4 ms·

I disagree. As a computer engineer in Canada, I must swear by the Code of Ethics because what I do (or potentially don't do) can cause harm. Ethics in computer

by darxius 13y ago

I disagree. As a computer engineer in Canada, I must swear by the Code of Ethics because what I do (or potentially don't do) can cause harm. Ethics in computer-science-related fields are important and I think we do need a set of rules we can dogmatically follow like the Hippocratic Oath. Of course, the HO is different in that failing to follow can cause physical harm. However, the world is progressing quickly and more and more information is hosted online -- personal information. I think it's our jobs to make sure we don't promote poor practice and un-ethical behaviour.

nnnnni 13y ago
So you wear the ring then, eh?
- darxius 13y ago
  Soon :) I'm just entering my final year of study.
  - nnnnni 13y ago
    I'm not sure where you are, but... be sure to wear a lot of layers of clothes with at least one all-black layer on the finals day. Seriously. I hope that you'll see this in time!
smsm42 13y ago
So in Canada, software engineers never cause harm to anyone? Nice to know. >>>> I think we do need a set of rules we can dogmatically follow like the Hippocratic Oath. So you don't actually have to employ your own brain and your own moral judgement, because somebody already did it for you and wrote this nice set of rules, that you swore by Apollo to faithfully execute, without thinking, not unlike that box of wires and silicon chips you are paid to play with? Nice arrangement, I suppose. >>>> I think it's our jobs to make sure we don't promote poor practice and un-ethical behaviour. And you need to sign an explicit oath to do that?
- darxius 13y ago
  I think you're missing the point. The oath is to remind you to use your head, your best judgement and a body of ethics and to act in the interest of the public. Sure engineers still make mistakes, but the code of ethics isn't some magical document that eliminated human error. Also, I think you're sort of merging the HO with the Code of Ethics for engineers in Canada -- two very different documents and I suggest you give them a read. And no, no one still thinks they're swearing to Apollo.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    >>>> The oath is to remind you to use your head, your best judgement and a body of ethics Why you need an oath for that - shouldn't it be always the default behavior? >>>> and to act in the interest of the public. "Interest of the public" is a very dangerous thing. I can remember a lot of very bad things that were done "in the interest of the public". You can make almost anything pass as "in the interest of the public" if you want to. Murder? Millions were murdered "in the interest of the public", because they were of the wrong ethnicity, class, physical features or just in the wrong place in the wrong time. Robbery? Millions were stripped of their property and reduced to utter poverty because it was claimed it is "interest of the public" to do so. And so on, and so forth. I would rather steer clear of anything that has "interest of the public" written on it, at least until it's very clear what is underneath. Too many things that were underneath such writing proved to be a disaster. >>> no one still thinks they're swearing to Apollo. Swearing to a document composed by a faceless bureaucracy is no better. If you have code of ethics, live by it, if you do not - get one. What Apollo or his modern equivalent, the almighty bureaucracy, has to do with it?
    - base698 13y ago
      Because that's how humans work? bookoutlines.pbworks.com/w/page/14422685/Predictably%20Irrational One more variation: Nina, On, and Ariely conducted a similar experiment. But, one group was asked to write down 10 books they had read in high school, and the other group was asked to try to recall and write down the 10 Commandments. When cheating was not possible, the average score was 3.1 When cheating was possible, the book group reported a score of 4.1 (33% cheating) When cheating was possible, the 10 Commandments group scored 3.1 (0% cheating) And most of the subjects couldn't even recall all of the commandments! Even those who could only remember 1 or 2 commandments were nearly as honest. "This indicated that it was not the Commandments themselves that encouraged honesty, but the mere contemplation of a moral benchmark of some kind." Perhaps we can have people sign secular statements--similar to a professional oath--to remind us of our commitment to honesty. So Ariely had students sign a statement on the answer sheet: "I understand that this study falls under the MIT honor system." Those who signed didn't cheat. Those who didn't see the statement showed 84% cheating. "The effect of signing a statement about an honor code is particularly amazing because MIT doesn't even have an honor code."
mjolk 13y ago
>I think it's our jobs to make sure we don't promote poor practice and un-ethical behaviour. No, it's our responsibility as decent people. I don't need to sign some online pledge to keep myself from pushing people in front of trains. If I was the sort to harm others, why would I care about some meaningless online campaign?
- darxius 13y ago
  There's nothing to sign and it's not a campaign. You're right, it is our responsibility as decent people to uphold a certain level of moral and ethical behaviour, especially when the software we write is in control of sensitive information. The Oath is there to remind you to act in the best interest of the user. There are no formalities and although it seems common sense to people like you and me, others might not see it so clearly.
- tripzilch 13y ago
  > I don't need to sign some online pledge to keep myself from pushing people in front of trains. Neither do doctors really need the Oath of Hippocrates to stop themselves from harming people.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Which is convenient, because the Oath of Hippocrates has not actually stopped doctors from harming people.
- freshhawk 13y ago
  "No, it's our responsibility as decent people" Well, yes. But there is a reason that every profession that has tackled this problem has used a system of oaths and certification. Engineers, Doctors and Lawyers are the canonical examples. You need something that is given and can be taken away for bad behaviour in order to change behaviour at this level. Damn human brains.
  - pekk 13y ago
    Taken away by whom and on what basis? I would dispute that you need the ability to take away other individuals' ability to lawfully write software. That ability is bound to be abused for political reasons (which is also what it looks like when people have reasonably different ethical systems and one imposes his by force). Anyway, the issue at hand is bad corporate behavior, not bad programmers. I don't see why we need to start licking our chops about the prospect of forming a blacklist against individual programmers.

