05 Professional Ethics

05-Professional Ethics
http://dilbert.com/strip/2011-05-04
CptS/EE 302, Spring, 2017
1 1/24/2017
Quotes of the day:

Why are professional ethics important?
Most professionals have an informational advantage over those they serve.
This power asymmetry can be exploited to the advantage of the professional
and thus there needs to be a corresponding sense of professional responsibility
that obligates the professional to act in the client's best long term interest
Professional ethics will provide the useful function of identifyingmoral hazards
and providing the appropriate avoidance or work-around strategies..
Professionals are, at some point, young and inexperiencedProfessional ethics
represents a kind of collective, time-tested wisdom that is passed on to new
professionals: watch out for this or do thatWith changing laws, technologies
and mores, professional standards will work to keep the profession abreast of
new ethical challenges and emerging responsibilities and best practices.
Professional ethics act as acountervailing power to organizational influence
or the power of authority (say, from a supervisor or boss). Thus accountants
have a standard for reporting earnings and should not be swayed by a boss who
says, in effect, "make the numbers work so that we hit our earnings estimate.
-James Fischer, Quora (https://www.quora.com/Why-are-professional-ethics-important)
2 1/24/2017
Todays class focuses on

professional ethics (Ch. 4 of the
optional Tavani Text)
Key Questions Guiding Todays Class
Q1. How did you do on the homework?
Q2. Professionals and ethics: what and
why?
Q3. Professional codes of conduct: What,
why, and how applied?
Q4. When to blow the whistle?
3 1/24/2017
Homework #2
1. Use the seven-step strategy to evaluate the following
argument:
The U.S. should continue unmanned drone strikes. They
make the world safer by destroying terrorist networks. They
kill fewer civilians, as a percentage of total fatalities, than
any other military weapon. They make military personnel
safer. They are cheaper than engaging in ground or manned
aerial combat. They are completely legal. The U.S. cannot
risk falling behind the rest of the world in its development of
drone technologies.
Source: http://drones.procon.org
2. Try to construct a strong argument against the use of

unmanned drone strikes (in standard form). Evaluate it using
4 1/24/2017
the seven-step strategy.
The seven-step strategy for

evaluating arguments
Convert to standard form
Is argument valid?
Yes
Is argument sound?
No
Is argument inductive or
fallacious?
Are premises true in real world?
Make overall assessment of argument

5 1/24/2017
Step 1:
Convert to standard form
PREMISE 1: Drones make the world safer by
destroying terrorist networks
PREMISE 2: Drones kill fewer civilians, as a
percentage of total fatalities, than any other military
weapon
PREMISE 3: Drones make military personnel safer
PREMISE 4: Drones are cheaper than engaging in
ground or manned aerial combat
PREMISE 5: Drones are completely legal in the U.S.
PREMISE 6: The U.S. cannot risk falling behind the
rest of the world in its development of drone
technologies
6 1/24/2017
CONCLUSION: The U.S. should continue unmanned
Step 2:
Is the argument valid?
PREMISE 1: Drones make the world safer by destroying terrorist networks
PREMISE 2: Drones kill fewer civilians, as a percentage of total fatalities, than any other
military weapon
PREMISE 4: Drones are cheaper than engaging in ground or manned aerial combat
PREMISE 6: The U.S. cannot risk falling behind the rest of the world in its development of
drone technologies
CONCLUSION: The U.S. should continue unmanned drone strikes
No! If we assume all premises to be true, we can still construct a

counterexample in which the conclusion is not logically true.
Ex: the U.S. could continue to develop unmanned drone tech but not
perform strikes, so conclusion does not have to be true if P6 is true
Other counterexamples?
How could we make this a valid argument?
P7: U.S. must protect itself from terrorist networks
P8: Drone strikes are necessary for the U.S. to protect itself from terrorist networks
7 1/24/2017
Step 3:
Is argument inductive or fallacious?
PREMISE 2: Drones kill fewer civilians, as a percentage of total fatalities, than any other military weapon
PREMISE 6: The U.S. cannot risk falling behind the rest of the world in its development of drone
technologies
Inductive: Does conclusion likely follow if we assume premises are true?

