1 page QAs

Strategies for Answering Discussion and Essay Questions

Chapter 4

IV: Strategies for selected Discussion and Essay Questions in Chapter 4 (See pages 128-

129 in the textbook)

A. Strategies for Selected Discussion Questions in Chapter 4

1. You can begin by reviewing Table 4-1 on p. 110. Once you have assessed the individual

strengths and weaknesses of professional codes, determine whether the overall benefits of

having professional codes outweighs the disadvantages of not having them. Apply your

conclusion to a current case, such as the one involving computer professionals who are

working on aspects of the National Missile Defense System. Or consider a hypothetical

scenario where computer professionals are working on the development of a kind of

“spyware” to be used by government officials for the purpose of monitoring the on-line

activities of its citizens.

B. Strategies for Selected Essay Questions in Chapter 4

1. In examining the five computer-related professional codes (included in Appendixes A-E on

the book’s Web site), you will see that the IEEE-CS/ACM Code of Software Engineering and

Professional Practice (SECEPP) is the most comprehensive. Review the full text of SECEPP,

which you will find in Appendix E. This professional code is fairly comprehensive.

Determine whether it is also internally coherent and consistent.

Should a professional code of ethics be expected to be exhaustive in the sense that it can

provide its members with a precise or unambiguous answer for every possible ethical issue

that may present itself within the context of one’s professional duties and obligations? What

are some of the reasonable expectations of a professional code?

2. Here, you face a genuine ethical dilemma. You have an obligation as a spouse and parent-

to-be to provide financially for your family. On the contrary, you have personal convictions

and principles that have to be balanced against considerations of career advancement. You

would no doubt want to express the concerns you are having with your spouse, who could

help you in your deliberation in this particular dilemma. One additional variable, which is

external to the case per se but which is also very relevant to your deliberation, has to do with

the state of the economy at the time you encounter this particular dilemma. For example, if

alternative employment with a similar salary is available to you, then your options are very

different than they would be in a bad economy. This factor can clearly affect your autonomy

with respect determining whether to leave or remain in your current position.

3. You may already have seen the similarity between the hypothetical scenario posed in

Discussion Question 4 and the BART case that we examined. Review that case and then

decide whether you would follow the same course that the three employees at BART took.

Which factors, if any, might influence you to make a decision that would be different from the

one made by the engineers at BART? Were they justified in blowing the whistle? Would you

be justified in this case?

4. In the case involving BART, and in the hypothetical scenario (similar to the BART case)

that we considered in the preceding question, you had to decide whether, on moral grounds,

you are justified in blowing the whistle. In this case there were no legal constraints preventing

you from for doing so. (Of course, you could have been fired for blowing the whistle, as the

BART engineers were; but it would not have been illegal to blow the whistle in those cases.)

Currently, however, there are certain anti-whistle-blowing provisions in the Homeland

Security Act that make it illegal to blow the whistle. Thus, depending on the nature of your

work and on the status of your employer, you may now find yourself in a situation where you

have to consider whether it would be illegal to blow the whistle even when it may seem

morally permissible – perhaps even morally required of you – to do so. Would you still be

willing to break the law (and possibly face a jail sentence in doing so), if you thought that

blowing the whistle in a certain case might save lives?