by darxius 13y ago

nnnnni 13y ago

So you wear the ring then, eh?

darxius 13y ago
Soon :) I'm just entering my final year of study.
- nnnnni 13y ago
  I'm not sure where you are, but... be sure to wear a lot of layers of clothes with at least one all-black layer on the finals day. Seriously. I hope that you'll see this in time!

smsm42 13y ago

So in Canada, software engineers never cause harm to anyone? Nice to know. >>>> I think we do need a set of rules we can dogmatically follow like the Hippocratic Oath. So you don't actually have to employ your own brain and your own moral judgement, because somebody already did it for you and wrote this nice set of rules, that you swore by Apollo to faithfully execute, without thinking, not unlike that box of wires and silicon chips you are paid to play with? Nice arrangement, I suppose. >>>> I think it's our jobs to make sure we don't promote poor practice and un-ethical behaviour. And you need to sign an explicit oath to do that?

darxius 13y ago
I think you're missing the point. The oath is to remind you to use your head, your best judgement and a body of ethics and to act in the interest of the public. Sure engineers still make mistakes, but the code of ethics isn't some magical document that eliminated human error. Also, I think you're sort of merging the HO with the Code of Ethics for engineers in Canada -- two very different documents and I suggest you give them a read. And no, no one still thinks they're swearing to Apollo.
- smsm42 13y ago
  >>>> The oath is to remind you to use your head, your best judgement and a body of ethics Why you need an oath for that - shouldn't it be always the default behavior? >>>> and to act in the interest of the public. "Interest of the public" is a very dangerous thing. I can remember a lot of very bad things that were done "in the interest of the public". You can make almost anything pass as "in the interest of the public" if you want to. Murder? Millions were murdered "in the interest of the public", because they were of the wrong ethnicity, class, physical features or just in the wrong place in the wrong time. Robbery? Millions were stripped of their property and reduced to utter poverty because it was claimed it is "interest of the public" to do so. And so on, and so forth. I would rather steer clear of anything that has "interest of the public" written on it, at least until it's very clear what is underneath. Too many things that were underneath such writing proved to be a disaster. >>> no one still thinks they're swearing to Apollo. Swearing to a document composed by a faceless bureaucracy is no better. If you have code of ethics, live by it, if you do not - get one. What Apollo or his modern equivalent, the almighty bureaucracy, has to do with it?
  - base698 13y ago
    Because that's how humans work? bookoutlines.pbworks.com/w/page/14422685/Predictably%20Irrational One more variation: Nina, On, and Ariely conducted a similar experiment. But, one group was asked to write down 10 books they had read in high school, and the other group was asked to try to recall and write down the 10 Commandments. When cheating was not possible, the average score was 3.1 When cheating was possible, the book group reported a score of 4.1 (33% cheating) When cheating was possible, the 10 Commandments group scored 3.1 (0% cheating) And most of the subjects couldn't even recall all of the commandments! Even those who could only remember 1 or 2 commandments were nearly as honest. "This indicated that it was not the Commandments themselves that encouraged honesty, but the mere contemplation of a moral benchmark of some kind." Perhaps we can have people sign secular statements--similar to a professional oath--to remind us of our commitment to honesty. So Ariely had students sign a statement on the answer sheet: "I understand that this study falls under the MIT honor system." Those who signed didn't cheat. Those who didn't see the statement showed 84% cheating. "The effect of signing a statement about an honor code is particularly amazing because MIT doesn't even have an honor code."

mjolk 13y ago

>I think it's our jobs to make sure we don't promote poor practice and un-ethical behaviour. No, it's our responsibility as decent people. I don't need to sign some online pledge to keep myself from pushing people in front of trains. If I was the sort to harm others, why would I care about some meaningless online campaign?

darxius 13y ago
There's nothing to sign and it's not a campaign. You're right, it is our responsibility as decent people to uphold a certain level of moral and ethical behaviour, especially when the software we write is in control of sensitive information. The Oath is there to remind you to act in the best interest of the user. There are no formalities and although it seems common sense to people like you and me, others might not see it so clearly.
tripzilch 13y ago
> I don't need to sign some online pledge to keep myself from pushing people in front of trains. Neither do doctors really need the Oath of Hippocrates to stop themselves from harming people.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Which is convenient, because the Oath of Hippocrates has not actually stopped doctors from harming people.
freshhawk 13y ago
"No, it's our responsibility as decent people" Well, yes. But there is a reason that every profession that has tackled this problem has used a system of oaths and certification. Engineers, Doctors and Lawyers are the canonical examples. You need something that is given and can be taken away for bad behaviour in order to change behaviour at this level. Damn human brains.
- pekk 13y ago
  Taken away by whom and on what basis? I would dispute that you need the ability to take away other individuals' ability to lawfully write software. That ability is bound to be abused for political reasons (which is also what it looks like when people have reasonably different ethical systems and one imposes his by force). Anyway, the issue at hand is bad corporate behavior, not bad programmers. I don't see why we need to start licking our chops about the prospect of forming a blacklist against individual programmers.