|
|
|
|
|
|
by krisrm
2607 days ago
|
|
|
I don't disagree that perhaps software developers should be on board with a code of ethics, but this is a false dichotomy between the decisions of doctors/lawyers when providing services, and the decisions of technology companies on the whole. Companies that exist to make profit, in this case generally by monetizing user data in some (often questionable) form. It seems to me like the ethical responsibility bit lies more with the directorship and management of these companies, and not the Joe Bloe software dev that's working on making emojis display correctly in IE. |
|
|
The simplest difference between professions with clear ethical codes (doctors, lawyers, civil engineers) and ones without is that professions with strong codes provide outcomes. A doctor treats a specific patient, a lawyer litigates a case, a civil engineer builds a specific bridge. Even indirect work like medical research has specific recipients and a fairly clear course for future use. Programmers, like chemists or machinists, frequently create tools.
Alfred Nobel famously created his prize in atonement for the destruction caused by his invention, but he invented and marketed dynamite for use in mining and construction, where it provided real benefit to humanity. Edward Teller spent the second half of his life championing civilian uses for nuclear power and atomic bombs, having seen the world reshaped by fear of a weapon he hoped would be demonstrated to prevent future wars.
The beauty of professional codes in medicine and law is that they achieve moral good without taking heavily-disputed moral stances; if doctors do no harm and refuse instructions to do so, harm will generally be prevented. A chemist studying nitrates or a programmer designing GPS guidance has no such guarantees; the same work is very likely to create both good and bad in uncertain amounts, depending on where it's put to use.