Chris Barts Final 2013 (Computer Ethics and Society Final Exam)

8/13/2019 Chris Barts Final 2013 (Computer Ethics and Society Final Exam)

1/10

Chris Barts

Fall 2013

CSCI-315E Final Exam

Section One, Question Two:

The ACM Code of Ethics1and the AITP Standards of Conduct

2are two ethical codes which are

designed to give guidance to computer programmers. Though broadly similar in most respects, there

are nonetheless meaningful differences between them. For example, the AITP Standards are more

deontological, explicitly calling upon programmers to uphold the law, whereas the ACM Code is more

utilitarian, advising programmers to act consistently with the public interest. On the other hand, the

AITP Standards emphasize only reporting the bad acts of others when you have a reasonable basis for

believing them, and doing so without regard to what the consequences to yourself would be. All in all,

the ACM Code is better for recognizing that, sometimes, a higher standard can be served by violating

the law, and that we as programmers are bound by those higher standards.

Going point-by-point, we have the following comparison of the two codes:

1. The first point in the AITP Standards says admonishes the reader to be honest in all myprofessional relationships. This is essentially similar to Principle 6 of the ACM Code, which is

summarized as Software engineers shall advance the integrity and reputation of the profession

consistent with the public interest.

2. The second point in the AITP Standards reads Take appropriate action in regard to any illegal

1 http://www.computer.org/portal/web/certification/resources/code_of_ethics

2 http://www.aitp.org/?page=ConductStandards


2/10

or unethical practices that come to my attention. However, I will bring charges against any

person only when I have reasonable basis for believing in the truth of the allegations and

without any regard to personal interest. This is similar toPrinciple 5 of the ACM Code, which

is summarized as Software engineering managers and leaders shall subscribe to and promote

an ethical approach to the management of software development and maintenance., and

Principle 6, which is summarized as Software engineers shall advance the integrity and

reputation of the profession consistent with the public interest. The big difference is that the

ACM Code includes subsection 6.06: Obey all laws governing their work, unless, in

exceptional circumstances, such compliance is inconsistent with the public interest. This

concern for the public interest potentially overshadowing obedience to the law is a distinctly

utilitarian ethos, advocating as it does for judging the ethics of an act based on its social utility,

which is the definition of utilitarianism according to our textbook.3

3. The third point in the AITP Standard says Endeavor to share my special knowledge. This isrelated to subsection 6.02 of the ACM Code, Promote public knowledge of software

engineering., and subsection 1.08, Be encouraged to volunteer professional skills to good

causes and contribute to public education concerning the discipline.

4. The fourth point in the AITP Standard says Cooperate with others in achieving understandingand in identifying problems. In the ACM Code, this is best covered by subsection 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., subsection 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

3 Tavani, Herman. (2013)Ethics and Technology: Controversies, Questions, and Strategies for Ethical Computing.

Fourth Edition. Wiley. p. 53


3/10

expensive, to violate intellectual property law, or otherwise to be problematic., and subsection

3.07, Strive to fully understand the specifications for software on which they work.

5. The fifth point in the AITP Standard says Not use or take credit for the work of others withoutspecific acknowledgement and authorization. The ACM Code covers this with subsection 7.03,

Credit fully the work of others and refrain from taking undue credit.

6. The sixth point in the AITP Standard says Not take advantage of the lack of knowledge orinexperience on the part of others for personal gain. The ACM Code covers this with

subsection 6.05, Not promote their own interest at the expense of the profession, client or

employer., and subsection 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., in that a client would

have to be somewhat ignorant or inexperienced to be taken in by vacuous claims.

On a point-by-point basis, this portion of the AITP Standard falls short of the ACM Code in not

advising programmers to continue their education (section eight of the ACM Code). This is a

significant concern in the world of software development, where something which is best practice can

quickly become dangerously outmoded to the point it would be unethical to use it in any new projects.

It also offers no guidance for how to manage a software project (section five of the ACM Code), which

is a substantial omission especially in the case of an entrepreneur who hires other programmers.

On a point-by-point basis, the AITP Standard outperforms the ACM Code in explicitly telling

programmers to be reasonably sure that their accusations are well-founded. (Point 2 of the AITP

Standard.) The ACM Code does state, in section 5.10, Provide for due process in hearing charges of

violation of an employer's policy or of this Code., but this really only applies to managers, and doesn't


4/10

solve the harms caused by false accusations. In addition, subsection 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., may be taken to cover

this as well, but it is far from the explicit statement the AITP Standard makes. This is a substantial

omission in the ACM Code, given how much a career can be harmed by a false accusation at the wrong

time.

