
Moral
Responsibility
Legal Liability Accountability

Attributes of blame Does not attribute Does not necessarily

(or praise) to blame or fault to attribute blame (in a
individuals. those held liable. moral sense).
___________________ ___________________
________________________U Typically applies in Can apply to
sually attributed to the case of individuals, groups of
individuals rather corporations and individuals, and
than "collectivities" property owners. corporations.
or groups. _____________________________

___________________ ___________________ Someone or some

Notions of guilt and Compensation can group is answerable
shame apply, but no be required even (I.e., it goes beyond
legal punishment or when responsibility mere liability).
compensation need in a formal sense is
not admitted.
The Problem of Many
Hands in a computing
Context
Computer systems are the products of
engineering teams or of corporations, as
opposed to the products of a single
programmer working in isolation.
So "many hands" are involved in their
development.
It is difficult to determine who exactly is
accountable whenever one of these
safety-critical systems results in personal
injury or harm to individuals.
The Problem of Many
Hands (continued)
Two problems for assigning
accountability (e.g., Therac 25 Case):
(a) we tend to think of responsibility as
something that applies to individuals
but not to groups (or collectivities);
(b) we tend to think of responsibility in
exclusionary terms: If X is responsible,
then Y is not, and vice versa.
Assessing Risk
Gotterbarn (2001) argues that
"ethical risks" associated with the
entire "software development life
cycle" must also be taken into
consideration.
The life cycle of software includes
the maintenance phase, as well as
the design and development stages.
Risk Assessment
(continued)
Gotterbarn worries that the concept of risk
has typically been understood in terms of
three conditions, where software is either:
(i) behind schedule;
(ii) over budget;
(iii) fails to meet a system's specified
requirements.
Software can satisfy all three conditions and
still fail to meet an acceptable standard of
risk assessment (e.g. Aegis Radar System).
Risk Assessment
(continued)
Gotterbarn believes that failures like
the Aegis System are due to:

(1) an overly narrow conception of

risk;

(2) a limited notion of "system

stakeholders."
Risk Assessment
(continued)
Gotterbarn argues that a model of
risk assessment based solely on
cost effectiveness, i.e., in terms of
criteria such as budget and
schedule, is not adequate.
Instead, the notion of risk analysis
must be enlarged to include social,
political, and ethical issues.
Risk Assessment
(continued)
Gotterbarn also notes that the stakeholders
who are typically given consideration in risk
assessment models for software
development are limited to: (a) the software
developers and (b) the customers.
This limited notion of "system stakeholders"
leads to developing systems that have
unanticipated negative effects (Aegis case).
We need a more robust model of risk
assessment for software development.