8 ms·

If anything, this whole case underscores the fact that Engineering and Computer Science schools/colleges need to be teaching ethics as a core part of their curr

If anything, this whole case underscores the fact that Engineering and Computer Science schools/colleges need to be teaching ethics as a core part of their curriculum. It is appalling to my partner, a phd in bio research, that even as undergrads we didn't have at least a couple of courses covering what ethics was, how it informs, and how it applies to everything we do. Worst of all, because of this lack of education, many big tech firms have done unethical experimentation on us unsuspecting users, simply because the developers never questioned if they should do it.

_wldu 6y ago
I agree. I've also noticed that some developers seem to have a strong sense of "we should not do that" while others don't and I'm not sure why. One recent example was impersonating/spoofing a manager's email to send phishing emails as part of a security compliance test. One developer saw no harm at all in doing so while another felt we should ask permission first. It's a basic violation of trust to do this sort of thing and in the very least, permission should be obtained first. Otherwise, the violation of trust and repercussions may be severe.
- bmhin 6y ago
  As someone who naturally gets feelings of aversion when I hear some solutions suggested and who works with folks who can suggest them without blinking, I honestly think "should" never enters their mind. It seems to be a pure engineering-in-a-vacuum mindset where "can" is all that matters. They envision an admittedly potentially interesting end outcome and the means to get there is just engineering. They don't think twice about how their solution just involved enabling tracking everyone's phone's location to enable it. My and many others first thought would likely be "I don't really want to be tracked myself or have to track others" and all they think of is "We can dynamically allocate the resources based on where people are!".
silicon2401 6y ago
I disagree. I went to school to learn how to solve problems, not somebody's subjective view of ethics. Let people who care about ethics take ethics courses if they really want to. Make corporations responsible for behaving ethically and then figure out how they want to handle it. As a private person, I live life by my own ethics and am not interested in spending my money to have somebody else lecture me on their ethics.
- ForHackernews 6y ago
  This right here is exhibit A in why developers are wage labour, not professionals, regardless of how many RSUs they get. Actual professionals, [that is, doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers (real ones, not the phony software kind)] have obligations to their professional standards and ethics that supersede obligations to their employer. A good accountant won't cook your books for you (unless he's crooked), but the world's best code monkeys are happy to write up whatever invasive spyware adtech or emissions standards-cheating software you ask for, as long as they keep getting their peanuts.
  - durovo 6y ago
    Software developers are wage labour because they don't need a license to practice. That is the only difference between the other professions that you mentioned here and software engineering. And let's not act as if there are no questionable practices amongst doctors, accountants, lawyers, and 'real engineers'. I agree about the need for an ethical code though. Maybe a license could enforce that? I don't know how a license would work in a relatively easily outsourced job though.
    - michaericalribo 6y ago
      I mean, you’re right—there does seem to be a close similarity. That makes a strong argument for development needing more regulation / certification from an ethical standpoint. There may be some questionable behavior by doctors, but medical board exams minimize the number of malpractioners, and ensure baseline competency. Why don’t we expect the same accountability and baseline competency for developers?
  - Hitton 6y ago
    >Actual professionals, [that is, doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers (real ones, not the phony software kind)] have obligations to their professional standards and ethics that supersede obligations to their employer. That's incredibly naive world view. Doctors are constantly letting themselves be bribed by pharma companies (let alone "ethics" that allow them committing things like Tuskegee experiment, forced sterilizations or stuff like [0]) and lawyers are regarded as biggest liars for a reason (and not only defence or civil law lawyers, we keep constantly hearing about prosecutorial misconduct). And it's not like they get shunned by their peers when caught usually they get only slap on the wrist, they don't even have to turn in their license or get disbarred. [0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/05/14/pelvic-exams-on-anesthetized-women-without-consent-a-troubling-and-outdated-practice/?sh=3a9fce078462 https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/05/14/pelvic-exa...
ilamont 6y ago
MIT Media Lab holds a discussion series around "Black Mirror" episodes. I think it's an interesting and engaging approach. The MIT Media Lab is a community of creatives and technologists who may be active or future builders of the worlds that Black Mirror explores. This viewing and discussion series brings this community together to imagine and discuss technological futures and ethical implications, framed around the Black Mirror episodes we watch together. Each week we watch an episode and host a discussion facilitated by a researcher or practitioner whose work is pertinent to the episode. https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/black-mirror/ https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/black-mirror/
- michaericalribo 6y ago
  That is a neat idea! It illustrates the need for applied critical thinking, especially at the seams between concept / theory, and implementation / practice. There is another aspect, though, which is the well-established and more formal instruction of experimental ethics. That is less of an analytic exercise like the MIT discussions, and more of a training for conducting responsible and ethical research. My opinion is the descriptive / discursive approach of the MIT discussions is insufficient to give that full understanding.
