4 ms·
> but active in fraud. No we're not. We don't have societies that put any such responsibility and restrictions in place, along with benefits, for what we do. W
by lagadu 8y ago
> but active in fraud.
No we're not. We don't have societies that put any such responsibility and restrictions in place, along with benefits, for what we do. Whatever the company does with the code is the sole responsibility of it.
Like you said, other engineers have LEGAL obligations, what makes an obligation moral or not is extremely debatable and always subjective to the point of uselessness.
- na85 8y agoAre you suggesting that ethics and morality are useless, and that software developers should not care about them?
- Verdex_3 8y agoNo, he's saying that if he raises an objection, then his boss will fire him and find someone less competent to do the job. Then after he's fired for standing up for the good of society, society will tell him to starve to death because he doesn't have a job. Finally, his replacement will do a significantly worse job and the result will be greater damage to society.
- danharaj 8y agoThis is why unions exist.
- lostcolony 8y agoThe -idea- of unions. They're not exactly in a strong place in the US.
- jessaustin 8y agoWhen has a union in this context ever protected a member who refused to take action on behalf of the business for ethical reasons? Lots of unions protect inaction motivated by worker safety, but this is a different thing.
- ken 8y agoIANAL, but from what I can tell, unions tend to be organized primarily to protect workers, not the general public. Refusing to do unethical work is usually legally protected (e.g., by whistleblower laws), so your union representation can help you out (they have lawyers, and experience dealing with labor law) but it's not necessarily their main purpose.
- lagadu 8y agoI'm not. I'm saying that even if I were to be protected for standing up for immoral practices (which by and large I'm not) we're still putting the burden of morality in the wrong entity, the employee at the bottom of the decision tree. This is a burden that the state needs to impose on the top of the company directly, not have it be shifted to the bottom.
- godelski 8y agoMy comment, the OP, is not saying that the bottom of the tree should have the legal obligation. But I would argue that every branch should consider their own ethical responsibility. Don't confuse those two responsibilities.
- deadmetheny 8y ago"It's hard having moral obligations and shit so why even bother with that"
- jerf 8y agoI'm not entirely unconvinced this isn't already illegal somehow. There's a lot of laws. I bet if you dig through the definition of "certification" for emissions standards you'd find some reason why everyone knowingly involved with a fraudulent submission is already subject to some legal penalties somehow already.