Why should we care about ethics? Because all of us are affected by the ethics of everyone else in society. If others in the community pay no heed to the ethical implications of their actions, danger, theft, and fraud will abound. Only if ethics is widely studied and appreciated by professionals entering the computing field can we be confident that our rights will be respected.

We also need to study ethics for our own sake. Some unethical actions can have drastic consequences for our careers and reputations. In the Watergate crisis, the actions of a handful of operatives in the White House brought down the entire Nixon administration. More recently, another scandal resulted in impeachment of the President over his lying under oath about a sexual affair with a subordinate.

Over the history of computing, many people have died in accidents caused by poor software design or inadequate debugging. In 1992, the London Ambulance Service placed into operation a new computerized dispatching system without any organized backup procedure. When the system overloaded, the operator had no ability to dispatch calls manually. Some callers were put on hold for up to 30 minutes. One disabled woman was trapped in her chair by the body of her collapsed husband. She called every 30 minutes for two hours, and each time they told her that there was no record of her previous calls. By the time an ambulance finally arrived, her husband had died. Up to 20 people may have died in this fiasco. As a result, the chief executive of the ambulance service resigned.

Computer programs have enormous power. Decisions are made in millionths of a second. Things can be done that can't be accomplished without a computer. For example, a database can be compiled of the purchases of every credit-card holder in the country. Anyone browsing through the database could obtain a complete history of your purchasing habits. Moreover, your credit record might be stolen, and a thief could start applying for credit in your name. You could start receiving bills from lenders you never heard of, and your credit record could be sullied, making it impossible for you to buy a house or a car. The risks have mushroomed as databases have become more comprehensive and more interlinked.

When Microsoft released Windows 95, they included a "registration wizard" that would search a user's hard disk for dozens of software applications, and, with the user's consent, report the information back to Microsoft via a modem or network. This wizard could potentially be used to collect information for marketing, or to detect pirated software. Imagine the consternation of Microsoft's competitors, who found that Microsoft was collecting--for free--a large list of their customers. Microsoft, for their part, noted that no information would be collected without the user's consent, and that the requested information was needed to provide good support for users with different hardware and software configurations.

Where do our ethics come from? Each of us has our own ethical systems, which may not coincide exactly. For example, as a Christian, with Jesus as my Savior, I accept the teaching of the Bible as authoritative on moral and ethical matters. This provides me with a basis for making ethical decisions in all areas of life, including computing.

But, this is a public university. My ethical code would not allow me to show favoritism to people just because they accept the same moral and ethical traditions that I do. We come from many backgrounds, including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and some of us do not profess any religion. Fortunately, there is a common moral tradition--derived from philosophers going back to the time of Aristotle--that all of us, or most of us, in our society share ... principles such as the Golden Rule, the worth of the individual, and that honesty is the best policy.

Just because something is popular doesn't make it right. "Popular" is not the same as "ethical." Take the case of Kurt Waldheim. He was Secretary-General of the United Nations for 10 years, from 1971 to 1981. Later, when he ran for President of Austria, it was revealed that during World War II, as a young man, he had played a role in sending Jewish prisoners to concentration camps. He was able to use the age-old excuse that "Everyone was doing it," but still, it was not right. After he was elected, other heads of state refused to meet with him. Whether it was right of other national leaders to boycott him is not important. What is important is that even a very eminent man was swept along with the prevailing tide. We all have to consider whether the prevailing trends in the society are moral. We make these decisions on the basis of certain ethical systems.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Some actions are both legal and ethical, for example, purchasing software with your own money and installing it on your home computer. Some things are legal but not ethical, for example, using pirated software in country with no software copyright laws. Some things are ethical though not legal, for example, copying software to use as a backup when prohibited by the license. Finally, some actions are neither ethical nor legal, for example, erasing someone's disk, either directly or with a virus.

All of us experience great a temptation to bend our moral system in times of crisis. Personal crises lead to temptations. In those circumstances, we are often blind to the full picture. Our own predicament takes on increased importance. It is easy to overlook how our actions will affect others.

