Professional Ethics Assignment Help
What is the purpose of professional code of ethics?
The professional ethics is one of the most important perspectives in identifying and analyzing the computer issues. The professional ethics applied to cyber ethics is a field concerned with moral issues impacting computer professionals that include software engineers, software quality analysts, software technical writers, and software managers and supervisors (Chadwick 1998). The ethical rules described in “professional ethics” such as honesty, fairness, among others that are applied to professionals and ordinary individuals is applicable in cyber ethics as well.
The features of professional practice as a basic requirement to define a profession, which can be summarized as “calling in which special knowledge and skill are used in…the service of mankind” (Firmage 1991). According to Greenwood & Hinings (1996), the professions are occupational fields distinguished and characterized by: i) systematic theory, (ii) authority, (iii) community sanction, (iv) ethical codes, and (v) a culture.
A computer professional can be defined as anyone employed in computer, information-technology, or information/communication field. According to Gotterbarn (1996), cyber/software professionals’ role includes the opportunities to: (a) do good or cause harm; (b) facilitate others to do good or cause harm; and (c) influence others to do good or cause harm. The opportunity for professionals to motivate other members of an entity require them to adhere professional code of ethics designed to prevent an organization (and its members) to be done with harm’s way, by following the functions of code : (a) inspiring; (b) guiding; (c) educating; and (d) disciplining the members.
The professional codes of Computer Societies as a part of Professional code of ethics include professional societies in computer professionals. The two largest of them are (a) The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM); (b) The Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers – Computer Society (IEEE-CS). The paper will also analyze Australian Computer Society (ACS) Code of Ethics.
However, the Professional and Cyber Ethics are not beyond criticism. According to Ladd (1995), the ethical codes represent “intellectual and moral” confusion on the grounds of (a) ethics being an “open-ended, reflective, and critical intellectual activity”; (b) confusion in the context of micro ethics vs. macro ethics; and (c) providing codes to disciplinary functions is more of legal binding than ethical rules.
However, despite the criticism, Code of Ethics is largely construed as aspiration in buttressing the organizational mission statement and realizing the organizational objective and vision.
The usage of computer programs today represents a complex system of collective effort by team of experts rather than individual programmers in large corporations and business houses. Notwithstanding the advantages that comes with involving diverse range of skills and expertise characterized by wide variety of functional areas including engineers, programmers, psychologists, sales team, graphic designers and writers, the threat emanating from the set up is the difficulty of identifying who is accountable in case the system malfunctions (Johnson & Nissenbaum 1995). The threat represents the underlying problem of working with “many hands” (Weizenbaum 1972). A classic example of the problem underpinning “many hands” can be illustrated with the case Therac-25 [built by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL)], a radiation treatment machine because of computer malfunction caused severe burns and injury that couldn’t be made accountable to any individual because of the obscurity involved in identifying the participation of ‘many hands’ (Leveson & Turner 1993). The computer control in Tharec-25 was overwhelming since it had been designed with computer controls along with safety of the system mechanized largely with software. The malfunction of the system was spotted with major software coding error and defective microswitch 11. Apart from the technical snags, the subpar testing and quality assurance and negligence on the hospital’s part were significant. However, because of the “many hands” involved in the messy web of interrelated causes and actions, the breaking down of the persons liable to be held accountable was not easy. The investigation into the case was forced to conclude that the incident was a mere accident and no one in particular could be made accountable or blamed for the mishap.
The functional process of Therac-25 involved designers, software and safety engineers, programmers, machinists and corporate executives. From the clinic, the physicians, physicists, machine technicians, and the administrators were involved. However, in the complex mesh of activities the only person who could be, at least be partially held accountable was the machine technicians who didn’t respond to the patient’s cry of agony when burnt. However, the machine technicians’ role in its malfunction was highly truncated and their faults were limited mainly with response functions to the mishap and not as a creator of it.
The fact that computer technology is increasingly characterized by “many hands”, the excuse of avoiding accountability on the grounds of obscured evidence against the perpetrators of harm points directly towards an easy conclusion of a case that no one is answerable.
The ethics is generally divided into deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics based on morality/duty of action and the consequences of action respectively. In the context of cyber ethics, there is often a conflict within organizations of whether to adopt Duty-Based (Deontological)/ Rights-Based Ethics or Consequentialist Ethics (Utilitarian). While the Duty-Based ethics attach a great deal of importance on morality of actions (independent of consequences) of whether they are right or wrong (Beauchamp 1991), the Consequence-based ethics is based on consequence of actions in relation to wellbeing of persons who can be affected directly or indirectly by the action (Scheffler 1988).
In delving the historical data, the traditional trend of decision making more often than not adopted consequentialist approach with a view of neglecting deontological perspective.
However, there is growing recognition concerning the value of moral aspects in decision making, especially in cases of tradeoffs.
Despite the two ethical orientations being mutually exclusive in a single setup, one usually pays attention to other in terms of moral correctness and anticipated outcomes. For instance, defining morality for deontological ethics might not be possible without considering the consequences of the action. If two moral considerations have different outcomes even the deontological consideration will be impacted by the outcomes. For example, an individual/organization engaged in tradeoffs might invite public outrage and harsh reaction against the violator (Tetlock et al., 2000).
The deontological theories are generally a contrast to consequentialism (Wardle 1983) in assuming people’s decision related to benefit functions unaffected by rules or factors external to outcomes. The last word in cosequentialist analysis is based on consequences. Although, there is nothing inherent precluding moral decision making, past works indicate that PVs (perceived values) are often shaped by deontological approach (Baron & Spranca 1997).
The attributes and requirements of Professionals of a given professional experience situations are marked with their decisions and actions that can have profound social impact as their responsibilities surpass those of ordinary individuals. These enhanced roles and responsibilities are the main differentiators of professionals as against the others. Gottenbarn (1996) echoes the differentiating factor of the professionals characterized by their roles and responsibilities that are instrumental in developing safety critical system (a computer system with a life-threatening impact).