Overall, the ACM Code is better because of its strong advocacy for the public interest, which is

equivalent to the social utility which utilitarian ethical philosophy aims to maximize. Specifically,

subsection 6.06, quoted above, advocates breaking the law if a higher social good is served by doing so.

This is a vital point to make in an ethical code; it recognizes that laws, as products of humans, are

fallible and occasionally made by people who don't have Ph.D.s in Computer Science in addition to

their J.D.s and so are not in possession of all the facts as regards computer technology and software.

Therefore, recognizing the need to break the law to prevent an even worse outcome is an essential part

of any realistic, humane code of ethics, for programmers or anyone else.

Section Two, Question One:

Part a:This is unethical from a just-consequentialist perspective. According to the just-consequentialist

framework, as laid out in our textbook, we must look at potential plans of action without regard to who

is playing which role and then decide among them by looking at duties, general ethical precepts, and

the avoidance of unnecessary harms.4Emily has a duty to her employer to help him build his

businesses, and unnecessarily harms him by depriving him of the profits he could have obtained had he

4 Ibid., pp. 69-70


5/10


6/10

important duty in a given situation.7In this case, theprima facieduties are obedience to one's employer

and being honest to society as a whole. In this case, being honest to society as a whole is infinitely

more important than being obedient to your employer, so releasing the information is the ethical choice.

Section Two, Question Two:

Eric's actions are ethical according to the IEEE Code of Ethics and both just-consequentialist

and rule utilitarian ethical frameworks. His website serves a valid and vitally important role in any just

and free society, and even if it is against the law those ethical sources countenance breaking the law if

it serves a higher purpose, as it does in this case.

Point One of the IEEE Code of Ethics states accept responsibility in making decisions

consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might

endanger the public or the environment.8Point Nine states avoid injuring others, their property,

reputation, or employment by false or malicious action. Both of those points justify Eric's actions: In

reference to Point One, accepting responsibility means making the decision to disclose these secrets,

which have a direct impact on the public in terms of economic factors (the Walmart and GM leaks

especially), social factors (the Conoco Philips leak), and possibly even health factors (the Coca-Cola

leak, depending on what's in the syrup). In reference to Point Nine, the malicious action would be to

keep quiet and avoid the trouble the website would bring; Eric cannot do that and obey the IEEE Code

of Ethics at the same time.

Just-consequentialist ethics demand that we formulate multiple possible plans of action,

deliberate on which one will have the best outcome with the fewest unnecessary harms without

7 Ibid., p. 60

8 http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html


7/10

considering who in specific is being benefited and harmed, and choose that one as our next action.9

Eric could have kept his secrets and not made the website. That would have had the positive effect of

making the businesses more profitable, helping everyone who is employed in an upper management

position in those businesses but harming everyone else impacted by those businesses' bad acts. Creating

the website harms the earnings of the aforementioned upper management, but stops or prevents the

much greater harms visited on the rest of the people. Therefore, making the website is the only course

of action permissible under just-consequentialist ethics.

Rule utilitarianism demands that we generalize any specific action into a general rule, and then

consider whether the greatest good for the greatest number would be obtained if we followed that

rule.10

In this case, the act is making a website which discloses damaging secrets about illegal and

unethical actions undertaken by the upper management of large corporations. The rule derived from

that is People should disclose secrets if those secrets would unjustly harm many others. Following

that rule would lead to the greatest good for the greatest number: The people who were trying to keep

the secrets might be harmed, but the greater number who would be harmed by the secrets would be

saved, which is the goal of a utilitarian philosophy. Therefore, rule utilitarianism demands the creation

of the website.

Eric is clearly ethically justified in creating the website. The IEEE Code of Ethics both

encourages it and says nothing against it; the fact it doesn't even mention the law is, in light of the

ACM Code's counsel to break the law if it serves a higher purpose, not an oversight but an example of

the utilitarian ethical philosophy. In a broader sense, two distinct ethical philosophies both argue for the

creation of the website, further justifying the action.