- gnome_mouse 6y ago
  There's something deeply ironic about an organization that was so deeply involved with Epstein running an ethics series
cigaser 6y ago
I disagree. At university ethics will be coopted by "white man bad", while students will be forced to pay $160/hour for useless lessons! > many big tech firms have done unethical experimentation on us unsuspecting users Questioning company ethics is simply not developers job! CEOs and managers are paid millions of dollars. If they do unethical experiments on users, they should be shamed and punished. Offloading responsibility to low level employees is unethical (and good example of "university ethics")
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pizzazzaro 6y ago
  Wow. You sound like someone who thought "Linux is over" with the Code of Conduct transition. What is it like, feeling "oppressed for being white," and ignoring any efforts to show you whats actually happening?
weagle05 6y ago
I remember taking business ethics in college. The professor told us to keep a dirt file on our bosses in case we ever needed to retaliate. He got really upset when I challenged him on it. I understood his point but I found it extremely ironic.
- egberts1 6y ago
  It is a useful tool especially if coupled with saved copies of weekly status reports of yours. - Saved my butt a few times and often with no hard feelings when having had meekly pointed out the “dirt”.
EarthIsHome 6y ago
While I agree with you that ethics is important and that it's not taught sufficiently in STEM, it needs to be taught from a systemic point of view. It's a lie to teach we can be ethical in our current system where the profit motive is a principal factor in our decisions. From my experience in STEM, the one ethics course I took was taught divorced from the political economy, which makes it sound like you can be ethical while trying to make profit. I think this is a fundamental inaccuracy.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  The idea that you can act ethically while still making a profit dates back to the Rennaisance - and I wouldn't say it's necessarily wrong. The idea that massive profits combined with accumulation of capital totally disproportionate to actual labour input when luck plays only a small role is a newer idea (and a newer phenomenon), though there are ethicists who don't see a problem with that either. I think some 19th C. German philosophers correctly decided not to pursue a moral route when they criticized capital accumulation. I think the ethical problem, if there is one, can't lie with the simple fact of making profit (or the profit motive) - rather, it must lie either in how that profit came about, or how that profit is utilized. Most ethicists do not suppose an ethical problem with employment in itself, nor with reinvesting capital in itself.
tgbugs 6y ago
I was on a road trip with 3 engineers this weekend and we were discussing this. I mentioned that I, along with nearly every grad student in life sciences is required to take a research ethics course because NIH training grants mandate that any student funded on the grant take an ethics course. They all said that they wish that their graduate programs had required them to take an ethics course. One of them (from India) also noted that basic concepts such as plagiarism are assumed to be understood at the graduate level in the US, but that few students coming from Asia have received any orientation to ethical academic practice for students, much less researchers. I don't know enough about how CS and engineering graduate programs are funded, but it seems that NSF is not funding very many programs, given that they do seem to require such training https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rcr.jsp https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rcr.jsp.
- Cyph0n 6y ago
  The school I attended had a half-semester ethics course that was required for all engineering PhD students. Not sure if this a common thing, though.
- Fomite 6y ago
  I'm an epidemiologist who works with a lot of computer scientists. Step #1 for collaborations is usually getting them human subjects training and familiarizing them with the IRB.
dcolkitt 6y ago
There's no evidence that the study of ethics increases ethical behavior.[1] [1]https://qz.com/1582149/ethicists-are-no-more-ethical-than-the-rest-of-us-study-finds/ https://qz.com/1582149/ethicists-are-no-more-ethical-than-th...
- elliekelly 6y ago
  I would hardly characterize calling your mother or donating to charity as "ethical behavior".
whatshisface 6y ago
Why does anyone think you can get people to be ethical just by teaching them ethics? Knowing what other people say about ethics doesn't have a clear path to strengthening your conscience, which is the only "motivation" most people have to be ethical in the first place.
- remram 6y ago
  It might not make the companies/professors ethical, but might help the employees, grad students, or more importantly test subject notice bad behavior.
- cptskippy 6y ago
  > Why does anyone think you can get people to be ethical just by teaching them ethics? Because you can teach ethics in much the same way you teach security best practices. Lots of developers practice security theater without actually believing it's all necessary. The same can be done with ethics.
  - fallingknife 6y ago
    People who write insecure software typically didn't intend to, so you can teach them. People who do unethical things intended to do unethical things, so teaching is useless.
    - cptskippy 6y ago