We can't hope to make ethical decisions in the heat of the moment. You may have heard it said that "great moral decisions are not made in the back seat of a car late on Saturday night." Our best hope is to consider these issues in advance. We study ethics to--

• Sensitize us to the importance of ethical principles with respect to our work.
• Consider what those principles ought to be.
• Encourage us to build support systems that will help us remain true to our principles in times of crisis.
• Learn how to avoid situations that may bring such crises to us ...

For example, as an instructor, I try to prevent cheating in class, rather than having to impose penalties for cheating. Staying out of debt is a good way to prevent placing yourself in a compromising position for financial reasons. Be thinking ahead. Remember your operating systems course, when you studied the banker's algorithm. Locally optimal decisions -- doing the best thing for one individual right now -- may lead to globally disastrous consequences.

A good part of what an ethics course can do for you is to convince you that there are other people who do care ... to persuade someone who says, "Everybody is doing it," that some people are in fact not doing it. During this course, we will read articles pointing out ethical concerns that you may never have thought about. By learning what other people care about and why they care, you will be able to make forward-looking decisions in your career and avoid pitfalls that have led to crises for other professionals.

Ethical Theory

Now, let us take a quick overview of ethical theory. One theory that is quite widely held, especially by students, is ethical relativism: "What is right for you is not right for me," or, "I can decide what is wrong for me, but you have to decide for yourself." When we formulate this principle, it seems to make a negative claim: "There are no universal moral norms." One person could decide that it is wrong for her to steal in a particular circumstance, and another person could decide that it is right for him, and both people could be right. To support their claim, ethical relativists point out that cultures vary in what they accept. Infanticide was acceptable in some cultures, but unacceptable in many others. Even today, polygamy is acceptable in some cultures. They also point out that norms change over time. Slavery was recognized in the Bible without being condemned, and even as late as the last century, it was practiced in the United States. Now it is unthinkable in every civilized society.

It is hard to deny the validity of these observations. But, do the facts support the claim that there are no universal moral rights or wrongs? Philosophers generally say "no." The fact that there is diversity of opinion does not prove that there is no universal moral code. People may just be failing to recognize that what they are doing is in fact wrong. Or, the disagreement might be over interpretation rather than principle. Moral imperatives such as, "always respect human beings" are general enough to be applicable in all cultures. However, the meaning of "respect" and even "human being" are subject to different interpretations by different groups at different times, as the arguments over such matters as slavery and abortion demonstrate. So the fact that different people have different views on the morality of various actions does not prove that morality is relative.

Indeed, if we look more carefully at moral relativism, it may be self-contradictory, at least in some formulations. If we say that people should behave according to the rules of their society, whatever they are, are we really saying that all people should behave according to the norms of the society they live in? If so, isn't that a moral absolute? Put more succinctly, doesn't it mean that, "There are no moral absolutes except for the statement that there are no absolutes."

An alternative to moral relativism is the theory of utilitarianism. Put simply, utilitarianism says that we should seek "the greatest good for the greatest number" of people. Utilitarians conclude that happiness is the ultimate intrinsic good, because it is not desired for the sake of anything else. If you ask why people do things, and then ask why they want to do them, and so on, the series of questions always ends at happiness. For example, Why do you want to be a computer professional? To make money? To do interesting work? To be creative and autonomous? Why do you want to do these things, if not because they will make you happy?

Under this analysis, since happiness is the ultimate good, morality must be based on creating as much of this good as possible. To measure happiness, we must somehow be able to measure the benefits and harms produced by an action, and weigh them against each other. This usually requires setting up some kind of cost-benefit analysis, where we count up the opportunities and vulnerabilities of the various stakeholders, and choose the action that results in the largest margin of benefits over harms, or the smallest margin of harms over benefits.

Be careful not to confuse utilitarianism with egoism! Egoism says you should act to bring about the greatest amount of good for yourself. Utilitarianism does not say you should maximize your own good, but the good of the community as a whole. It may be right to sacrifice your own interests, if it will bring about an increase in overall happiness.

