6 ms·

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 t

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...
  - ForHackernews 6y ago
    Some people fail to uphold the ethical standards of their profession, therefore we shouldn't have ethical standards? Is that the argument here?
    - Hitton 6y ago
      Oh, we should have them. But despite all their education (which includes ethics) and professional associations, your revered "professionals" aren't any better than the "wage labourers".
      - HarryHirsch 6y ago
        They absolutely are. The very first question asked by any lawyer is "who is the other party". Lawyers are very aware of conflict of interest.
asciimov 6y ago
This misunderstanding of what is ethics is exactly why we need to be teaching it. Ethics is not about the moral compass of an individual, but it is about the moral obligations of the professional community as a whole. What is and isn't Ethical has largely already been discussed and decided. It is up to us developers to learn about it and apply it to our field.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  Indeed, these ethics courses are not supposed to turn students towards the narrow path of goodness, rather the purpose is to enable them to spot temptation when it comes, because it will.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >What is and isn't Ethical has largely already been discussed and decided. I agree with your post, except on this point. Ethics is never 'decided' in the light of new axioms, new evidence, and debates on which principles apply to which cases. Morality is a matter of dialogue, and the idea that anybody (computer scientist or not) should accept without the possibility of debate any ethical point is tantamount to dogmatism. It is disastrous on two fronts: * It does not respect the student as a moral reasoner in many cases; the student is not taught to reason beyond the level of application if they are only taught principles, and the student is not taught to reason at all if they are only taught scenarios and analogies * It presents ethics as something "those other people" (i.e. academic philosophers) do, rather than something everyone does in dialogue with others. Such a presentation will not stand up if people (for non-moral, epistemic reasons) lose trust in that establishment. When you say "largely" you seem to acknowledge this, but I'd go further and say that certain edge cases impact on the whole. To teach ethics largely as something 'decided' is nearly equivalent to teaching that the best language for task X is Y, and and that the best langugaes for most tasks have already been decided, and your only reasoning should be when to decide when to use language Y, never to interrogate the language, to interrogate the use cases, or to interrogate other possible principles. Ethics isn't "anything goes", but it certainly isn't "listen to these principles. The only freedom you have is reasoning about when to apply them".
- silicon2401 6y ago
radford-neal 6y ago
Yes! The idea that "ethics" should be taught in technical courses disrespects the autonomy of students, who paid good money to learn about a topic they are interested in, not to hear your propaganda. These students know where to find a course on ethics if they want one. Forcing your ethical views on a captive audience of students in a course on, say, computer architecture, is unethical. For a horrible example of "ethics" instruction at Harvard, see the "ethics" module for CS 61: Systems Programming and Machine Organization, at https://embeddedethics.seas.harvard.edu/classes/cs-61-2019-fall https://embeddedethics.seas.harvard.edu/classes/cs-61-2019-f... An excerpt: Sample Class Activity: After being introduced to the concept of representational harm, students are presented with a slide containing the current set of ‘yellow’ emoji representing families of different kinds. In small groups, students discuss what kinds of families are left out from the current set and whether those omissions constitute representational harms. Here is the course description: "CS 61 is a first course in computer systems programming, meaning the creation of high-performance programs that use computer hardware effectively..." Imagine you are a student who is taking this course because you need the technical knowledge you think it covers, and then you are asked to discuss family emojis. I think you would be right to be disgusted with the instructor, disgusted with the CS department, and disgusted with Harvard University.
- silicon2401 6y ago
  Exactly what I mean. Unfortunately, I think a large number of people on the site lean towards something like idealism or imposing moral and ethical views on others, hence why comments like this get downvoted.
drummojg 6y ago
> I disagree. I went to school to learn how to solve problems, not somebody's subjective view of ethics https://www.jstor.org/stable/378062?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/378062?seq=1

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...
- ForHackernews 6y ago
  Some people fail to uphold the ethical standards of their profession, therefore we shouldn't have ethical standards? Is that the argument here?
  - Hitton 6y ago
    Oh, we should have them. But despite all their education (which includes ethics) and professional associations, your revered "professionals" aren't any better than the "wage labourers".
    - HarryHirsch 6y ago
      They absolutely are. The very first question asked by any lawyer is "who is the other party". Lawyers are very aware of conflict of interest.

asciimov 6y ago

This misunderstanding of what is ethics is exactly why we need to be teaching it. Ethics is not about the moral compass of an individual, but it is about the moral obligations of the professional community as a whole. What is and isn't Ethical has largely already been discussed and decided. It is up to us developers to learn about it and apply it to our field.

HarryHirsch 6y ago
Indeed, these ethics courses are not supposed to turn students towards the narrow path of goodness, rather the purpose is to enable them to spot temptation when it comes, because it will.
claudiawerner 6y ago
>What is and isn't Ethical has largely already been discussed and decided. I agree with your post, except on this point. Ethics is never 'decided' in the light of new axioms, new evidence, and debates on which principles apply to which cases. Morality is a matter of dialogue, and the idea that anybody (computer scientist or not) should accept without the possibility of debate any ethical point is tantamount to dogmatism. It is disastrous on two fronts: * It does not respect the student as a moral reasoner in many cases; the student is not taught to reason beyond the level of application if they are only taught principles, and the student is not taught to reason at all if they are only taught scenarios and analogies * It presents ethics as something "those other people" (i.e. academic philosophers) do, rather than something everyone does in dialogue with others. Such a presentation will not stand up if people (for non-moral, epistemic reasons) lose trust in that establishment. When you say "largely" you seem to acknowledge this, but I'd go further and say that certain edge cases impact on the whole. To teach ethics largely as something 'decided' is nearly equivalent to teaching that the best language for task X is Y, and and that the best langugaes for most tasks have already been decided, and your only reasoning should be when to decide when to use language Y, never to interrogate the language, to interrogate the use cases, or to interrogate other possible principles. Ethics isn't "anything goes", but it certainly isn't "listen to these principles. The only freedom you have is reasoning about when to apply them".
silicon2401 6y ago

radford-neal 6y ago

Yes! The idea that "ethics" should be taught in technical courses disrespects the autonomy of students, who paid good money to learn about a topic they are interested in, not to hear your propaganda. These students know where to find a course on ethics if they want one. Forcing your ethical views on a captive audience of students in a course on, say, computer architecture, is unethical. For a horrible example of "ethics" instruction at Harvard, see the "ethics" module for CS 61: Systems Programming and Machine Organization, at https://embeddedethics.seas.harvard.edu/classes/cs-61-2019-fall https://embeddedethics.seas.harvard.edu/classes/cs-61-2019-f... An excerpt: Sample Class Activity: After being introduced to the concept of representational harm, students are presented with a slide containing the current set of ‘yellow’ emoji representing families of different kinds. In small groups, students discuss what kinds of families are left out from the current set and whether those omissions constitute representational harms. Here is the course description: "CS 61 is a first course in computer systems programming, meaning the creation of high-performance programs that use computer hardware effectively..." Imagine you are a student who is taking this course because you need the technical knowledge you think it covers, and then you are asked to discuss family emojis. I think you would be right to be disgusted with the instructor, disgusted with the CS department, and disgusted with Harvard University.

silicon2401 6y ago
Exactly what I mean. Unfortunately, I think a large number of people on the site lean towards something like idealism or imposing moral and ethical views on others, hence why comments like this get downvoted.

drummojg 6y ago

> I disagree. I went to school to learn how to solve problems, not somebody's subjective view of ethics https://www.jstor.org/stable/378062?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/378062?seq=1