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.
Like Zaria, I also found some of the wording of the ideal values of the ‘computing professional’ to be a bit vague and subjective. I can see ethics boards also as a solution to this ambiguity, but can’t help feeling that defining the word ‘respect’ would help clarify acceptable behavior. I think this addition and further explication of various terms used would probably make the document in itself stronger and preclude the need for lengthy investigations into ethics violations. Overall, the code could benefit from a bit more explicit information.
However, this would also make the code a lot longer and almost certainly more diffuse. An overly complex code is not ideal either. In short, I guess a balance of ambiguity and explicit explanation would be ideal.
On another idea, I also wondered about how people decide which ethical framework is most appropriate given a particular situation like Zaria did. It seems to me that all the frameworks inherently lead to different decisions, so the choice of framework really does dictate the outcome. This difference adds another level of subjectivity to the ethics discussion, in addition to the subjectivity in the code. In short, I suppose this means ethics in itself is kind of subjective, which makes sense given the different sets of values and experiences that different people can have. But to challenge that I would say there are certain things that I hope everyone would agree on in terms of acceptable ethical behavior.