      I would argue that Hanlon's razor applies. Most people aren't thinking about ethics, they're just trying to solve a problem. When a product manager asks them to implement a dark pattern to trick users into clicking something, they aren't thinking "heh... fools, I'll show them", they're thinking "Sure thing boss, whatever you say". It's not that these people are unethical, it's that it's never a consideration. I was in a meeting once where business was discussing abandonment and it was suggested that if a user filled out a form 100% but never clicked submit, it was reasonable to assume that after 20 minutes if the window was still open then we should just automatically submit the form because that was their intent. There was no malice in the thought or question of ethics, the person who suggested it thought it was a helpful suggestion and would improve the product and reduce abandonment. When I framed it from the perspective of the end user they quickly shot down their own idea.
mfer 6y ago
When I was in school ethics was taught. But, it was insufficient and it targeted not right or wrong but instead mostly legal liability. This is where ethics becomes difficult because it depends on what you believe about the universe. For example, in the book Age of Surveillance Capitalism professors who look at people as herd animals is discussed. If people are just another herd animal and it's ok to herd them as we please (like how we do with cattle) than the ethical impact would be different from someone who believes there is a clear right or wrong way to treat people. This impacts the ethics of using technology. Yet, it's often not discussed.
ok123456 6y ago
ABET accredited schools already require "ethics". Most of these classes are: Emmanuel Kant existed and "don't copy that floppy." I'm sure there are some very competent professors from the philosophy departments whom do a very competent job, but I'm speaking in generalities. The fact is that if someone's employer, like an academic advisor, asks you to do something "unethical" most of that training is moot.
- N1H1L 6y ago
  The ethics coursework at my ABET accredited alma mater, which was a 1 credit joke BTW, mostly covered plagiarism. Human ethics are basically not covered at all. There is a huge ideological blindspot inside engineering departments - if my work is thorough and scientifically sound that's enough. The process is elevated above the final result, especially the final product's interaction with the wider world. You can build a nuclear bomb following that mindset, but people just seem to miss it.
- XorNot 6y ago
  Real engineers have actual professional standards bodies they're accountable too for ethical violations. Your boss telling you to do something unethical runs right up against the risk you won't be able to practice your profession. This is why the built environment largely endures.
  - danmg 6y ago
    It's only a very small minority of engineers who do. Unless you're a PE and you get to sign off on large development projects, there's no real accountability. No matter how much teeth a governing body has, it's always going to be gun shy about denying people their livelihood. They're only going to go after the most egregious and flagrant problems. As long as the transgressions are mild, they pose no real danger to those who want to violate whatever ethics code are in place.
- tenacious_tuna 6y ago
  I sat on the curriculum committee for my university's (one of the Big 10) CS program for a year as an undergrad, and got to see first-hand some of the justifications from the faculty for how certain courses met the requirements of the ABET program. It was... often something of a stretch, especially when it came to "soft skills" like ethics and whatnot. As I remember, the "justification" for meeting the ABET ethics requirements was spread across at least three courses, the first of which was a 1 credit lecture course that everyone in the major (including myself) blew off. To be fair, we were already having difficulty cramming all the ABET requirements into the course material, to say nothing of related software development skills and tools. Our program was struggling to accommodate the insane growth we were already seeing in students--enrollments grew by something like 70% over six years, and we were struggling to hire sufficient faculty. When I graduated we were leaning heavily on online-only introductory courses and grading automation, which has its own issues.
david38 6y ago
What makes you think they don’t? It’s required for accreditation. Ethics classes will help enlighten you to what’s wrong and why. It won’t stop you from doing them.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
briffle 6y ago
But if we take an ethics class, how can we justify spending 8-10 hours a day coming up with dark patterns to trick people to click on ads? /sarcasm
nickysielicki 6y ago
Ethics don't need to be taught -- people willing to put ethics before other interests don't need to be taught how to think about things, and people who don't put ethics before their other interests aren't going to be persuaded by a 3 credit elective.
- meepmorp 6y ago
  Ethics needs to be taught. People have to encounter ethical challenges and consider how to respond to them before being put in the position of having to make a real ethical choice. Ethics isn't just about a gut check on "right vs wrong," and having a rational framework to apply to situations helps people reason about the choices they make. And, let's make it mandatory, not elective.
  - rationalethic 6y ago
    What makes you think ethics are rational? I see no evidence for that. Who decides what the correct moral framework is? Christian ethics are different from Critical Theory or Scientology informed ethics. Should you be required to take a course in Scientological ethics, if there is a political majority that votes that you shouldn't be able to be professional without completing that course? Boy I'm glad I didn't finish college. What a bunch of crap.
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    Why is this being downvoted? A younger colleague participated in such a course (because he was on an NIH-funded project), and it was case study after case study, together with "how would you have acted in such a situation, and why". He reported that he found it extremely useful.
    - meepmorp 6y ago
      People hear ethics and think moralizing; who wants to sit through that?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
teclordphrack2 6y ago
I think you may find this has a cultural connection.

