Two approaches to computer ethics

lllllllllllllllllllll i Professional Thoughtsand Issues Two Approaches to Computer Ethics Don Gotterbarn Computer and Information Systems East Tennessee State University Johnson City, Tennessee 37614-0711 gotterba @csee.usf.edu ome of the disagreeme nts that arise in computer ethics are based on approaching ethics from two apparently contradictory directions; one a virtue based ethics and the other a rights-duty based ethics. My recent experience with the development of the Software E n g i n e e r i n g Code of Ethics and Professional Practice (hereinafter called the Code) illustrates this point. It also leads me to believe that if we make clear the differences between these ethical positions, then we can reduce some of the problems in reasoning about computer ethics. The ACM and the IEEE-Computer Society have recently adopted the Code [ 1] as the standard for the teaching and practice of software engineering. The ACM/IEEE-CS task force on Software E n g i n e e r i n g Ethics and Professional Practices developed this code for a subspecialization within the constituencies of both of the professional societies. The composition of the task force is multinational in both citizenship and in membership in professional computing organizations. There were two ethical approaches by members of the task force to this project, but there was an achievement of consensus between them. Several of the ethical discussions about the Code are related to the relative position of rights/obligations based ethics versus virtue based ethics. The different values placed on privacy are an example that illustrates this. This difference between rights and virtue based ethics as a primary assumption was reflected in differing views on the actual and acceptable roles of governments in the software development process. It reflects the different values or obligations related to the roles of government and individuals in protecting data integrity. The lessons learned from developing of the Code and relating these approaches to ethics provide indications on how to improve the ethics education of computer Vol 31. No. 2 June 1999 people have towards human well being, professionals. as opposed to harm. A n ethics of The observations in this column Obligation (Rights) denies that these were made during my tenure as chair of natural dispositions, but instead the task force developing the Code. The emphasizes the importance of duty and generalizations, like all generalizations, obligation as these are normally are subject to exceptions. With this expressed in rules of conduct discerned cautionary word, I will now venture to by the use of practical reason. The categorize blatantly the ethical obligations-right view demands precise approaches. rules for particular behaviors. One could The development of the Code was clearly measure adherence to these an iterative process. The task force behaviors. This is the Kantian moral examined several existing codes of law; moral principles were categorical ethics from computing societies, and were true and independent of engineering societies, and other personal or local circumstance. For professions such as accounting [2]. We Aristotle, on the other hand, the purpose also considered the goals and functions of moral rules was to promote individual of these codes and then, via email, moral virtues and the development of a selected out various imperatives to place good will or moral character. Put in in the software engineering code. We also contributed i~-.~;: ..... more general terms, the new imperatives related to ,:~>~ [ ::-~ .......; rights/obligations ethicist starts our knowledge of software i ~ ~ . ~ / ~ ~ , with rules stating obligations engineering. There was i!ilt i :i??,.~ ',, about how one should behave and immediately a discernable "-. ~ ,. rights about how I am to be treated; the virtue ethicist starts difference between North " ~,~,~~ -~ ' ~- ' -_ American and Northern ,~ : : c 7~i"~,. with the human character and its European contributions ' % '.',,"~)i i; 2. i.~-,~: % ! ethical dispositions. Virtue and concerns As we }L::::~i ,:-~\ ethics does not lie in following :;:::>:2L.i,/,L'~, a set of well-defined rules circulated early drafts to colleagues for c o m m e n t the ~:i,/::,; : i : ; f i _ ) ? ? ')-;:~ but it lies in one's character colleagues' responses seemed to ::',',,)i()~i".... ......... you have to see what is the right reflect a difference in their 'L ;~i::; ..... action and then choose to do it. Both of these approaches to ethics approach to ethics; one was a virtuewhere present in the task force's based ethics and the other was a responses to drafts of the Code. The rights/obligations based ethics. The approach to the Code shows one way to draft of the Code that resulted reflected recognize the difference between these these two different approaches to ethics. two approaches and to accommodate The members of the task force did not them in computer ethics agenda. mention these two schools of ethics, but How were these two approaches to we could easily categorize their ethics reflected in the initial responses as belonging to one or the development and responses to the Code? other school of ethics. There are several purposes of a code of What is the difference between ethics. Several principles that were virtue ethics and right/obligation ethics? suggested for the code used imperative There have been two approaches to language. For example, morality in the past based in the views of 3.07. Assure that they Aristotle and Kant, the former understand fully the specifications for representing an ethics of virtue and the software on which they work. latter representing an ethics of 3.04. Assure