 |
A Rationale for the Proposed Revision of the Association for Computing Machinery’s Code of Professional Conduct
Ronald E. Anderson
- Why an Ethics Code?
- Background of the ACM Code of Professional Conduct
- An Approach to Revision of the Code
- Structure of the Code
- Remaining Issues
- Conclusion
- References
Professional groups are both technical and moral communities
because in order to be self-regulatory the members must set shared goals
and specify appropriate ways to achieve them (Camenisch, 1983; Frankel,
1989). In order to specify these appropriate standards it is necessary
to detail what types of behavior are ethically acceptable or not.
As the computing community has evolved, so have new ethical problems such
as intellectual property rights and the monitoring of electronic mail.
During the past few years there has been growing pressure to refine and
disseminate standards of ethical computing. The rise in computer-related
crime has generated new calls for computer ethics. Similarly the widening
impact of computing upon society has fostered new concerns for ethical
and social responsibility. Indeed the new ACM/IEEE-CS curriculum guidelines,
Computing Curricula 1991 contains an entire section on “social responsibility”
(Joint Curriculum Task Force, 1991).
Most societies of scientists and engineers have codes of ethics or professional
conduct despite philosophical and political arguments against them. The
philosophical critique is based on the inconsistency between an “autonomous
professional” and binding rules in the form of an ethical code. For
this reason Ladd (1980) calls ethical codes morally confusing. The political
complaint against codes of ethics is that they can become excuses for
avoiding personal or collective action (Chapman, 1990). For instance,
a company’s code of ethics may specify the rights of the company
to restrict an employee’s behavior, even if that constraint is unfair.
Far more compelling are the arguments in favor of codes of ethics for
professional societies. Frankel (1989) offered a long list of these arguments
for positive functions of a code. The three most important functions of
a code, he notes, identify different types of codes. Codes are either
primarily (1) aspirational, giving ideals to strive for, (2) educational,
intending to educate or socialize some constituency, or (3) regulatory,
hoping to sanction violations of the standards. Most codes are intended
to achieve all three aims to some degree, but a careful examination may
reveal a concentration upon one of these. The most recent codes of the
Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), the International
Federation for Information Processing (IFIP), and the American Society
for Information Science (ASIS) codes are good examples of aspirational
foci. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Code
of Ethics appears to be primarily educational, whereas the prose of the
current Institute for Certification of Computer Professionals (ICCP) and
the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) codes of professional conduct
suggest primarily regulatory purposes. (p73). With regard to the aspirational
emphasis, Frankel points out the importance of a code as “enabling
document,” that is, a guide to help the professional make more informed,
wise decisions. Within this framework, the code works toward the collective
good even though it may be a mere distillation of collective experience
and reflection.
An educationally oriented code emphasizes the needs for professional socialization.
The significance of this function is not only the training of new recruits
but the solidarity of the initiated. A code of ethics helps to reinforce
professional identify and allegiance, as well as commonly held group values
(Frankel, 1989).
One of the most important educational functions of a code can be its clarification
of why one should follow specific ethical imperatives. An ethical or professional
code of conduct may convey many “should nots,” but if it also
gives the moral rationale for each ethical admonition, it will be far
more effective. This educational function can be even greater if the code
offers help with setting priorities for moral and professional conduct.
The regulatory purpose of a code is accomplished to the degree that it
deters unethical behavior. It is sometimes assumed that this cannot be
fulfilled unless penalties are spelled out and a code enforcement operation
has been installed. However, the code may be effective simply by suggesting
an appropriate sanction for any given violation, and by requiring professionals
to report errant colleagues. In the latter case, each professional assumes
a responsibility for upholding the group’s integrity.
All codes of professional ethics help to offset the inevitable tension
between a profession and its public. A code becomes the profession’s
self-proclaimed values and defines its role in society. It holds
the profession accountable to the public, but without making unreasonable
demands. Thus it serves as a basis of both public evaluation and professional
accountability. This tends to yield a major payoff in terms of public
trust. Frankel argues that “to the extent that a code confers benefits
on clients, it will help persuade the public that professionals are deserving
of its confidence and respect, and of increased social and economic rewards.”
Another positive function of a code of ethics is its support of professionals
against unwarranted erosion of their stature and power. Martin and Martin
(1990) described how self-regulatory procedures can be withdrawn by the
government, and Frankel noted the power of a code for constraining overly
demanding claims from clients.
Lastly, a code can be extremely important for a professional group because
of the process it must go through to establish a code. Getting a large
number of people attentive to ethical concerns and then organizing discussions
around these issues, can yield surprisingly greater sensitization to issues
of ethics and the profession.
Go to: Background of the ACM Code of Professional Conduct
Home > Research Resources > Computing and Privacy > A Rationale for the Proposed Revision of the Association for Computing Machinery’s Code of Professional Conduct
HOME | IN
THE NEWS | RESEARCH RESOURCES
TEACHING
RESOURCES | STUDENT RESOURCES
LINKS
| THE GALLERY | STAFF
The Research Center on Computing & Society
at Southern Connecticut
State University
501 Crescent Street • New Haven, CT 06515
Director: (203) 392-6790 •
e-mail: webmaster@computerethics.org
© 2000 – 2007 – Research Center on Computing & Society