No! Many embedded assumptions bring conclusion into question
P1 seems fine
P2, P3, P4: Is military combat the only way? Alternatives?
P5: Just because something is legal doesnt mean its ethical! (fallacious)
P6: U.S. doesnt have to do strikes in order not to fall behind! (fallacious)
Fallacious: Any faulty reasoning? Can conclusion be established on

grounds other than premises?
Yes! Additional considerations would at least include alternative strategies, and
specific and explicit goals for drone strikes.
8 1/24/2017
Step 4:
Are premises true in real world?
military weapon
drone technologies
Mostly!
The website drones.progcon.org provides numerous
citations for P1, P2, P3, P4
P5 is true in the U.S. only
P6 is more of a value (normative) statement, so
truth is difficult to establish
9 1/24/2017
Step 5:
Make overall assessment of argument
military weapon
drone technologies
Argument
Argument
Argument
Argument
is not valid or sound

is not inductive
has many true premises
has embedded fallacies
Conclusion doesnt follow from P5 & P6

Truth or falsity of conclusion needs to be established on grounds other
than the premises (e.g., direct comparison with alternative approaches
in specific situations)
10 1/24/2017
Towards a strong con

argument
PREMISE 1: Drone strikes kill few high value targets with
roles in terrorist organizations
PREMISE 2: Drones strikes kill many innocent people
PREMISE 3: Drones strikes violate international law, which
requires that targeted individuals pose an imminent threat that
only lethal force can prevent
PREMISE 4: By social contract theory, all countries must abide
by international law for the collective good of the world
PREMISE 5: Killing innocent people is wrong and should be
avoided.
PREMISE 6: By act utilitarianism, drone strikes yield negative
utility, and hence should not be performed
CONCLUSION: The U.S. should NOT continue unmanned drone
strikes
11 1/24/2017
Brief analysis of argument

PREMISE 1: Drone strikes kill few high value targets with roles in terrorist organizations
PREMISE 2: Drones strikes kill many innocent people
PREMISE 3: Drones strikes violate international law, which requires that targeted individuals
pose an imminent threat that only lethal force can prevent
PREMISE 4: By social contract theory, all countries must abide by international law for the
collective good of the world
PREMISE 5: Killing innocent people is wrong and should be avoided.
PREMISE 6: By act utilitarianism, drone strikes yield negative utility, and hence should not be
performed
CONCLUSION: The U.S. should NOT continue unmanned drone strikes
Valid? Yes
Sound? Yes, although P4 - P6 are normative
Overall assessment: Strong argument that rests
on three normative assertions that are rooted in
ethical theories.
12 1/24/2017

professional ethics
why?
13 1/24/2017
Professionals are different from

ordinary individuals
. . . professionals are experts in a field,
which provides them an advantage over
the lay person in that the professionals
work has the potential to impacteither
positively or negativelythe general
public at large
Elizabeth Buchanan (2004)
14 1/24/2017
Discuss with your neighbor

(3 minutes)
Get out a sheet of paper. Put your names
and WSU IDs at the top.
Make a list of some specific examples of
ways in which professionals in computing
and electrical engineering can adversely
affect an increasingly large and diverse
clientele by failing to act responsibly,
fairly, timely, and appropriately?
(Tavani, p. 104, quoting Buchanan 2004)
15 1/24/2017
Ways in which CS/EE professionals can

adversely affect society (brainstorm)
Start here
16 1/24/2017
Gotterbarn (2001) believes CS/EE

professionals are unique
We develop safety-critical
systems!
Air traffic and control systems
Mass transportation systems
Power systems
Weapon systems
Medical treatment systems
Systems used to design the
above
We have significant opportunities
to
do good or cause harm
enable others to do good or
cause harm
http://www.kellyhs.org/itgs/ethic
s/reliability/THERAC-25.htm
http://ccc-project.org/home/flugzeugfliegend/
17 1/24/2017

Tavani Text)
why?
18 1/24/2017
Professional codes of ethics for CS

and EE professionals
Computing and electrical engineering
professions have the ACM and IEEE, both of
which have adopted codes of ethics with
moral imperatives, e.g.,
Accept responsibility
Avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest
Contribute to society and human well being
Avoid harm to others
Be honest and trustworthy
Honor property copyrights and patents
Specific courses of actions (behaviors) are

prescribed based on these moral imperatives
Members of ACM and IEEE are not, however,
required to pledge allegiance to these
19 1/24/2017
Professional codes of ethics have five

