of conduct? Attempts to apply the client’s domain’s code of ethics may require an immersion in a culture and practice that is impracticable for the software engineering.

However, both software engineers and their clients develop characteristic virtues through practice that influence and inform their decision making when faced with ethical choices. Fundamental virtues such as patience, kindness, compassion, and empathy are common to all areas of human practice. That is not to say that new virtues, relevant to the client’s practice, will not be recognized and applied as we learn about the client.

So the development of our own moral characteristics through the learning and practice of virtues will grow closer connections with the client and their activity. And combined with a knowledge of the ethical difficulties encountered by the client will help us to sympathize with the client and at the least avoid writing crass moral assumptions into our software that are culturally foreign and morally jarring.

the Way Forward

So how are we to do this? The danger is we replace a catalogue of rules with a catalogue of virtues. An understanding of the idea of virtues, the importance of character and the relation to actions is important. Studying the virtue of courage will help us identify when courage is needed, when we need to overcome fear and selfish concerns to stand up for a client, to point out an ethical malfunction, or to whistle-blow. It will also enable us to understand the boundaries, to tell the difference between considered courage and rash foolishness. A skills-based approach such as that advocated by Huff et al. 2, 3 is helpful, but we do not want to descend into debates about hierarchies of virtues or taxonomic exercises. We must look inward, outward, and all around.

Inward reflection on who we are, what our drives us, what we consider important, will help us become aware of the social and ethical assumptions we make and take for granted. What we consider good and bad behavior will affect how we respond to social situations and ethical dilemmas.

Outward engagement with the

We must understand
the nature of the
domains we engage
with and the facts
concerning the
ethical problems
associated with them.

world in which the software acts will help the software engineer develop empathy and a feeling for the ethical climate in which the software runs. Familiarity with the technical issues associated with the field of application is extended to the ethical issues. Outward engagement will involve searching for examples of good practice, involvement with mentors and others who model virtues, and creating narratives about the service we engage in and the purposeful activity we support.

All-around vision will involve learning to connect with issues that matter to people. The software engineer who spends all his time buried in Python manuals and playing Call of Duty 4 is hardly likely to develop wisdom and ethical understanding. Software engineers should be encouraged to connect with the wider world. Reading the literature of the great religions, modern and ancient authors, engaging in political debate, reading about advances in science and global problems will help develop all-around vision.

A set of static rules should be replaced by a dynamic process. Starting by learning about the ethical problems and difficulties the client faces, we move on to consider what character traits, what virtues would be important in this domain. We can then look for examples and stories of expressions of those virtues in that domain or others. An emphasis on narratives will lead us to ask what would a virtuous person do?

We can then reflect on the implications for software engineering and improve the design of the product and the delivery of the service accordingly.

Such a process enables us to practice, learn from that practice, and grow in wisdom.

Conclusion

The software engineer who considers himself only a technician, who rejects social and ethical engagement, claiming “it’s a matter for lawyers and doctors” is a destructive force and a burden on the client. We should consider software engineering as a communicative art where engagement with the client is at its heart and an understanding of the tasks, goals, and moral concerns of the client leads to the development of software that is appropriate to the client’s needs.

But we cannot expect a written code to be the prime motivator of professional moral character any more than a written constitution guarantees good government. Indeed the written code of ethics may lead to complacency, ignorance, and the neglecting of moral reflection. Codes of ethics can provide a smokescreen for deserting personal responsibility.

Hence we must understand the nature of the domains we engage with and the facts concerning ethical problems associated with them. And we must develop virtues that will help us to use our understanding of the application domain in making ethical decisions. The nature of the domains we engage in will change, but the human characteristics we need such as empathy, patience, honesty, compassion will not change.

Rules can be learned and forgotten quickly, becoming a virtuous software engineer takes time and practice. Wisdom develops over a lifetime.

 

References

1. harris, C.e. the good engineer: giving virtue its due in engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (2008), 155–164.

2. huff, C. W., barnard, l., and frey, W. good computing: a pedagogically focused model of virtue in the practice of computing (part 1). Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society 6, 3 (2008), 246–278.

3. huff, C. W., barnard, l., and frey, W. good computing: a pedagogically focused model of virtue in the practice of computing (part 2). Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society 6, 4 (2008), 284–316.

 

neil McBride ( [e-mail]) is a reader in Information technology management in the Centre for Computing and social responsibility at De montfort university, leicester, u.k.