The ACMIEEE-CS task force on Software Engineering Ethics and Professional Practices develop

Two Approaches to Computer Ethics: The Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice

Donald Gotterbarn East Tennessee State University Johnson City, Tennessee 37614-0711

Some of the disagreements 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 Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice leads me to believe that if the differences between these ethical positions is made clear then some of the problems in reasoning about computer ethics will be reduced.

The ACM and the IEEE-Computer Society have recently adopted the Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice as the standard for the teaching and practice of software engineering. The ACM/IEEE-CS task force on Software Engineering Ethics and Professional Practices developed this code[ appendix 1] for a sub-specialization 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 of 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. This is reflected, for example, in different values placed on privacy. 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 and reflected in different values or obligations related to the roles of government and individuals in protecting data integrity. The lessons learned from developing of the Software Engineering Code of Ethics (www-cs.etsu.edu/seeri) and relating these approaches to ethics provide indications on how to improve the ethics education of computer professionals.

The observations in this paper were made during my tenure as chair of the task force developing this Code of Ethics. The generalizations in this paper, like all generalizations are subject to exceptions. With this cautionary word, I will now venture to blatantly categorize ethical approaches.

The development of the Code was an iterative process. The task force examined several existing codes of ethics from computing societies, engineering societies and other professions such as accounting. [1] We also considered the goals and functions of these codes and then, via e-mail, selected out various imperatives to be placed in the software engineering code. We also contributed new imperatives related to our knowledge of software engineering. There was immediately a discernable difference between North American and Northern European contributions and concerns. As we circulated early drafts to colleagues for comment, the colleagues' responses seemed to also reflect a difference their approach to ethics; one was a virtue based ethics and the other was a rights/obligations based ethics. The draft Code of Ethics that resulted reflected these two different approaches to ethics. The members of the task force did not mention these two schools of ethics, but their responses could easily be categorized as belonging to one or the other school of ethics. What is the difference between virtue ethics and right/obligation ethics? There have been two approaches to morality in the past based in the views of Aristotle and Kant, the former representing an ethics of virtue and the later representing an ethics of obligation/rights. Virtue ethics is based on the idea of virtue interpreted in terms of certain natural dispositions that people have towards human well-being as opposed to harm. An ethics of Obligation (Rights) denies that these natural dispositions , but instead emphasizes the importance of duty and obligation as these are normally expressed in rules of conduct discerned by the use of practical reason. The obligations-right view demands precise rules for particular behaviors. Adherence to these behaviors could be clearly measured. This is the Kantian moral law; moral principles were categorical and were true and independent of personal or local circumstance. For Aristotle, on the other hand, the purpose of moral rules was to promote individual moral virtues and the development of a good will or moral character. Put in more general terms, the rights/obligations ethicist starts with rules stating obligations about how one should behave and rights about how I am to be treated, while the virtue ethicist starts with the human character and its ethical dispositions. Virtue ethics does not lie in following a set of well defined rules but it lies in one's character; you have to see what is the right action and then choose to do it.