David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4):505-522 (2007)
Among the various contemporary schools of moral thinking, consequence-based ethics, as opposed to rule-based, seems to have a good acceptance among professionals such as software engineers. But naïve consequentialism is intellectually too weak to serve as a practical guide in the profession. Besides, the complexity of software systems makes it very hard to know in advance the consequences that will derive from professional activities in the production of software. Therefore, following the spirit of well-known codes of ethics such as the ACM/IEEE’s, we advocate for a more solid position in the ethical education of software engineers, which we call ‘moderate deontologism’, that takes into account both rules and consequences to assess the goodness of actions, and at the same time pays an adequate consideration to the absolute values of human dignity. In order to educate responsible professionals, however, this position should be complemented with a pedagogical approach to virtue ethics.
|Keywords||Ethical responsibility Ethics of conviction Ethics of responsibility Deontologism Consequentialism Complexity of software systems Direct and foreseeable consequences Professional ethics Codes of ethics Engineering Ethics Education Computer/informatics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
G. E. M. Anscombe (1957/2000). Intention. Harvard University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Don Gotterbarn (1998). The Uniqueness of Software Errors and Their Impact on Global Policy. Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (3):351-356.
Donald Gotterbarn (2001). Informatics and Professional Responsibility. Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2):221-230.
S. Chopra & S. Dexter (2011). Free Software and the Economics of Information Justice. Ethics and Information Technology 13 (3):173-184.
Norman G. Vinson & Janice A. Singer (2008). A Practical Guide to Ethical Research Involving Humans. In Cogprints.
Matthew K. McGowan, Paul Stephens & Dexter Gruber (2007). An Exploration of the Ideologies of Software Intellectual Property: The Impact on Ethical Decision Making. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 73 (4):409 - 424.
Derrick Mandy Northover, Andrew Boake G. Kourie & Alan Northover Stefan Gruner (2008). Towards a Philosophy of Software Development: 40 Years After the Birth of Software Engineering. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 39 (1).
Mandy Northover, Derrick G. Kourie, Andrew Boake, Stefan Gruner & Alan Northover (2008). Towards a Philosophy of Software Development: 40 Years After the Birth of Software Engineering. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science 39 (1):85 - 113.
Ari Takanen, Petri Vuorijärvi, Marko Laakso & Juha Röning (2004). Agents of Responsibility in Software Vulnerability Processes. Ethics and Information Technology 6 (2):93-110.
Janice A. Singer & Norman G. Vinson (forthcoming). Ethical Issues in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering. Philosophical Explorations.
Don Gotterbarn (1999). Not All Codes Are Created Equal: The Software Engineering Code of Ethics, a Success Story. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 22 (1):81 - 89.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #304,442 of 1,100,138 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?