Professional Ethics What is Professional Ethics? When applied to computing and

cybertechnology, 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.

So, we might conclude that a separate field of study called "professional ethics" is not really needed.

Separate Category of Professional Ethics (continued) Some argue that some moral issues

affecting professionals are sufficiently distinct and specialized to warrant a separate field of study.

Others 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 is a Profession? Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins (2004) note that

the term “profession” has evolved from a concept that was once associated with people professing a religious or monastic life to one that now has a more secular meaning.

“Profession” was used to describe a person who made a public promise to enter a “distinct way of life” with allegiance to “high moral ideals.”

Later, the term came to refer to anyone who “professed to be duly qualified.”

“Profession” has now come to mean an “occupation in which one professes to be skilled in and to follow.”

What is a Profession (continued)? According to Allan Firmage (1991), 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."

Ernest 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, (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; their roles and responsibilities can 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, network administrators, 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? Don Gotterbarn (2001) 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 Kevin 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 also has

professional societies, which include: The Association for Computing (ACM); The Australian Computer Society (ACS); The British Computer Society; The Institute for Electrical and Electronics

Engineers (IEEE); IEEE Computer Society (IEEE-CS).

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 John Ladd (1995) argues that ethical

codes rest on a series of confusions that are both "intellectual and moral."

His argument has three main points: (1) ethics is basically an "open-ended,

reflective, and critical intellectual activity“; (2) codes introduce confusions with respect to

micro-ethics vs. macro-ethics; (3) 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 among three aspects of professional codes, as:

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 and Weaknesses of Professional Codes

Codes inspire the members of a profession to behave ethically.

Directives included in many codes tend to be too general and too vague.

Codes guide the members of a profession in ethical choices.

Codes are not always helpful when two or more directives conflict.

Codes educate the members of a profession about their professional obligations.

A professional code’s directives are never complete or exhaustive.

Codes discipline members when they violate one or more of the code’s directives.

Codes are ineffective (have no “teeth”) in disciplinary matters.

Codes “sensitize” members of a profession to ethical issues and alert them to ethical aspects they otherwise might overlook.

Directives in codes are sometimes inconsistent with one another.

Codes inform the public about the nature and roles of the profession.

Codes do not help us distinguish between micro-ethics issues and macro-ethics issues.

Codes enhance the profession in the eyes of the public.

Codes can be self-serving for the profession.

Strengths Weaknesses

Should Computer Professionals Be Licensed or Certified? Don Gotterbarn (2000) has argued in favor of

certification for software engineers? The ACM has not endorsed any proposals for

licensing software engineers. ACM points out, a software engineering license could

be interpreted as an authoritative statement that the licensed engineer is capable of producing software systems of “consistent reliability, dependability, and usability.”

According to the ACM: the current “state of knowledge and practice” in the

field of software engineering is “too immature” to give assurances of this type (White and Simons, 2002).

Licensing and Certification (Continued) John Knight and Nancy Leveson (2002)

sum up the ACM’s position on the licensing of software engineers: Licensing software engineers who work on safety-

critical systems would be neither practical nor effective in achieving the goal of public interest, and it could even have serious negative ramifications. The real issue, however, is not licensing per se but determining how best to protect the public without unduly affecting engineering progress, the economy, the engineering and computing professions, or individual rights.

Licensing and Certification (Continued) Knight and Leveson believe that

approaches other than licensing and certification might be more effective and that those approaches need to be evaluated.

The state of Texas requires software engineers to be certified, and other states are currently considering certification or licensing requirements for software engineers.

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 one’s employer ever preclude an employee from "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 vice versa.

Does Employee Loyalty Still Make Sense in the Context of a Large Computer Corporation?

Ronald 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.

Duska’s 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 corporation’s interests.

Ladd’s Criticism of Employee Loyalty Ladd also believes that for corporations,

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.

Ladd’s and Duska’s 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.

Employee Loyalty and the Outsourcing of Programming Jobs Many computer programming jobs in the U.S.

are now being “outsourced” by major corporations, such as IBM, to countries where programmers are willing to write the code for much lower wages.

