This seems utterly delusional regarding the state of software engineering. In fact, you could almost build a mapping of billion dollar companies who's entire business model actively works against each one of them.
I remember reading James Gliecks book genius about Richard Feynmann. The pages that always stuck were the post-bomb stance of oppenheimer vs teller. A lot of scientists viewed the morality as a question for philosophers or politicians,and it caused a lot of conflict
I think the current state of tech is similar, but devs should have morality. The idea of some ai scoring system deciding who lives and dies outside the geneva convention is wrong.
Also the end usage of the profits from some businesses is important. The whole techno fuedalism should be challenged
Developers that have taken a proper Engineering degree and taken the exam, instead of calling themselves engineer, also know, because ethics is part of the process.
Now if they follow up on that, or decided other matters are more relevant for them, it is another matter.
Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct for Portuguese Engineering Order,
Ethics will depend on the developer's needs at the time, and there is a big difference between ethics of the developer themselves and their employer's ethics.
They may take a less ethical job to put food on the table for their family.
They may take a less ethical job to build a financial buffer zone allowing them to take a more ethical one in the future.
They might not have the luxury of working a more ethical job - either picking the least worst option or perhaps only option due to reasons far beyond their control.
I consider myself extremely fortunate that - so far - I've always been able to avoid industries on my moral blacklist.
I don't, but I share concerns. When we see dark patterns, or work on surveillance software (like Facebook), or similar, I think: so many of these devs excuse it as just a job, supporting their family, while actively making the world worse.
So for ethics I'd suggest something that treats software as infrastructure that runs the world, not in an engineering sense but an ethical sense.
I don't yet know how to capture that in three to eight words like your examples.
Ethics are dumb. There's only actions and effects.
You can make a great ethical decision. Supply a poor country with free food indefinitely. The effect is destroyed farms and starvation the moment a minor conflict disrupts the aid distribution. The road to hell is paved with ethical decisions.
Don't work for stupid people (or even cooperate with them). As soon as somebody reveals themselves as stupid, quit, cut all ties. It's not worth it. Every benefit you can get from working for a stupid person will be offset and more by the loss that happens when their stupidity blows up in their face and you'll get caught in the blast radius.
You may have very different definition of what stupid means then I do. For me, for example if somebody does something immoral, or tries to cut corners when they shouldn't this looks incredibly stupid and is ground for termination. Very clever people can be incredibly stupid in their actions, and thus be stupid, by my definition.
It's not about me being smart. It's about being able to recognize stupidity.
I'm not saying you should avoid stupid people because they are worse than you. I'm sayin you should avoid them because stupid actions have surprising consequences and you don't want to be caught in that.
You see somebody thinking it's ok to keep passwords in clear text? To keep random people's data without very good reason? To screw their business partners? To romance their employees? To not repay their due debts as soon as it's possible? That person is stupid even if they have iq of 200.
https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics
1.1 Contribute to society and to human well-being, acknowledging that all people are stakeholders in computing.
1.2 Avoid harm.
1.3 Be honest and trustworthy.
1.4 Be fair and take action not to discriminate.
1.5 Respect the work required to produce new ideas, inventions, creative works, and computing artifacts.
1.6 Respect privacy.
1.7 Honor confidentiality.
2.1 Strive to achieve high quality in both the processes and products of professional work.
2.2 Maintain high standards of professional competence, conduct, and ethical practice.
2.3 Know and respect existing rules pertaining to professional work.
2.4 Accept and provide appropriate professional review.
2.5 Give comprehensive and thorough evaluations of computer systems and their impacts, including analysis of possible risks.
2.6 Perform work only in areas of competence.
2.7 Foster public awareness and understanding of computing, related technologies, and their consequences.
2.8 Access computing and communication resources only when authorized or when compelled by the public good.
2.9 Design and implement systems that are robustly and usably secure.
3.1 Ensure that the public good is the central concern during all professional computing work.
3.2 Articulate, encourage acceptance of, and evaluate fulfillment of social responsibilities by members of the organization or group.