primary functions (Bynum &
Rogerson 2004)
Inspirationidentify values
and ideals to inspire to
Educationinform members
about values and standards
Guidancespecify
standards of good practice
AccountabilityMust be
accountable to society by
adhering to codes
EnforcementMembers who
violate code will be
disciplined
http://codecondu.com/?p=4674
20 1/24/2017
Some argue that professional codes

suck
Davis (1995): Codes are too
vague
Fairweather (2004): Codes
are incomplete, often limited
only to privacy, accuracy,
property, and accessibility
Ladd (1995): Ethics cant be
codified, codes are more like
legal requirements than
ethical rules
http://quotesgram.com/doing
-whats-right-isnt-alwayseasy-quotes/
http://www.appleseeds.org/EthicsCodes_Josephson.htm
21 1/24/2017
Gotterbarn (2000) defends ethical

codes
We should be thinking
about them as serving
three distinct functions
Codes of ethics (aspirational,
visionary): values
Codes of conduct (attitudes
and behavior of professional):
responsibilities
Codes of practice (how to
conduct business and
operations as a professional
in the practice): obligations
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Media_Code
_of_Ethics
22 1/24/2017
Clicker poll: Where do you stand on

the necessity of professional codes?
A. They are quite necessaryThey are an
essential element of any profession
B. They are somewhat necessaryYes, a
profession should probably should have
them, but whether professionals actually
pay attention to them is questionable
C. They arent necessaryprofessionals
dont need codes of ethics.
D. Other
23 1/24/2017
The ACM/IEEE Software Engineering Code of

Ethics and Professional Practice (SECEPP) will
be used in this class
See http://www.acm.org/about/se-code
The code for software engineering
profession (but also useful for electrical
engineering, as there is no equivalent
code for EE)
Only code to have been adopted by two
international professional societies
24 1/24/2017
SECEPP has eight core principles, with

specific guidelines related to each
1.
PUBLIC - Software engineers shall act consistently with the public

interest.
2. CLIENT AND EMPLOYER - Software engineers shall act in a manner
that is in the best interests of their client and employer consistent
with the public interest.
3. PRODUCT - Software engineers shall ensure that their products and
related modifications meet the highest professional standards
possible.
4. JUDGMENT - Software engineers shall maintain integrity and
independence in their professional judgment.
5. MANAGEMENT - Software engineering managers and leaders shall
subscribe to and promote an ethical approach to the management
of software development and maintenance.
6. PROFESSION - Software engineers shall advance the integrity and
reputation of the profession consistent with the public interest.
7. COLLEAGUES - Software engineers shall be fair to and supportive of
their colleagues.
25 1/24/2017
8. SELF - Software engineers shall participate in lifelong learning
SECEPPs advice for

applying code
These Principles should influence software
engineers to consider broadly who is affected by
their work; to examine if they and their colleagues
are treating other human beings with due respect; to
consider how the public, if reasonably well informed,
would view their decisions; to analyze how the least
empowered will be affected by their decisions; and
to consider whether their acts would be judged
worthy of the ideal professional working as a
software engineer. In all these judgments concern
for the health, safety and welfare of the public is
primary; that is, the "Public Interest" is central to
this Code.
26 1/24/2017
Scenario: George and the Jet

(taken from Gotterbarn & Miller, 2004)
George Babbage is an experienced software developer working for Acme
Software Company. Mr. Babbage is now working on a project for the U.S.
Department of Defense, testing the software used in controlling an
experimental jet fighter. George is the quality control manager for the software.
Early simulation testing revealed that, under certain conditions, instabilities
would arise that could cause the plane to crash. The software was patched to
eliminate the specific problems uncovered by the tests. After these repairs, the
software passed all the simulation tests.
George is not convinced that the software is safe. He is worried that the
problems uncovered by the simulation testing were symptomatic of a design
flaw that could only be eliminated by an extensive redesign of the software. He
is convinced that the patch that was applied to remedy the specific tests in the
simulation did not address the underlying problem. But, when George brings his
concerns to his superiors, they assure him that the problem has been resolved.
They further inform George that any major redesign effort would introduce
unacceptable delays, resulting in costly penalties to the company.
There is a great deal of pressure on George to sign off on the system and to
allow it to be flight tested. It has even been hinted that, if he persists in
delaying the system, he will be fired. What should George do next?
27 1/24/2017
Relevant clauses in SECEPP:

