alt Hacker NewsI have noticed that in addition to this perspective there are scores of developers who espouse the idea that “we just create, what people do with our work isn’t our business.”
I understand the utilitarian qualities of the argument, but I submit that there’s a reason that capital-E-Engineering credentials typically require some kind of education in ethics-in-design.
Replies
I agree that we're responsible for what we create. I would also submit that corporate culture has been under intense selective pressure over the past 10 years to get good at creating compliance with ethically problematic software projects. I'm curious how many people left Google because they dropped the "don't be evil" motto.
There's lots of carrots (compensation, high quality desk jobs) and sticks (promotion structures, threat of offshoring). The really annoying and egregious aspects of corporate speak are easy targets for ire and take the heat, while the subtle euphemisms make the actual questionable projects easier to live with day to day.
capital E engineers have numerous other laws that protect their position.
Civil/mechanical/electrical have countless codes that must be followed with the force of law.
When we say we want engineering standards for software developers we are also asking for standards and codes to be applied to software and all that entails.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, just to consider the ramifications of this at all levels.
> but I submit that there’s a reason that capital-E-Engineering credentials typically require some kind of education in ethics-in-design.
Or said differently: there’s a reason why software engineering jobs pay so well; no mandatory ethics training required!