_wldu 6y ago

I agree. I've also noticed that some developers seem to have a strong sense of "we should not do that" while others don't and I'm not sure why. One recent example was impersonating/spoofing a manager's email to send phishing emails as part of a security compliance test. One developer saw no harm at all in doing so while another felt we should ask permission first. It's a basic violation of trust to do this sort of thing and in the very least, permission should be obtained first. Otherwise, the violation of trust and repercussions may be severe.

bmhin 6y ago
As someone who naturally gets feelings of aversion when I hear some solutions suggested and who works with folks who can suggest them without blinking, I honestly think "should" never enters their mind. It seems to be a pure engineering-in-a-vacuum mindset where "can" is all that matters. They envision an admittedly potentially interesting end outcome and the means to get there is just engineering. They don't think twice about how their solution just involved enabling tracking everyone's phone's location to enable it. My and many others first thought would likely be "I don't really want to be tracked myself or have to track others" and all they think of is "We can dynamically allocate the resources based on where people are!".

silicon2401 6y ago

I disagree. I went to school to learn how to solve problems, not somebody's subjective view of ethics. Let people who care about ethics take ethics courses if they really want to. Make corporations responsible for behaving ethically and then figure out how they want to handle it. As a private person, I live life by my own ethics and am not interested in spending my money to have somebody else lecture me on their ethics.