Principle 1. PUBLIC
Principle: Software engineers shall act consistently
with the public interest. In particular, software
engineers shall, as appropriate
1.03: Approve software only if they have a well-founded
belief that it is safe, meets specifications, passes
appropriate tests, and does not diminish quality of life,
diminish privacy or harm the environment. The ultimate
effect of the work should be to the public good.
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
28 1/24/2017

Principle 3. PRODUCT
Principle: Software engineers shall
ensure that their products and
related modifications meet the
highest professional standards
possible. In particular, software
engineers shall, as appropriate:
3.10. Ensure adequate testing,
debugging, and review of software and
related documents on which they work
29 1/24/2017

Principle 5. MANAGEMENT
Principle: Software engineering managers
and leaders shall subscribe to and promote
an ethical approach to the management of
software development and maintenance. In
particular, those managing or leading
software engineers shall, as appropriate::
5.01. Ensure good management for any project
on which they work, including effective
procedures for promotion of quality and reduction
of risk
5.11. Not ask a software engineer to do anything
inconsistent with this Code.
30 1/24/2017
Applying the SECEPP to the scenario:

PUBLIC AND PRODUCT
George Babbage must contend with safety
issues
Test pilot is putting life on line (but is used to this)
People under plane if it fails (could unintentionally
fly over populated area)
Clause 1.03 makes safety a priority; Clause 3.10
requires adequate testing
George recognizes this, and, by 1.04, discloses his
professional opinion to his superiors
George is forced to choose between loyalty
to his employer and his obligation to public
safety
31 1/24/2017
Applying the SECEPP to the scenario:

MANAGEMENT
Code also requires Georges managers to act
ethically:
Ensure effective procedures for promotion of quality
and reduction of risk
Do not ask a software engineer to do anything
inconsistent with this Code
Managers might argue that an adequate process

was followed and problems have been addressed
(difference of opinion)
Burden is to prove it is safe before it is released,
rather than proving it unsafe
Possible compromise: Delay release in order to
conduct further tests
32 1/24/2017
Clicker poll: What would you do in

Georges shoes?
If you were in Georges shoes, what
would you do?
A. Sign off on software and keep job
B. Not sign off on software and possibly
lose job
C. Try to negotiate for more tests
D. Other
33 1/24/2017

Tavani Text)
why?
34 1/24/2017
Whether or not to blow the whistle? You may find

yourself in this dilemma as a CS or EE professional
How are [CS/EE] professionals supposed to balance their
obligation of loyalty to an employer against their obligations
of loyalty that lie elsewhere? Even if a [CS/EE] professional
has a prima facie obligationof loyalty to his or her
employer, it does not follow that he or she has an absolute
obligation of loyalty! Consider that [CS/EE] professionals,
because of the nature of the critical-safety projects they
work on, can also have an obligation to society as a whole
Divided loyalties of this typecan result in serious conflicts
for employees, and in certain cases the moral dilemmas
they generate are so profound that an employee must
determine whether to blow the whistle.
--Tavani, p. 114
35 1/24/2017
The SECEPP has something to say

about whistleblowing, but its vague
6.12 (PROFESSION) Express concerns to the
people involved when significant violations of
this Code are detected unless this is
impossible, counter-productive, or dangerous.
6.13 (PROFESSION) Report significant
violations of this Code to appropriate
authorities when it is clear that consultation
with people involved in these significant
violations is impossible, counter-productive or
dangerous.
36 1/24/2017
De George (1999) provides clearer

guidelines
To be morally permitted to blow the whistle,
these three conditions must hold:
Product will do serious and considerable harm to public
Engineers have reported the serious threat to
immediate supervisor
Engineers have exhausted internal procedures and
possibilities
To be morally obligated to blow whistle, these

