251–260 of 544 posts
It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter. -Nathaniel Borenstein
Here, it's done.
Translation: we need to increase barriers of entry to working in this field by spreading the social cancer that is vocational licensing to software engineering.
How do you hire an architect to design your house? Pick a doctor? Pick a lawyer?
Depends where you live and how much local architects have been regulatory captured the housing market. Other than that, building a house is easy.
Those of us with professional Engineering titles already have to do a kind of engineering oath anyway. The problem is the lack of value of the word "engineering" in several countries, where everyone fells like calling themselves engineer after a six weeks bootcamp without suffering any issue with it.
Or the fact that "enginnering" has be co-opted and made de-facto illegal for all but the small minority who agree to pay the local mafia^Wengineering association. This is especially a problem in North America. In Europe, the problem is different as you can only declare yourself an "engineer" if you've been in the right university.
Anyway, I could be a P.Eng, but paying the yearly racket money... I'll pass.
Doctors no longer take the Hippocratic Oath (because it is incompatible with a lot of difficult situations doctors are placed in). But more to the point: Why are we trying to shift focus from the wrongs large multi-nationals do to individual software engineers? Plus what would the result be if this "oath" conflicts with a manager's instructions? Maybe we should start with Microsoft, Google, Comcast, Oracle, and simil…
> Why are we trying to shift focus from the wrongs large multi-nationals do to individual software engineers? Because software engineers are the ones doing the actual work. By imposing an ethical standard on the people doing the real work the multinational executives then either accept that limitation or knowingly accept risks from intentionally violating the spirit of that limitation.
SWE would need to first unionize to protect workers from being fired/deported for pushing back before anything like this is even considered. Or tackle the problem where it begins: with the organization.
> There are no common ethics codes to determine how lethal autonomous weapons and systems that are developed for the military should be used once they end up in the hands of civilians. It's interesting to me that this just presumes developing these autonomous weapons systems in the first place is ethical. I understand there is a difference of opinion on this ethical point, but it immediately frames the discussion pre…
> pretty far away from the Hippocratic oath's requirement to abstain from causing harm So does abortion and euthanasia, and probably plenty of other practices as well. Both of those are without doubt harm-causing practices, with their related points of controversy primarily revolving around whether the harm that is caused is worthwhile in the context of the alternative being a potentially greater harm. Putting aside…
I think the main motivator in almost all of those things is money.
The reason for wars is money, they just get justified by "the greater good".
Same for all the involved technologies.
I hate to be a debby downer but this is nothing but virtue signaling. How can we enforce this? Strong individual ethics without ability to do anything about it will simply make engineers feel helpless. And that’s just going to hurt happiness at the workplace.
Get into an industry, make a shitload of money, then add regulation and qualifications to make it harder for the next generation. A tale as old as time itself.
> There are no common ethics codes to determine how lethal autonomous weapons and systems that are developed for the military should be used once they end up in the hands of civilians. It's interesting to me that this just presumes developing these autonomous weapons systems in the first place is ethical. I understand there is a difference of opinion on this ethical point, but it immediately frames the discussion pre…
> pretty far away from the Hippocratic oath's requirement to abstain from causing harm So does abortion and euthanasia, and probably plenty of other practices as well. Both of those are without doubt harm-causing practices, with their related points of controversy primarily revolving around whether the harm that is caused is worthwhile in the context of the alternative being a potentially greater harm. Putting aside…
A less controversial example would be something like chemotherapy. In fact, a lot of treatments for terminal and chronic ailments are pretty harmful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ethics are subjective and always evolving. I think Engineering ethics is not to tell you what to build or not to build but rather to tech you what is the likely outcome if you decided to build x or not to build x. Based on that its up to you to decide whatever to do or not do it.
I'm not sure what your engineering experience is, but I'm pretty certain that >80% of engineers are not in a position to refuse to work and quit their job without a severe impact on their career. And the same goes for managers and directors, all the way up to the top. Fail to explore a new technology your competitor is already working on? You've just damaged your company and all your employees. The only way to deal w…