that they are obligation/rights. Virtue ethics is based qualified, by education and experience, on the idea of virtue interpreted in terms for any project on which they work. of certain natural dispositions that "':~, 11 ~£~G~:; SIGCSE Bulletin Approaches continued from page 11) 3.02. Assure proper goals and objectives for any project on which they work. There were two problems with these imperatives for the obligation people. These imperatives were not acceptable to the obligations people because one can interpret them as potential obligations, which would legally bind the software engineer. We rejected these formulations because there was no way to measure whether the software engineer had satisfied them. Some of the obligations people worried about laws being enacted that embodied these imperatives. The imperative people also had trouble with words like "proper" and "appropriate" because they had no precise meaning that one could state in a measurable right or obligation. The virtue people had interpreted these clauses to mean that you complied with the imperative if you tried your best to meet these standards (acted from a moral disposition). For virtue people, terms like "proper" and "appropriate" did have a standard, namely the standard of doing it from an ethical disposition. To accommodate the obligation people, words like "assure" were replaced with "strive" or "aspire." Thus, we have: 3.07. Strive to fully understand the specifications for software on which they work. This replacement was not entirely satisfactory to the virtue people who characterized these imperatives as "wimpy" and "weak." The problem was how to satisfy both groups of software engineers. One of the major goals in developing a code of ethics is to establish a consensus of the profession. Both groups needed to be satisfied to have the Code represent the profession. The approach taken in the Code to resolve this tension was to examine the distinction between these types of ethical theory within professions. This distinction was included in an early draft of the preamble to the Code. The distinction between these theories was then included in terms of rules and aspirations within the Code. In a preamble to an early draft of the code, the task force defined three levels of professional ethics. "Each Principle of this Code addresses three levels of ethical obligation owed by professional software engineers in each of these relationships. The first level identified is a set of ethical values which they share with all other human beings by virtue of their humanity. The second level obliges professionals to a higher order of care for those who may be affected by their work. The third and deeper level comprises several obligations which derive directly from elements unique to the professional practice of software engineering. The Clauses of each Principle are illustrations of the various levels of obligation included in that relationship. The Clauses under each Principle consist of three different types of statement corresponding to each level. Level One: Aspire (to be human); Statements of aspiration provide vision and objectives, are intended to direct professional behavior. These directives require significant ethical judgement. Level Two: Expect (to be professional); Statements of expectation express the obligations of all professionals and professional attitudes. Again they do not describe the specific behavior details but they clearly indicate professional responsibilities in computing. Level Three: Demand (to use good practices); Statements of demand assert more specific behavioral responsibilities within software engineering which are more closely related to the current state of the art. The range of statements is from the more general aspirational statement to specific measurable requirements." [Gotterbarn, et al, 1997] The Code now includes imperatives that are at Level 3 expressing measurable obligations of the software engineer and rights of their clients. The Code also contains Level 1 statements of aspiration and virtuous goals for the individual software engineer. These two approaches to ethics are not incompatible. However, it is important to recognize and accommodate their differences. If we do not do this, then discussions in computer ethics are never resolved. The Code evolved after extensive study of several computing and engineering codes. All of the codes considered try to educate and inspire the members of the professional group that adopts the code. These codes also inform the public about the responsibilities that are important to that profession. Codes instruct practitioners about the standards that society expects them to meet and what their peers strive for and expect of each other. Codes are not meant to encourage litigation and they are not legislation. They do, however, offer practical advice about issues that matter to professionals and their clients and they do inform policy makers. We need to include both of these approaches when addressing computer ethics issues for the professional and in the classroom. The software engineer as a practicing professional acts from a higher level of care for the customer (virtue ethics) and conforms to the development standards of the profession (right/obligations ethics). Both types of ethics are needed for the professional engineer. References [1] <www-cs.etsu.edu/seeri> [2] Gotterbarn,D., and Miller, K. and Rogerson, S.: "Software EngineeringCode of Ethics," SIGCAS Newsletter, July 1997. This column is in part based on an earlier paper "The Professionalizationof Software Engineeringand its Significancefor Ethics Education,"Frontiers in Education, 1997. S I G C S E Bulletin 12 June 1999 Vol 31. No. 2