ForHackernews 6y ago
This right here is exhibit A in why developers are wage labour, not professionals, regardless of how many RSUs they get. Actual professionals, [that is, doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers (real ones, not the phony software kind)] have obligations to their professional standards and ethics that supersede obligations to their employer. A good accountant won't cook your books for you (unless he's crooked), but the world's best code monkeys are happy to write up whatever invasive spyware adtech or emissions standards-cheating software you ask for, as long as they keep getting their peanuts.
- durovo 6y ago
  Software developers are wage labour because they don't need a license to practice. That is the only difference between the other professions that you mentioned here and software engineering. And let's not act as if there are no questionable practices amongst doctors, accountants, lawyers, and 'real engineers'. I agree about the need for an ethical code though. Maybe a license could enforce that? I don't know how a license would work in a relatively easily outsourced job though.
  - michaericalribo 6y ago
    I mean, you’re right—there does seem to be a close similarity. That makes a strong argument for development needing more regulation / certification from an ethical standpoint. There may be some questionable behavior by doctors, but medical board exams minimize the number of malpractioners, and ensure baseline competency. Why don’t we expect the same accountability and baseline competency for developers?
- Hitton 6y ago
  >Actual professionals, [that is, doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers (real ones, not the phony software kind)] have obligations to their professional standards and ethics that supersede obligations to their employer. That's incredibly naive world view. Doctors are constantly letting themselves be bribed by pharma companies (let alone "ethics" that allow them committing things like Tuskegee experiment, forced sterilizations or stuff like [0]) and lawyers are regarded as biggest liars for a reason (and not only defence or civil law lawyers, we keep constantly hearing about prosecutorial misconduct). And it's not like they get shunned by their peers when caught usually they get only slap on the wrist, they don't even have to turn in their license or get disbarred. [0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/05/14/pelvic-exams-on-anesthetized-women-without-consent-a-troubling-and-outdated-practice/?sh=3a9fce078462 https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/05/14/pelvic-exa...

ilamont 6y ago

MIT Media Lab holds a discussion series around "Black Mirror" episodes. I think it's an interesting and engaging approach. The MIT Media Lab is a community of creatives and technologists who may be active or future builders of the worlds that Black Mirror explores. This viewing and discussion series brings this community together to imagine and discuss technological futures and ethical implications, framed around the Black Mirror episodes we watch together. Each week we watch an episode and host a discussion facilitated by a researcher or practitioner whose work is pertinent to the episode. https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/black-mirror/ https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/black-mirror/

michaericalribo 6y ago
That is a neat idea! It illustrates the need for applied critical thinking, especially at the seams between concept / theory, and implementation / practice. There is another aspect, though, which is the well-established and more formal instruction of experimental ethics. That is less of an analytic exercise like the MIT discussions, and more of a training for conducting responsible and ethical research. My opinion is the descriptive / discursive approach of the MIT discussions is insufficient to give that full understanding.
gnome_mouse 6y ago
There's something deeply ironic about an organization that was so deeply involved with Epstein running an ethics series

cigaser 6y ago

I disagree. At university ethics will be coopted by "white man bad", while students will be forced to pay $160/hour for useless lessons! > many big tech firms have done unethical experimentation on us unsuspecting users Questioning company ethics is simply not developers job! CEOs and managers are paid millions of dollars. If they do unethical experiments on users, they should be shamed and punished. Offloading responsibility to low level employees is unethical (and good example of "university ethics")

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pizzazzaro 6y ago
Wow. You sound like someone who thought "Linux is over" with the Code of Conduct transition. What is it like, feeling "oppressed for being white," and ignoring any efforts to show you whats actually happening?

weagle05 6y ago

I remember taking business ethics in college. The professor told us to keep a dirt file on our bosses in case we ever needed to retaliate. He got really upset when I challenged him on it. I understood his point but I found it extremely ironic.

egberts1 6y ago
It is a useful tool especially if coupled with saved copies of weekly status reports of yours. - Saved my butt a few times and often with no hard feelings when having had meekly pointed out the “dirt”.

