[Bartweiss]

I frequently see people dismiss this with "programmers have an obligation to think about the possible uses of their work". That's not false, but I think it seriously underestimates the depth of the problem.

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.

[mountainofdeath]

The case I like to bring up was the Volkswagen emission scandal. The executives where pointing fingers at "well shucks, these engineer's must have done it and not told anyone". Having a strong sense of ethics would be to stand up and say "I can't do that lest I risk my license so fire me".