9 Tavani, Herman. (2013)Ethics and Technology: Controversies, Questions, and Strategies for Ethical Computing.

Fourth Edition. Wiley. pp. 69-70

10 Ibid., p. 56


8/10

Section Three, Question One:

Part a:It is ethical for Bill to accept the advertising because he has a duty to run the most profitable

site he can, in order to better the lives of the people he's currently employing and the people he may

prospectively employ to help run his site. This is justified through act deontology, where we must

weigh variousprima facieduties and choose the action which will allow us to satisfy the most

important ones.11

Bill does have a duty to society to not run a scummy website which panders to the

basest urges of slime wrapped in skin, but he has a much more important duty to the people who he's

employing, who trust him to look out for them, their futures, and the futures of their families. Therefore,

act deontology justifies Bill's actions.

Bill's actions can also be justified through rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism commands us

to generalize each action into a rule which would be applied in other instances, and only do actions

which would lead to rules that would maximize the amount of goodness and minimize the badness in

the world.12

In this case, the act is Accepting sleazy advertisements to run a website and hire more

people. The rule is Everyone should be willing to accept sleazy ads to run a website if it would allow

them to hire more people. Following that rule would lead to more people being hired, the people who

have been hired being paid more, and the people who work for sleazy ad companies being paid more as

well. There is some damage being done as a result, but it is diffuse whereas the good being done is

immediate and will lead to even more good, as both website companies and ad companies can hire

more and more people due to the mutually beneficial relationship they share. Therefore, rule

utilitarianism justifies Bill's actions as well.

11 Ibid., p. 60

12 Ibid., p. 56


9/10

Part b: Kate has an obligation to stay at the company because of subsection 7.07 of the ACM

Code, which states Not unfairly intervene in the career of any colleague.13

Kate's leaving the

company would likely destroy the careers of the website company's employees, which is the ultimate

form of unfairly intervening in them. Therefore, despite her very understandable moral qualms, Kate

has an ethical obligation to stay at the company and to help it succeed.

Kate also has an ethical obligation from the perspective of act deontology, as described above in

Part a. In this case, the conflictingprima facieduties are, on the one hand, to not help run a website

which gives ambulatory pieces of excrement another place to befoul, and, on the other hand, to

continue to give a work environment and a paycheck to the people she agreed to work with when she

first signed on to help run the website. The second duty, to help run the site, is more important, as

duties to people you made an explicit or strongly implied agreement with are more pressing than duties

to people you've never even seen and who have no reason to expect you to look out for them. Therefore,

Kate has a duty to stay at her job in preference to potentially putting people into poverty.

Part c:Bill and Kate have a duty to remove the pictures by the ethical philosophy of act deontology

(q.v.); in this case, the conflicting duties are to leave the pictures up, which would honor the implied

agreement with the site's users, and to not risk a damaging lawsuit or series thereof, which would

protect their employees from financial ruin assuming the lawsuits are damaging enough to seriously

hurt profitability. As above, your duty to people you have made explicit agreements with is much more

binding than your duty to people you don't even know, so the images have to go.

The ACM Code also provides guidance here. Subsection 6.06 says Obey all laws governing

13 http://www.computer.org/portal/web/certification/resources/code_of_ethics


10/10

their work, unless, in exceptional circumstances, such compliance is inconsistent with the public

interest. In this case, there is no exceptional circumstance which would justify even potentially

breaking a law, so the images have to be removed on that ground as well.

Part d: Kate has an ethical duty to leave because now the site is beyond being slimy and is

simply built on lies. Previously, the two-legged insects were at least being pandered to honestly; now,

the site is a roach motel of deceit. In addition, the company is now large enough and the site, profitable

enough to not need her anymore. At this point, act deontology dictates that she leave: Her choices are

to either stay and run the site, which wouldn't be harmed by her leaving so she no longer has a duty to

her co-worker or employees, or to leave, which would serve the duty of not lying to make your living.

With no very strong duty compelling her to stay, her duty to leave is now controlling, so she must go.

The ACM Code also provides guidance in the towards-the-exit direction in this case. Subsection

6.01 says Help develop an organizational environment favorable to acting ethically. which is only

possible if she stops helping run a company built on lies. The company is now too profitable with its

current business plan to be changed, so the best example she can possibly set is to stop helping it and

go do something which won't form a test case in an ethics course.

Chris Barts Final 2013 (Computer Ethics and Society Final Exam)

Documents

Transcript of Chris Barts Final 2013 (Computer Ethics and Society Final Exam)