EarthIsHome 6y ago

While I agree with you that ethics is important and that it's not taught sufficiently in STEM, it needs to be taught from a systemic point of view. It's a lie to teach we can be ethical in our current system where the profit motive is a principal factor in our decisions. From my experience in STEM, the one ethics course I took was taught divorced from the political economy, which makes it sound like you can be ethical while trying to make profit. I think this is a fundamental inaccuracy.

claudiawerner 6y ago
The idea that you can act ethically while still making a profit dates back to the Rennaisance - and I wouldn't say it's necessarily wrong. The idea that massive profits combined with accumulation of capital totally disproportionate to actual labour input when luck plays only a small role is a newer idea (and a newer phenomenon), though there are ethicists who don't see a problem with that either. I think some 19th C. German philosophers correctly decided not to pursue a moral route when they criticized capital accumulation. I think the ethical problem, if there is one, can't lie with the simple fact of making profit (or the profit motive) - rather, it must lie either in how that profit came about, or how that profit is utilized. Most ethicists do not suppose an ethical problem with employment in itself, nor with reinvesting capital in itself.

tgbugs 6y ago

I was on a road trip with 3 engineers this weekend and we were discussing this. I mentioned that I, along with nearly every grad student in life sciences is required to take a research ethics course because NIH training grants mandate that any student funded on the grant take an ethics course. They all said that they wish that their graduate programs had required them to take an ethics course. One of them (from India) also noted that basic concepts such as plagiarism are assumed to be understood at the graduate level in the US, but that few students coming from Asia have received any orientation to ethical academic practice for students, much less researchers. I don't know enough about how CS and engineering graduate programs are funded, but it seems that NSF is not funding very many programs, given that they do seem to require such training https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rcr.jsp https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rcr.jsp.

Cyph0n 6y ago
The school I attended had a half-semester ethics course that was required for all engineering PhD students. Not sure if this a common thing, though.
Fomite 6y ago
I'm an epidemiologist who works with a lot of computer scientists. Step #1 for collaborations is usually getting them human subjects training and familiarizing them with the IRB.

dcolkitt 6y ago

There's no evidence that the study of ethics increases ethical behavior.[1] [1]https://qz.com/1582149/ethicists-are-no-more-ethical-than-the-rest-of-us-study-finds/ https://qz.com/1582149/ethicists-are-no-more-ethical-than-th...

elliekelly 6y ago
I would hardly characterize calling your mother or donating to charity as "ethical behavior".

whatshisface 6y ago

Why does anyone think you can get people to be ethical just by teaching them ethics? Knowing what other people say about ethics doesn't have a clear path to strengthening your conscience, which is the only "motivation" most people have to be ethical in the first place.

remram 6y ago
It might not make the companies/professors ethical, but might help the employees, grad students, or more importantly test subject notice bad behavior.
cptskippy 6y ago
> Why does anyone think you can get people to be ethical just by teaching them ethics? Because you can teach ethics in much the same way you teach security best practices. Lots of developers practice security theater without actually believing it's all necessary. The same can be done with ethics.
- fallingknife 6y ago
  People who write insecure software typically didn't intend to, so you can teach them. People who do unethical things intended to do unethical things, so teaching is useless.
  - cptskippy 6y ago
    I would argue that Hanlon's razor applies. Most people aren't thinking about ethics, they're just trying to solve a problem. When a product manager asks them to implement a dark pattern to trick users into clicking something, they aren't thinking "heh... fools, I'll show them", they're thinking "Sure thing boss, whatever you say". It's not that these people are unethical, it's that it's never a consideration. I was in a meeting once where business was discussing abandonment and it was suggested that if a user filled out a form 100% but never clicked submit, it was reasonable to assume that after 20 minutes if the window was still open then we should just automatically submit the form because that was their intent. There was no malice in the thought or question of ethics, the person who suggested it thought it was a helpful suggestion and would improve the product and reduce abandonment. When I framed it from the perspective of the end user they quickly shot down their own idea.

mfer 6y ago

When I was in school ethics was taught. But, it was insufficient and it targeted not right or wrong but instead mostly legal liability. This is where ethics becomes difficult because it depends on what you believe about the universe. For example, in the book Age of Surveillance Capitalism professors who look at people as herd animals is discussed. If people are just another herd animal and it's ok to herd them as we please (like how we do with cattle) than the ethical impact would be different from someone who believes there is a clear right or wrong way to treat people. This impacts the ethics of using technology. Yet, it's often not discussed.

ok123456 6y ago

ABET accredited schools already require "ethics". Most of these classes are: Emmanuel Kant existed and "don't copy that floppy." I'm sure there are some very competent professors from the philosophy departments whom do a very competent job, but I'm speaking in generalities. The fact is that if someone's employer, like an academic advisor, asks you to do something "unethical" most of that training is moot.

