Many problems in software development can be traced to a narrow understanding of professional responsibility. The author examines ways in which software developers have tried to avoid accepting responsibility for their work. After cataloguing various types of responsibility avoidance, the author introduces an expanded concept of positive responsibility. It is argued that the adoption of this sense of positive responsibility will reduce many problems in software development.
In this paper are identified several critical ethical issues that arise in most software projects. Proactive ways to address these issues are detailed. These approaches are consistent with most professional software development standards.
The positive qualities of the Internet--anonymity, openness, and reproducibility have added a new ethical dimension to the privacy debate. This paper describes a new and significant way in which privacy is violated. A type of personal information, called virtual information is described and the effectiveness of techniques to protect this type of information is examined. This examination includes a discussion of technical approaches and professional standards as ways to address this violation of virtual information.
The Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice, intended as a standard for teaching and practicing software engineering, documents the ethical and professional obligations of software engineers. The code should instruct practitioners about the standards society expects them to meet, about what their peers strive for, and about what to expect of one another. In addition, the code should also inform the public about the responsibilities that are important to the profession. Adopted in 2000 by the IEEE Computer Society (...) and the ACM--two leading international computing societies--the code of ethics is intended as a guide for members of the evolving software engineering profession. The code was developed by a multinational task force with additional input from other professionals from industry, government posts, military installations, and educational professions. (shrink)
In the third Meditation once having arrived at the conclusion that a perfect being exists, Descartes infers that this perfect being could not be a deceiver. I maintain that there is no valid way he can move from his conclusion that a perfect being exists to the conclusion that this being cannot be a deceiver. In order to see the difficulties with this inference it is necessary to examine the use of the idea of perfection in the argument for the (...) existence of the perfect being, but I will not otherwise concern myself with the validity of the argument for the existence of God. (shrink)
Purpose This short viewpoint is a response to a lead paper on professional ethics in the information age. This paper aims to draw upon the authors’ experience of professional bodies such as the ACM over many years. Points of agreement and disagreement are highlighted with the aim of promoting wider debate. Design/methodology/approach An analysis of the lead paper is undertaken using a binary agree/disagree approach. This highlights the conflicting views which can then be considered in more detail. Findings Four major (...) agreements and four major disagreements are identified. There is an emphasis on “acultural” professionalism to promote moral behavior rather than amoral behavior. Originality/value This is an original viewpoint which draws from the authors’ practical experience and expertise. (shrink)
In der Monadologie und in den Meditationes schreibt Leibniz, Descartes' ontologischer Gottesbeweis sei unvollständig. In diesem Aufsatz untersuche ich Leibniz' Bemühen um die Vervollständigung des Beweises. Sein Argument für die Prämisse „Der Gottesbegriff ist ein möglicher Begriff“ ist unverträglich mit einem anderen Stück seiner Metaphysik, und zwar mit seiner Annahme einer Art von Disparata. Leibniz behauptet, der Gottesbegriff sei ein möglicher, d. h. kein inkompatibler Begriff. Er vertritt die These, Gott bestehe aus einfachen Eigenschaften und diese könnten nicht inkompatibel sein, (...) weil einfache Eigenschaften nicht zerlegbar seien. Ich vertrete jedoch die These, daß Leibniz Unverträglichkeiten zwischen einfachen Eigenschaften zuläßt. Diese Art von Unverträglichkeit wird dann betrachtet in Beziehungen zu den Wegen, auf denen wir nach Leibniz Gottes Eigenschaften erkennen können. Es wird gezeigt, daß sein Bemühen, im ontologischen Gottesbeweis nachzuweisen, daß der GottesbegrifF ein möglicher Begriff sei, vergeblich ist. (shrink)