3.3 Manage personnel and resources to enhance the quality of working life.
3.4 Articulate, apply, and support policies and processes that reflect the principles of the Code.
3.5 Create opportunities for members of the organization or group to grow as professionals.
3.6 Use care when modifying or retiring systems.
3.7 Recognize and take special care of systems that become integrated into the infrastructure of society.
4.1 Uphold, promote, and respect the principles of the Code.
4.2 Treat violations of the Code as inconsistent with membership in the ACM.
Of these, I wonder which one is violated the most. 2.6 gets my vote.
Besides the ACM code of ethics, the IEEE and IFIP also publish their own codes. There's quite a bit of commonality.
https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8
https://www.ifip.org/ifip-code-of-ethics/
This seems utterly delusional regarding the state of software engineering. In fact, you could almost build a mapping of billion dollar companies who's entire business model actively works against each one of them.
I remember reading James Gliecks book genius about Richard Feynmann. The pages that always stuck were the post-bomb stance of oppenheimer vs teller. A lot of scientists viewed the morality as a question for philosophers or politicians,and it caused a lot of conflict
I think the current state of tech is similar, but devs should have morality. The idea of some ai scoring system deciding who lives and dies outside the geneva convention is wrong.
Also the end usage of the profits from some businesses is important. The whole techno fuedalism should be challenged
Developers that have taken a proper Engineering degree and taken the exam, instead of calling themselves engineer, also know, because ethics is part of the process.
Now if they follow up on that, or decided other matters are more relevant for them, it is another matter.
Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct for Portuguese Engineering Order,
https://www.ordemdosengenheiros.pt/fotos/gca/blocks_items/co...
Similar document for Germany,
https://www.vdi.de/fileadmin/pages/mein_vdi/redakteure/publi...
Ethics will depend on the developer's needs at the time, and there is a big difference between ethics of the developer themselves and their employer's ethics.
They may take a less ethical job to put food on the table for their family.
They may take a less ethical job to build a financial buffer zone allowing them to take a more ethical one in the future.
They might not have the luxury of working a more ethical job - either picking the least worst option or perhaps only option due to reasons far beyond their control.
I consider myself extremely fortunate that - so far - I've always been able to avoid industries on my moral blacklist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9cdGXa-uyM
I don't, but I share concerns. When we see dark patterns, or work on surveillance software (like Facebook), or similar, I think: so many of these devs excuse it as just a job, supporting their family, while actively making the world worse.
So for ethics I'd suggest something that treats software as infrastructure that runs the world, not in an engineering sense but an ethical sense.
I don't yet know how to capture that in three to eight words like your examples.
My own ethics are don't work for defence / war / weapons, don't work for gambling, don't work for alchool, tobacco, and the like.
So you consider it unethical for people to be able to defend themselves?
Developers:Someone will eventually depend upon what you didn't think about.
Ethics are dumb. There's only actions and effects.
You can make a great ethical decision. Supply a poor country with free food indefinitely. The effect is destroyed farms and starvation the moment a minor conflict disrupts the aid distribution. The road to hell is paved with ethical decisions.
Let's start developing before we worry.
Be genuinely helpful
Information wants to be free.
- Developers: lift quality above the statistical noise floor of AI slop
More of a general rule I developed as a devloper.
Don't work for stupid people (or even cooperate with them). As soon as somebody reveals themselves as stupid, quit, cut all ties. It's not worth it. Every benefit you can get from working for a stupid person will be offset and more by the loss that happens when their stupidity blows up in their face and you'll get caught in the blast radius.
Intellectual arrogance seems to be a common failing of developers. You're not as smart as you think you are, nor are other people as stupid.
You may have very different definition of what stupid means then I do. For me, for example if somebody does something immoral, or tries to cut corners when they shouldn't this looks incredibly stupid and is ground for termination. Very clever people can be incredibly stupid in their actions, and thus be stupid, by my definition.
It's not about me being smart. It's about being able to recognize stupidity.
I'm not saying you should avoid stupid people because they are worse than you. I'm sayin you should avoid them because stupid actions have surprising consequences and you don't want to be caught in that.
You see somebody thinking it's ok to keep passwords in clear text? To keep random people's data without very good reason? To screw their business partners? To romance their employees? To not repay their due debts as soon as it's possible? That person is stupid even if they have iq of 200.