5 ms·

> So management bears no blame for requiring illegal work be done, on pain of termination? No, I wouldn't say that. In many cases, management and engineering s

> So management bears no blame for requiring illegal work be done, on pain of termination? No, I wouldn't say that. In many cases, management and engineering share the blame jointly and severally since they both have an opportunity to stop it. > Said another way, engineers now need to be technical and legal experts in the business domain? Engineers should know enough about their business domains to understand the ethical impacts of their work. Ethics and law are orthogonal, so thankfully this is generally much easier than being a legal expert. > (Remember employees in the US depend on the company for health insurance. Saying 'no' could cost a lot more than just ones position.) Thankfully, the healthcare safety net in much of the US is far better than it gets credit for, and the pay and availability of opportunities for software engineers in the US has generally been quite good. I'm sympathetic to this argument in general, which is one reason I don't think there should be an oath for, like, Amazon warehouse workers, but I'm far less sympathetic for anyone making 5+ times the median US income. > Most software engineers are not like doctors. We have little autonomy over what is created. Our responsibility is primarily the how. And with devops sometimes the actual deployment and maintenance itself. Your responsibility as framed to you by the business is the how, but upstream of the how is the question of whether or not to do it at all. If you contribute to a piece of software, you've tacitly answered yes to that question.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
> Engineers should know enough about their business domains to understand the ethical impacts of their work. This would be more reasonable in the era of 10-20 years in the same company or industry. Needing to job hop every 2-3 years for a decent raise, and software skills applying to a vast array of industries, makes it less reasonable IMO. > ...but I'm far less sympathetic for anyone making 5+ times the median US income. Not everyone here or in software makes that kind of money. Some of us in the Midwest--or who aren't as skilled at negotiating--don't pull down nearly that much.
- tfehring 6y ago
  > This would be more reasonable in the era of 10-20 years in the same company or industry. Needing to job hop every 2-3 years for a decent raise, and software skills applying to a vast array of industries, makes it less reasonable IMO. Yeah, to be clear, I don't think software engineers have an infinite level of responsibility for understanding the ethical implications of their work. If you were a software engineer at a credit rating agency in 2006, and you didn't see the ethical dilemma because you didn't anticipate that contagion would be exacerbated by the shadow banking system to bring down the global economy, you get a pass. But if your prospective employer is, like, locking children in cages, or spreading disinformation on political candidates, you should probably find that out during the interview process. > Not everyone here or in software makes that kind of money. Some of us in the Midwest--or who aren't as skilled at negotiating--don't pull down nearly that much. Good point - I'm also in the Midwest and make less than that, for what it's worth. I've naturally had FAANG in mind as I type these comments, and more generally I think salaries for the more unethical roles tend to skew higher.
  - znpy 6y ago
    > Yeah, to be clear, I don't think software engineers have an infinite level of responsibility for understanding the ethical implications of their work. Yep. That's more the responsibility of product managers, upper managements and chief architects/engineers.
logicchains 6y ago
> Ethics and law are orthogonal, so thankfully this is generally much easier than being a legal expert. I suspect a lot of philosophers would disagree with you that ethics is much simpler than interpreting laws.
- dark_light 6y ago
  Philosophers would also make a distinction between being ethical and being an ethics expert.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  You can derive most ethics in a couple of decades, plus everyday experience. Try deriving the law from that.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Thats because it's a couple of decades of dealing with ethics. If you everyday life actually involved dealing with law, you would get good at it
thesz 6y ago
Ethics and law are not orthogonal. Look at definition from Wikipedia: "Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that "involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior"." Ethics forms basis on which law is built. And, given that, it is not simpler to make ethical decision, it is harder. The decision should be worth being basis for a law, how's that simpler than following law? Even if you take definition of ethical decision from Wikipedia: "An ethical decision is one that engenders trust, and thus indicates responsibility, fairness and caring to an individual." These words can bear negative connotations - if I beat people, I should be trusted that I will beat people, I should beat people fairly and I should care to beat an individual thoroughly. Yes, I fully see you talk about principles. It can be seen that it is easier to make decisions from principles. But, you can misguide yourself about application of these principles.

paulryanrogers 6y ago

> Engineers should know enough about their business domains to understand the ethical impacts of their work. This would be more reasonable in the era of 10-20 years in the same company or industry. Needing to job hop every 2-3 years for a decent raise, and software skills applying to a vast array of industries, makes it less reasonable IMO. > ...but I'm far less sympathetic for anyone making 5+ times the median US income. Not everyone here or in software makes that kind of money. Some of us in the Midwest--or who aren't as skilled at negotiating--don't pull down nearly that much.

tfehring 6y ago
> This would be more reasonable in the era of 10-20 years in the same company or industry. Needing to job hop every 2-3 years for a decent raise, and software skills applying to a vast array of industries, makes it less reasonable IMO. Yeah, to be clear, I don't think software engineers have an infinite level of responsibility for understanding the ethical implications of their work. If you were a software engineer at a credit rating agency in 2006, and you didn't see the ethical dilemma because you didn't anticipate that contagion would be exacerbated by the shadow banking system to bring down the global economy, you get a pass. But if your prospective employer is, like, locking children in cages, or spreading disinformation on political candidates, you should probably find that out during the interview process. > Not everyone here or in software makes that kind of money. Some of us in the Midwest--or who aren't as skilled at negotiating--don't pull down nearly that much. Good point - I'm also in the Midwest and make less than that, for what it's worth. I've naturally had FAANG in mind as I type these comments, and more generally I think salaries for the more unethical roles tend to skew higher.
- znpy 6y ago
  > Yeah, to be clear, I don't think software engineers have an infinite level of responsibility for understanding the ethical implications of their work. Yep. That's more the responsibility of product managers, upper managements and chief architects/engineers.

logicchains 6y ago

> Ethics and law are orthogonal, so thankfully this is generally much easier than being a legal expert. I suspect a lot of philosophers would disagree with you that ethics is much simpler than interpreting laws.

dark_light 6y ago
Philosophers would also make a distinction between being ethical and being an ethics expert.
wizzwizz4 6y ago
You can derive most ethics in a couple of decades, plus everyday experience. Try deriving the law from that.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Thats because it's a couple of decades of dealing with ethics. If you everyday life actually involved dealing with law, you would get good at it

thesz 6y ago

Ethics and law are not orthogonal. Look at definition from Wikipedia: "Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that "involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior"." Ethics forms basis on which law is built. And, given that, it is not simpler to make ethical decision, it is harder. The decision should be worth being basis for a law, how's that simpler than following law? Even if you take definition of ethical decision from Wikipedia: "An ethical decision is one that engenders trust, and thus indicates responsibility, fairness and caring to an individual." These words can bear negative connotations - if I beat people, I should be trusted that I will beat people, I should beat people fairly and I should care to beat an individual thoroughly. Yes, I fully see you talk about principles. It can be seen that it is easier to make decisions from principles. But, you can misguide yourself about application of these principles.