read the attachment and answer the question

4

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

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

4

the common good by providing a moral example for others to admire and follow. 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)

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? 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?

7 Confucius, Analects. In Ivanhoe and Van Norden (2001).

3

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? 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?

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: 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?

8 John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1861). In Shafer---Landau (2007).

4

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.

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.

5

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?

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’?

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?

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?

9 Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785). In Shafer--- Landau (2007)