7 ms·

This subject quite simply comes down to people wanting to express personal politics in the office and forming collectives or trends around a given opinion. (I

This subject quite simply comes down to people wanting to express personal politics in the office and forming collectives or trends around a given opinion. (I am not saying anything for or against the politics motive.)

whatshisface 8y ago
By calling it "personal politics," you are saying something against it. Nobody should invent some subjective opinion and then bring it in to the workplace, but it seems fine to expect doctors to refuse kickbacks from drug reps, or for soldiers to decline to carry out war crimes, or for civil engineers to refuse to sign off on a cheap blueprint that will save a lot of money but probably collapse. The debate is about what "professional ethics" means for software development.
- austincheney 8y ago
  > By calling it "personal politics," you are saying something against it. I am being objective. If the political opinion was not formulated by senior leadership and passed down through management then it is not likely, at least at the time of expression, the politics of the organization. That said, it is personal politics. Ethics is not defined by the industry. Ethics is quite literally perceptions of right or wrong in accordance with organizationally defined rules. Right and wrong where rules are either not available or not defined is instead the more generalized term morality. In the example of Google employees' boycott of the drone contract the political action was a moral judgement that graduated to an ethic once senior leadership made a decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
    > the more generalized term morality Applied ethics, are what most people mean when talking about Ethics. They are industry specific and defined by the industry. Normative ethics are near equivalent to morality. Meta-ethics are what Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson like to argue about.
    - austincheney 8y ago
      Rules are defined by industry. Applied ethics, or commonly used in the adjective form ethical, applies to the directness of a decision point to the governing rule and perceptions or right/wrong. Ethics are evaluated the same even when the rules change. Likewise ethics are violated for similar reasons regardless of industry. This is very simple for most professions that are defined by licensing or certifications which require conformance to a code of ethics. Ethics in law are not dissimilar from ethics in medicine. In software there is no commonly accepted code of ethics. Instead there are "terms and conditions" and "employment agreements", which typically do not isolate ethical standards to the software profession.
nsnick 8y ago
Not expressing an opinion against immoral things is also a political act. You are saying that profits should come before everything else.
- austincheney 8y ago
  > You are saying that profits should come before everything else. I very deliberately expressed no opinion in that regard. Not expressing an opinion within a moral argument is political only with regards for the motive of inaction. Taken to a greater extreme people are not necessarily expressing politics by not agreeing with your opinion.
- mmirate 8y ago
  Independently of the train-of-thought of who you replied-to... Profits should indeed come before everything else. The previous sentence isn't a statement of politics, it's a statement of fact, and the only thing that can make it false is post-scarcity.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- swebs 8y ago
  Maybe some people just support the American military for moral reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological arguments. By the time the discussion gets this generic, there's nothing left but flamewar. And it's always the same. Also, re "you are saying", there's an HN guideline that asks you not to argue this way: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." That's because arguing this way consistently leads to more boring comments, and it's easy enough not to do if you remember the rule. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

whatshisface 8y ago

By calling it "personal politics," you are saying something against it. Nobody should invent some subjective opinion and then bring it in to the workplace, but it seems fine to expect doctors to refuse kickbacks from drug reps, or for soldiers to decline to carry out war crimes, or for civil engineers to refuse to sign off on a cheap blueprint that will save a lot of money but probably collapse. The debate is about what "professional ethics" means for software development.

austincheney 8y ago
> By calling it "personal politics," you are saying something against it. I am being objective. If the political opinion was not formulated by senior leadership and passed down through management then it is not likely, at least at the time of expression, the politics of the organization. That said, it is personal politics. Ethics is not defined by the industry. Ethics is quite literally perceptions of right or wrong in accordance with organizationally defined rules. Right and wrong where rules are either not available or not defined is instead the more generalized term morality. In the example of Google employees' boycott of the drone contract the political action was a moral judgement that graduated to an ethic once senior leadership made a decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
  > the more generalized term morality Applied ethics, are what most people mean when talking about Ethics. They are industry specific and defined by the industry. Normative ethics are near equivalent to morality. Meta-ethics are what Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson like to argue about.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    Rules are defined by industry. Applied ethics, or commonly used in the adjective form ethical, applies to the directness of a decision point to the governing rule and perceptions or right/wrong. Ethics are evaluated the same even when the rules change. Likewise ethics are violated for similar reasons regardless of industry. This is very simple for most professions that are defined by licensing or certifications which require conformance to a code of ethics. Ethics in law are not dissimilar from ethics in medicine. In software there is no commonly accepted code of ethics. Instead there are "terms and conditions" and "employment agreements", which typically do not isolate ethical standards to the software profession.

nsnick 8y ago

Not expressing an opinion against immoral things is also a political act. You are saying that profits should come before everything else.

austincheney 8y ago
> You are saying that profits should come before everything else. I very deliberately expressed no opinion in that regard. Not expressing an opinion within a moral argument is political only with regards for the motive of inaction. Taken to a greater extreme people are not necessarily expressing politics by not agreeing with your opinion.
mmirate 8y ago
Independently of the train-of-thought of who you replied-to... Profits should indeed come before everything else. The previous sentence isn't a statement of politics, it's a statement of fact, and the only thing that can make it false is post-scarcity.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
swebs 8y ago
Maybe some people just support the American military for moral reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
dang 8y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological arguments. By the time the discussion gets this generic, there's nothing left but flamewar. And it's always the same. Also, re "you are saying", there's an HN guideline that asks you not to argue this way: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." That's because arguing this way consistently leads to more boring comments, and it's easy enough not to do if you remember the rule. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html