In class on Monday, we found many ways to approach ethics and very little consensus. Each of the three main areas of ethical reasoning seem to disagree with each other, and within each area each approach has something different to say. I was struck by the sheer number of ways to be ethical in any given situation. In one small group, we talked about utilitarianism, attempting to apply it to the case study Caleb Thompson shares. The most good for the most people seems straightforward initially, but in practice it presents difficult questions.

Who counts as the ‘people’? Do we factor in that Caleb felt guilty about his work as causing harm? How do we measure good? If Caleb had quit his job, wouldn’t someone else just have taken it and created the same result? Through the singular lens of utilitarianism, we came up with justifications for most of the possible actions he could take. If there is that much divergence within a single ethical framework, imagine how many perspectives there are when opening up to other consequentialist approaches then adding all approaches.

Maybe this multitude of views mirrors how we make ethical decisions. Personally, I can think of a time I used almost every framework to make some decision. Sometimes it seems very likely I can control the impact of my actions, so a consequentialist approach seems appropriate. Other times ambiguity about the consequences leads me to rely on general principles. Other times, especially in new or unfamiliar situations, I feel compelled to look to others who may be more experienced as role models. Each of the theories offers a unique perspective and seems to apply better to certain situations.

In the readings I was really impressed by the fact that people had come up with guidelines for ethical decision making, but when I think about it, it really makes sense to have done so.  I wonder how they come to a decision about what frameworks are most useful in different situation between consequentialist, non-consequentialist, and agent-centered.  Perhaps, it would be in sort of a whichever makes the best case for itself in any given situation.  

In reading the ACM Code of Ethics my group saw the consequentialist approach show up as a sort of prompt for programmers to think about the possible effects their work might have on society should it be integrated universally.  As stated in class, the code itself and the expectation that it be followed by anyone who wants to meet the standards of being a good computing professional is representative of the non-consequentialist approach to ethics.  The agent-centered approach appeared as well in the way they headed off the sections of the code of ethics with the phrase “a computing professional should” thereby creating the image of the ideal virtuous computing professional who any aspiring computing professional should seek to mirror.

I believe it was touched on in class that a lot of the directives within the code are dependent on words that don’t explicitly lay out any particular behaviors, such as the word “respectfully”.  I imagine then, that if there is possible misinterpretation on the part of an individual in regards to whether or not their behaviors are justified according to the standards of the code, there would have to be some debate as to whether or not it qualifies as a violation and to what to degree.  All around, I’m starting to get a clearer picture of why ethics boards are necessary beyond of course, the obvious job of maintaining the standard, and moving more into the more nuanced job of creating the standard and evaluating its limits.

This discussion made me start reflecting on how I and others look at things. I feel that people often default to thinking of things from a consequentialist point of view. Perhaps this is because the result is a central focus for many. And despite our comments regarding the egoist approach and its opinion that “self-interest is a prerequisite to self-respect and respect for others,” I find that I see this approach expressed a lot by people both in and out of Grinnell.

I also got to thinking about the duty-based approach; for example, I got to thinking about how it can be applied outside an actual set of rules. In my “Theories of Culture” course, I took last semester, we spoke about the idea of “social fact,” which was postulated by Émile Durkheim. While this may on the one hand seem not to fall under the duty-based approach, I believe that some of these cultural norms can so heavily influence the individual without a directly written declaration, and many of these can be unethical.

Regarding “Don’t Get Distracted, I find it interesting that the author of, Caleb Thompson, stayed at his job despite the experience they refer to in the story. I felt that the story’s ending led me to believe that Thompson had quit their job.

At the end of class, Professor Rodrigues brought up the question of whether or not Thompson’s ability to tell this story is somewhat dampened by the fact that they completed their job at the DOD. While I acknowledge that, as Professor Rodrigues mentioned in class, first jobs can be tough and one may do things they didn’t expect to, I wonder if the author had included a bit about finishing their posting; perhaps, then, readers might not feel so disillusioned.