N1H1L 6y ago
The ethics coursework at my ABET accredited alma mater, which was a 1 credit joke BTW, mostly covered plagiarism. Human ethics are basically not covered at all. There is a huge ideological blindspot inside engineering departments - if my work is thorough and scientifically sound that's enough. The process is elevated above the final result, especially the final product's interaction with the wider world. You can build a nuclear bomb following that mindset, but people just seem to miss it.
XorNot 6y ago
Real engineers have actual professional standards bodies they're accountable too for ethical violations. Your boss telling you to do something unethical runs right up against the risk you won't be able to practice your profession. This is why the built environment largely endures.
- danmg 6y ago
  It's only a very small minority of engineers who do. Unless you're a PE and you get to sign off on large development projects, there's no real accountability. No matter how much teeth a governing body has, it's always going to be gun shy about denying people their livelihood. They're only going to go after the most egregious and flagrant problems. As long as the transgressions are mild, they pose no real danger to those who want to violate whatever ethics code are in place.
tenacious_tuna 6y ago
I sat on the curriculum committee for my university's (one of the Big 10) CS program for a year as an undergrad, and got to see first-hand some of the justifications from the faculty for how certain courses met the requirements of the ABET program. It was... often something of a stretch, especially when it came to "soft skills" like ethics and whatnot. As I remember, the "justification" for meeting the ABET ethics requirements was spread across at least three courses, the first of which was a 1 credit lecture course that everyone in the major (including myself) blew off. To be fair, we were already having difficulty cramming all the ABET requirements into the course material, to say nothing of related software development skills and tools. Our program was struggling to accommodate the insane growth we were already seeing in students--enrollments grew by something like 70% over six years, and we were struggling to hire sufficient faculty. When I graduated we were leaning heavily on online-only introductory courses and grading automation, which has its own issues.

david38 6y ago

What makes you think they don’t? It’s required for accreditation. Ethics classes will help enlighten you to what’s wrong and why. It won’t stop you from doing them.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

briffle 6y ago

But if we take an ethics class, how can we justify spending 8-10 hours a day coming up with dark patterns to trick people to click on ads? /sarcasm

nickysielicki 6y ago

Ethics don't need to be taught -- people willing to put ethics before other interests don't need to be taught how to think about things, and people who don't put ethics before their other interests aren't going to be persuaded by a 3 credit elective.

meepmorp 6y ago
Ethics needs to be taught. People have to encounter ethical challenges and consider how to respond to them before being put in the position of having to make a real ethical choice. Ethics isn't just about a gut check on "right vs wrong," and having a rational framework to apply to situations helps people reason about the choices they make. And, let's make it mandatory, not elective.
- rationalethic 6y ago
  What makes you think ethics are rational? I see no evidence for that. Who decides what the correct moral framework is? Christian ethics are different from Critical Theory or Scientology informed ethics. Should you be required to take a course in Scientological ethics, if there is a political majority that votes that you shouldn't be able to be professional without completing that course? Boy I'm glad I didn't finish college. What a bunch of crap.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  Why is this being downvoted? A younger colleague participated in such a course (because he was on an NIH-funded project), and it was case study after case study, together with "how would you have acted in such a situation, and why". He reported that he found it extremely useful.
  - meepmorp 6y ago
    People hear ethics and think moralizing; who wants to sit through that?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

teclordphrack2 6y ago

I think you may find this has a cultural connection.