two additional conditions must hold:
Engineers have accessible, documented evidence that
would convince a reasonable, impartial observer
Engineers have good reasons to believe that by going
public the necessary changes will be brought about
37 1/24/2017
Whistleblowing scenario
(adapted from http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/NSPEcases/ec886.aspx)
Mario, the City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium-sized city, is the only licensed
professional engineer in a position of responsibility within the city government. This city has several
large food-processing plants that discharge large amounts of waste into the sewage system during
canning season. Mario is responsible for the sewage treatment plant and reports to James about its
operation.
Mario tells James that the plant is not capable of handling potential overflow during the rainy season
and offers several possible solutions. James replies that they will face the problem when it happens.
Mario privately notifies other city officials about the plant problem, but James removes the
responsibility for the sanitation system from Mario and gives it to Chris, a technician who is normally
under Mario's supervision. James instructs Chris to report directly to him and confirms this
arrangement with a memo, which is copied to Mario. Mario is also placed on probation. He is warned
that if he discusses the matter further, he will be terminated.
Mario continues to work for the government as City Engineer/Director of Public Works; he assumes no
responsibility for the disposal plant, but continues to advise Chris without James's knowledge. During
the winter, heavy storms occur in the city. It becomes clear to those involved that if the plant's waste
water is not released into the local river, the ponds will overflow and dump all of the waste into the
river. Under state law, this condition must be reported to the State Water Pollution Control Authority.
Questions
1. Would you whistle blow in this situation (clicker)? A. Yes B. No C. Unsure
2. Is Mario morally permitted or morally obligated to blow the whistle in this situation?
3. What additional information would you like to have, and what difference would it make to your
assessment?
38 1/24/2017
Analyze this scenario with your

neighbor (5 min.)
Get out a sheet of paper
Write your names and WSU IDs on it
Access scenario, questions, and
analysis framework at
https://goo.gl/0oIIro
We will discuss as class
39 1/24/2017
De Georges guidelines suggest

whistleblowing may be morally permitted
Conditions for morally permitted:
Product will do serious and considerable harm to public
public health threat of unknown magnitude
Engineers have reported the serious threat to immediate
supervisor Yes
Engineers have exhausted internal procedures and
possibilities It would appear so, but more info needed
Additional conditions for morally obligated:

Engineers have accessible, documented evidence that
would convince a reasonable, impartial observer unclear
more info needed
Engineers have good reasons to believe that by going
public the necessary changes will be brought about
unclearmore info needed
40 1/24/2017
Homework #3
Given a complex professional
scenario, analyze the scenario by
applying the SECEPP and de
Georges criteria for whistleblowing
The prompt is available on OSBLE
Due at start of class Thursday (we
will discuss in class)
41 1/24/2017
To Do Between Now and

Next Class
Complete Homework #3
Read ?
42 1/24/2017

05 Professional Ethics

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

05 Professional Ethics

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

05-Professional Ethics

CptS/EE 302, Spring, 2017

Quotes of the day:

CptS/EE 302, Spring, 2017

Todays class focuses on

2. Try to construct a strong argument against the use of

The seven-step strategy for

Make overall assessment of argument

No! If we assume all premises to be true, we can still construct a

Inductive: Does conclusion likely follow if we assume premises are true?

Fallacious: Any faulty reasoning? Can conclusion be established on

is not valid or sound

Conclusion doesnt follow from P5 & P6

Towards a strong con

Brief analysis of argument

Todays class focuses on

Professionals are different from

CptS/EE 302, Spring, 2017

Discuss with your neighbor

Ways in which CS/EE professionals can

CptS/EE 302, Spring, 2017

Gotterbarn (2001) believes CS/EE

Todays class focuses on

Professional codes of ethics for CS

Specific courses of actions (behaviors) are

Professional codes of ethics have five

CptS/EE 302, Spring, 2017

Some argue that professional codes

Gotterbarn (2000) defends ethical

CptS/EE 302, Spring, 2017

Clicker poll: Where do you stand on

The ACM/IEEE Software Engineering Code of

CptS/EE 302, Spring, 2017

SECEPP has eight core principles, with

PUBLIC - Software engineers shall act consistently with the public

SECEPPs advice for

Scenario: George and the Jet

Relevant clauses in SECEPP:

CptS/EE 302, Spring, 2017

Relevant clauses in SECEPP:

Relevant clauses in SECEPP:

Applying the SECEPP to the scenario:

Applying the SECEPP to the scenario:

Managers might argue that an adequate process

Clicker poll: What would you do in

CptS/EE 302, Spring, 2017

Todays class focuses on

Whether or not to blow the whistle? You may find

The SECEPP has something to say

De George (1999) provides clearer

To be morally obligated to blow whistle, these

CptS/EE 302, Spring, 2017

Analyze this scenario with your

CptS/EE 302, Spring, 2017

De Georges guidelines suggest

Additional conditions for morally obligated:

CptS/EE 302, Spring, 2017

CptS/EE 302, Spring, 2017

To Do Between Now and

CptS/EE 302, Spring, 2017

Вам также может понравиться