Not only does this practice raise questions for employee loyalty, but it could also affect the future of the computer profession in the U.S. if young people are discouraged from entering the programming field because of having their high-skilled jobs eliminated via outsourcing (Baker and Kripilani, 2005).

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 one’s 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 What, exactly, is whistle-blowing? John Rowan and Samuel Zinaich

(2003) note that the expression “blowing the whistle” comes from the effort by individuals to “get the public’s attention.”

Whistle-blowing (Continued) Whistle-blowing occurs when one or

more employees go outside the organization (e.g., to the press) to shed some light on misconduct within the organization.

In the context of engineering, whistle-blowing incidents often occur in attempts to alert the public to a potentially unsafe product.

Whistle-blowing (Continued) Whistle-blowing incidents can occur

because of either: (a) overt wrongdoing (where an

employee informs the public about the immoral or illegal behavior of an employee or supervisor);

(b) negligence (e.g., where one or more individuals in an organization have failed to act).

Whistle-blowing Continued Michael Martin (2003) notes that the act

of blowing the whistle can be either: condemned as an action taken by “disloyal

troublemakers” who “rat” on their companies and undermine teamwork based on the hierarchy of authority within the corporation;

regarded as a “tragedy to be avoided” (though it may sometimes be a “necessary evil”);

affirmed “unequivocally” as an “obligation that is paramount” in certain circumstances where it “overrides all other considerations, whatever the sacrifice involved in meeting it.”

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 Consider three classic cases

(described in the text): Challenger Space Shuttle (because

of faulty O-rings); Ford Pinto (because of faulty gas

tank); BART case (because of a faulty

computer system affecting a mass transportation system).

Controversial Political Issues in Whistle-blowing SDI (“Star Wars”) Case David 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 Whistle in an Engineering Context

Richard De George (1999) offers some specific conditions for when an engineer is either:

(a) permitted to blow the whistle; (b) obligated to do so.

When an Engineer is Permitted to Blow the Whistle One is permitted to blow the

whistle when the: 1) harm that will be done by the product to the

public is serious and considerable. 2) engineers (or employees) have made their

concerns known to their superiors. 3) 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 Two additional conditions 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 George’s Criteria Gene 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 George’s 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.”

Alpern’s Criticism of De George’s Criteria Kenneth 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.

Ladd’s Defense of De George’s 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 Michael 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.

McFarland’s 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.

McFarland’s 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.

McFarland’s 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 can’t be given.

Unless engineers work collaboratively on ethical matters, they will not be able to meet all of their responsibilities.

McFarland’s 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 person’s property).

The moral notion of "blame" may be left out.

Accountability (vs. Liability and Responsibility) According to Helen Nissenbaum

(1995), responsibility is only part of what is covered by the notion of accountability.

Accountability means that someone, or some group of individuals, or perhaps even an entire organization is answerable.  

Accountability (Continued) Nissenbaum notes that

...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 (or praise) to individuals.

________________________Usually attributed to individuals rather than "collectivities" or groups.___________________Notions of guilt and shame apply, but no legal punishment or compensation need result.

Does not attribute blame or fault to those held liable. ___________________Typically applies in the case of corporations and property owners.

___________________Compensation can be required even when responsibility in a formal sense is not admitted.

Does not necessarily attribute blame (in a moral sense). ___________________Can apply to individuals, groups of individuals, and corporations._____________________________

Someone or some group is answerable (I.e., it goes beyond mere liability).

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 responsible 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 responsibility

(e.g., in the Therac 25 Case) is that: (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.

Accountability is a broader concept than responsibility; it is non-exclusionary, and it can apply to groups as well as individuals.

Assessing Risk Gotterbarn (2004) 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 the:

(a) software developers, (b) customers. This limited notion of "system stakeholders"

leads to developing systems that have unanticipated negative effects (as in the Aegis case).

We need a more robust model of risk assessment for software development.