I believe computer scientists should be ethical, after all, the machines they program inevitably carry out the explicit algorithms which they’ve encoded. I am also assuming that computer scientists on average possess a slightly higher than average intelligence and would typically have additional experience when imagining the implication of their programming. Lastly, computer scientists by the role they play in technology progression, I believe bear an additional burden of contemplating a larger technological environment in which their creations will operate.
As I’ve written and spoken on before, professionals in the technology fields must hold themselves to a higher moral standard due to the authoritative role their career puts them in. Others in the community will treat technology professionals as experts and their moral position and beliefs on technology will likely be quite influential.
A key component of morality is holding oneself personally accountable for effects on society although there are so many modern ways to pardon oneself from any true blame. For example, in a commercial corporate environment or any organization with a large enough bureaucracy, there are enough barriers and layers between cause and effect events to blur a direct chain of custody, easily allowing plausible deniability and separation from culpability.
Once computer scientists accept accountability for the direct and indirect results of their activity the next step is becoming empowered by understanding the direction of their efforts can directly alter the future and to some degree the destiny of our species.
We are uniquely positioned in history, for the first time we as a species possess unnatural power to dictate our evolution. Something as seemingly passive as a smart phone use, has indirect bureaucratic separation of use versus implication. Law and regulation has to find new sophisticated means to reliable protect citizens from immoral application of technology. In the situation where law and morality cannot keep pace with morality, the computer scientist has a much broader moral obligation if they are to find themselves operating in the void where there is no other authority.
Computer scientists working within larger organizational structures may also be stuck by the bystander effect. Coworkers, subordinates, managers, and peers all working toward the same goal significantly lowers personal accountability and legitimizes all activity, even if it is immoral. That environment can easily activate the bystander effect when a moral deficiency comes to light. If a computer scientist is acting as an individual and is completely liable for any immoral decision, the accountability factor usually eliminates the bystander effect.
There is strong evidence of a technology leadership gap in the current workforce, which shows sign of increased widening. New institutions and training organizations need to emerge to close these gaps, but they seem to leave out the moral portion at every turn, arguably one of the most significant factors.
In conclusion, indeed computer scientists absolutely need to act morally, and more now than ever, in the void of comprehension, legal sophistication, and leadership, the computer scientists will be an ever increasing role in the moral character of all of society.
This raises interesting questions. In a work environment, do programmers really have/take the time to “imagine the implications of their programming?” In the work environment is it possible for a programmer to raise questions of “morality” in the absence of laws that set boundaries? Are certain programs based on their content immoral? Or, is it that the only realistic boundaries are on specified immoral uses of a program? Does the fact that there may be an immoral use of a program mean the program should not be developed for a beneficial purpose, and if you only outlaw the immoral use, is it practical to think it will be enforced? When a program can identify and alter gene sequences that could lead to a cure for a disease, but could start a pandemic, as with certain recent bird flu research, should this work be pursued? Is it the programmers obligation to point out where reliable safeguards to protect the human species should be built in programs? Thanks for sharing the blog!
Wow, what excellent and thoughtful questions. I think I have some reasonable answers to a few of them, for example:
Absolutely yes! The programmer is likely in the good position to spot such deficiencies in the software, and there is a chance the problems are not intentionally malicious but are merely design flaws. Raising the flag and pointing them out would likely lead to a design change. If they are intentional and can lead to harm, it is the programmer’s responsibility as a human being to not only point it out but work against it’s implementation. Either way I assert the programmer is obligated to point out the lack of a safeguard.
I will build a Q&A page and add to it your excellent questions and then do my best to answer them thoroughly. – Thank you.
As promised, more detailed answered on the Q&A page! Thank you for the though provoking questions.
Whose standard of ethics for computer scientists…the same that has been acceptable….or how could technology facilitate the infrastructure of something more viable, alive, and applicable?
The ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) has a good start on a generalized standards. The second part of your comment is very interesting, perhaps if there is a sophisticated way to build into software development tools routines that could help identify morally vulnerable components of software. Too bad IBM’s Watson wasn’t working on technology ethics and implementation instead of embarrassing human beings on Jeopardy.
I agree that computer scientists should act morally. I would like to see more computer scientists get involved in ethics. To do that, however, takes a standardization or a group consensus that is, in my opinion, unlikely to happen.
Probably overly optimistic, but perhaps something like this project could evolve into the missing standard. Thank you for your sincere perspective.
My own personal two cents
The more I discuss the topic, the more like minded people I find. Hopefully we can bring ethics into the current broader social narrative.