3 ms·

The problem, as I see it, is with nebulous concepts such as "the public". Who is "the public" and how does one determine what they want? What happens when "the

The problem, as I see it, is with nebulous concepts such as "the public". Who is "the public" and how does one determine what they want? What happens when "the public" is divided on an issue? In the Hippocratic Oath, by contrast, the physician and the patient are identifiable people. I realize there's always someone who self-appoints themself to "speak for" "the public", but that's not actually helpful here. In reality, "the public" is generally divided on any issue. Not always 50-50, but to a significant degree. If you tell me I have to work in the interests of some poorly-defined "public" I'm going to ask you which "public", and who appointed you to speak for them.

infamouscow 3y ago
This is splitting hairs and pretends like the meaning isn't well-defined, when it clearly is. Literally every work I've ever read in political philosophy regards "the public" to be the general population or the citizens of a country. By this rationale, things society has benefited immensely from, like "public health" are so arbitrarily defined that it cannot make any traction, which is counterfactual to reality. These efforts are some of the crowning achievements of human progress, and it's dissenters deserve intense derision if not outright contempt. It also ignores other facts. For example, the USPTO requires patent lawyers to be educated at accredited universities. For professionals coming from computer science, virtually every student going to an ABET accredited university is taught the ACM's code of ethics.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > This is splitting hairs and pretends like the meaning isn't well-defined, when it clearly is. No, it absolutely is not. > Literally every work I've ever read in political philosophy regards "the public" to be the general population or the citizens of a country. Then every work you've ever read in political philosophy is overly simplistic. Pick any contentious political issue (abortion, gun control, socialized medicine, the list goes on and on). There are substantial (not fringe, substantial) portions of the populace on both sides (1) of those issues. Which side is "the public"? Generally, it's whichever side the person who's appointed himself to "speak for the public" prefers. (1) In actuality, pretending that there are only two sides itself is an oversimplification, of course. > USPTO requires patent lawyers to be educated at accredited universities And? Patent lawyers are ethically required to represent their clients (i.e., identifiable people), not "the public".
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    The word public derives from the Latin word publicus, which means the people, state, or community. It's also legally defined as such. [1][2] Further, it's limiting to say there's only two sides to an issue, when in truth there's typically multiple dimensions and a gradient of positions along each of those dimensions. I would love to continue, but it seems like you're only interested in discussing a strawman of the ACM's code of ethics. I implore you to apply the principle of charity rather than interpret the code of ethics in the worst possible light imaginable. 1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public 2: https://thelawdictionary.org/public/ https://thelawdictionary.org/public/

infamouscow 3y ago

This is splitting hairs and pretends like the meaning isn't well-defined, when it clearly is. Literally every work I've ever read in political philosophy regards "the public" to be the general population or the citizens of a country. By this rationale, things society has benefited immensely from, like "public health" are so arbitrarily defined that it cannot make any traction, which is counterfactual to reality. These efforts are some of the crowning achievements of human progress, and it's dissenters deserve intense derision if not outright contempt. It also ignores other facts. For example, the USPTO requires patent lawyers to be educated at accredited universities. For professionals coming from computer science, virtually every student going to an ABET accredited university is taught the ACM's code of ethics.

Turing_Machine 3y ago
> This is splitting hairs and pretends like the meaning isn't well-defined, when it clearly is. No, it absolutely is not. > Literally every work I've ever read in political philosophy regards "the public" to be the general population or the citizens of a country. Then every work you've ever read in political philosophy is overly simplistic. Pick any contentious political issue (abortion, gun control, socialized medicine, the list goes on and on). There are substantial (not fringe, substantial) portions of the populace on both sides (1) of those issues. Which side is "the public"? Generally, it's whichever side the person who's appointed himself to "speak for the public" prefers. (1) In actuality, pretending that there are only two sides itself is an oversimplification, of course. > USPTO requires patent lawyers to be educated at accredited universities And? Patent lawyers are ethically required to represent their clients (i.e., identifiable people), not "the public".
- infamouscow 3y ago
  The word public derives from the Latin word publicus, which means the people, state, or community. It's also legally defined as such. [1][2] Further, it's limiting to say there's only two sides to an issue, when in truth there's typically multiple dimensions and a gradient of positions along each of those dimensions. I would love to continue, but it seems like you're only interested in discussing a strawman of the ACM's code of ethics. I implore you to apply the principle of charity rather than interpret the code of ethics in the worst possible light imaginable. 1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public 2: https://thelawdictionary.org/public/ https://thelawdictionary.org/public/