One critique leveled at utilitarianism is that it seems to justify imposing enormous burdens on others. Hypothetically, it might bring about greater overall happiness if someone who was "replaced by a computer" (as the saying goes) were required to donate all of his organs for transplants that could save many lives. Not so hypothetically, it might produce greater overall happiness if an innocent bystander who witnessed a felony by a leader of organized crime were required to testify in open court, resulting in imminent danger to his life. In response to these attacks, some utilitarians argue that extreme burdens such as this can never be justified because they would lead everyone in society to fear for their lives.

Let us now consider a third approach, deontological theories, or duty-based ethics. In this analysis, what makes an action right or wrong is the principle inherent in the action. If an action is done from a sense of duty, if the principle of the action can be universalized, then the action is right. For example, if I tell the truth because I recognize that I must respect the other person, then I act from duty, and my action is right. But if I tell the truth becaise I fear being caught, my action is not morally worthy. It must be possible to universalize a moral action, to apply it not only to all human beings, but to all rational beings, including God. Consider again the action of killing someone to transplant his organs. Even if more happiness results, it is wrong because intentional, premeditated killing is always wrong. (Some deontologists recognize an exception for self-defense, etc., but argue that then the killing is not exactly intentional.)

Deontological theory is based on what it means to be a person; this is connected to the idea of moral agency. Thus, deontological theory focuses on the action itself, not the consequences of the action. Deontologists say utilitarians go wrong when they say happiness is the ultimate good. If this is what humans were meant to achieve, they say, we would have been better off if we didn't have minds.

Humans are the only beings whose actions are determined by reason. The behavior of other beings is determined simply by the laws of nature. For example, plants turn toward the sun because of photosynthesis; they don't think about it and decide to because it will make them grow faster. Higher animals can be trained by Pavlovian conditioning, but we do not think of them as moral beings because they don't have the capacity to reason about their actions.

People who object to deontological theory say that it is rigid and un-pragmatic. Do we always have a duty to tell the truth? Suppose that, by lying to a killer, we can save the life of an innocent person? Deontologists respond that cases like these illustrate a conflict of universal laws: the law to tell the truth and the law to save lives. But then, how do we decide which law to follow? When we decide, how can we ignore the consequences? But if we consider the consequences, then we are deciding based on the consequences, rather than on the intrinsic good of the action ... which is exactly what deontological theory says we should not do.

During this course, we will frequently analyze cases based on utilitarian and deontological principles. It would be a good idea to read Chapter 2 of the Spinello text and keep it in mind when writing your comments. For now, let's turn to the first of these situations, the case of George and the Military Aircraft.

Analyzing this case, we see that George is faced with two decisions. He can either sign off on the plane, or delay its release. He can go public with his objections or keep them to himself. If he signs off, the public will get the aircraft and he will keep his job. If he delays, he will safeguard his self-esteem, the company may avert a disaster down the road, and the nation will receive a better airplane when it is finally released. If he chooses not to publicly object, he will have chosen the lower-stress alternative, and one that, at least in the short run, will help his company maintain their reputation. Publicly complaining, however, will provide society with better information to make a decision on the safety of the plane.

All of these choices have their costs too. If George signs off on the project, he may expose the test pilot to injury or loss of life. However, if he delays, the company will not meet the contract deadline, and will therefore lose the money they expected to make on the plane. Publicly complying will leave the pilot and the public ignorant of the risk the plane may pose, while publicly objecting will probably cost George his job and result in bad publicity for the company. You can probably think of additional costs and benefits that are not mentioned in our tables.

Considering all of the benefits and costs, there is one combination of decisions (to sign off or delay, to publicly comply or object), that clearly makes no sense. Can you identify what it is? And perhaps, if George had foresight, could he have avoided this situation altogether? Perhaps he should have raised his voice far earlier, when the cost of redesigning the plane was far less. If his case is good, he should have been able to make some headway. Is he just working just on gut feelings without facts? If he doesn't have a case as a software engineer, he doesn't have a case as an ethicist.