While it is very admirable that many Computer Science programs offer courses in ethics, ethics education for computer professionals is often either an ignored elective or a required course that focuses on avoiding legal liability. Collections of syllabi for computer ethics courses, such as those compiled by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) and on the internet, and a look at some of the more widely used texts, show this to be true. Even the better courses suffer from a dilemma most ethics courses of any type face: the buffet approach of offering students various ethical approaches to choose from. At the University of Great Falls in Montana we have not only made ethics an integral and required part of the computer science curriculum, but we have tried to go beyond a mere survey of ethical positions and legal dilemmas by focusing on the related concepts of responsibility, service, and citizenship. While legal liabilities are carefully covered it is the moral responsibility each of us has as a citizen that is emphasized.
But communicating the importance of moral behavior, and convincing students of many different generations, and of different religious and philosophical persuasions, that there are solid reasons for shared ethical standards, is a complicated task. While the University of Great Falls is a Catholic institution it is clear that a simple deontological "God says so" approach would be doomed to failure. It is unlikely that such a perspective would work on any audience except for the most carefully screened ideologically purified subset of students. Traditionally, computer ethics courses stress several different arguments for ethical behavior.
First, the many different possible ethical approaches are discussed, generally with an emphasis on the two main categories of ethical systems: absolute appeals to authority and more relativistic schemes including the utilitarian perspective. Absolute appeals to authorities, such as a particular church or guru, that result in an inviolate set of ethical rules are called deontological systems. Possible rules are "killing is always wrong", "my father is always right", "homosexuality sends one to hell", and so on. Deontological ethical systems are common, but there is also a wide range of more relativistic approaches including the very popular utilitarianism that argues for the policies that produce "the greatest good for the greatest number." The first step in teaching ethics is getting students to realize that they already have an implicit ethics they follow, and then showing them that they can enrich, or even change, their ethical thinking by considering other approaches.
If one looks at the most commonly used textbooks for teaching computer ethics, Rob Kling's edited collection of case studies (Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, 2nd edition, Academic Press, 1996) with his thoughtful, if turgid (my students always complain about his writing most of all), commentaries and Tom Forester and Perry Morrison's shorter text (Computer Ethics: Cautionary Tales and Ethical Dilemmas in Computing, 2nd edition, MIT Press, 1994) it is clear that there is a wealth of information available. But that is part of the problem. Many different ethical systems not only introduces fundamentally opposed conclusions often enough, but it leads some students to decide that ethical thinking is neither rigorous nor important.
The second generally utilized argument in computer ethics courses, a focus on professional responsibility, is less problematical since all the major professional computer groups give at least lip-service to the idea of professional standards. Computer students are generally receptive to hearing about professional standards, as they aspire to professionalism for many reasons, both base and profound.
Most professional computer associations (ACM, IEEE) promulgate (but do not enforce, as my students always cynically note) codes of ethics and acceptable professional practice and some, such as Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), are primarily dedicated to the idea that as professionals, computer technicians, scientists, and engineers should meet particular standards of behavior. Even the Federal Government's guidelines on sentencing for felonies mandates higher penalties for professionals who violate their public trust by using their skills in the commission of a crime and this definitely includes computer professionals.
However, the emphasis on professional standards alone leaves much to be desired. For non-computer majors, and for many computer majors as well, the attractions of computer professionalism are hardly compelling enough to inspire a major commitment to moral behavior. In my opinion, this is because these professional standards fail to articulate an underlying rationale that goes beyond a vague call for "responsibility". What is needed is a set of arguments that most students will find convincing. I think they exist in the related concepts of community (service) and citizenship. These are positive values, not the negative (do no evil) and submissive (obey the law, honor thy mother and father) arguments that most moral codes emphasize. Those codes that advocate some positive model of behavior are often based on authority ("to be saved...do this") or reflexive self-interest ("do on to others as you would have them do on to you") and are not about consciously choosing to positively shape a better world. Even CPSR, whose proactive practices often involve professional service and whose campaigns, such as for the democratic governance of the internet, often stress citizenship, doesn't really articulate the relationship between these ideas and the living experience of people directly.
But communicating the importance of moral behavior, and convincing students of many different generations, and of different religious and philosophical persuasions, that there are solid reasons for shared ethical standards, is a complicated task. While the University of Great Falls is a Catholic institution it is clear that a simple deontological "God says so" approach would be doomed to failure. It is unlikely that such a perspective would work on any audience except for the most carefully screened ideologically purified subset of students. Traditionally, computer ethics courses stress several different arguments for ethical behavior.
First, the many different possible ethical approaches are discussed, generally with an emphasis on the two main categories of ethical systems: absolute appeals to authority and more relativistic schemes including the utilitarian perspective. Absolute appeals to authorities, such as a particular church or guru, that result in an inviolate set of ethical rules are called deontological systems. Possible rules are "killing is always wrong", "my father is always right", "homosexuality sends one to hell", and so on. Deontological ethical systems are common, but there is also a wide range of more relativistic approaches including the very popular utilitarianism that argues for the policies that produce "the greatest good for the greatest number." The first step in teaching ethics is getting students to realize that they already have an implicit ethics they follow, and then showing them that they can enrich, or even change, their ethical thinking by considering other approaches.
If one looks at the most commonly used textbooks for teaching computer ethics, Rob Kling's edited collection of case studies (Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, 2nd edition, Academic Press, 1996) with his thoughtful, if turgid (my students always complain about his writing most of all), commentaries and Tom Forester and Perry Morrison's shorter text (Computer Ethics: Cautionary Tales and Ethical Dilemmas in Computing, 2nd edition, MIT Press, 1994) it is clear that there is a wealth of information available. But that is part of the problem. Many different ethical systems not only introduces fundamentally opposed conclusions often enough, but it leads some students to decide that ethical thinking is neither rigorous nor important.
The second generally utilized argument in computer ethics courses, a focus on professional responsibility, is less problematical since all the major professional computer groups give at least lip-service to the idea of professional standards. Computer students are generally receptive to hearing about professional standards, as they aspire to professionalism for many reasons, both base and profound.
Most professional computer associations (ACM, IEEE) promulgate (but do not enforce, as my students always cynically note) codes of ethics and acceptable professional practice and some, such as Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), are primarily dedicated to the idea that as professionals, computer technicians, scientists, and engineers should meet particular standards of behavior. Even the Federal Government's guidelines on sentencing for felonies mandates higher penalties for professionals who violate their public trust by using their skills in the commission of a crime and this definitely includes computer professionals.
However, the emphasis on professional standards alone leaves much to be desired. For non-computer majors, and for many computer majors as well, the attractions of computer professionalism are hardly compelling enough to inspire a major commitment to moral behavior. In my opinion, this is because these professional standards fail to articulate an underlying rationale that goes beyond a vague call for "responsibility". What is needed is a set of arguments that most students will find convincing. I think they exist in the related concepts of community (service) and citizenship. These are positive values, not the negative (do no evil) and submissive (obey the law, honor thy mother and father) arguments that most moral codes emphasize. Those codes that advocate some positive model of behavior are often based on authority ("to be saved...do this") or reflexive self-interest ("do on to others as you would have them do on to you") and are not about consciously choosing to positively shape a better world. Even CPSR, whose proactive practices often involve professional service and whose campaigns, such as for the democratic governance of the internet, often stress citizenship, doesn't really articulate the relationship between these ideas and the living experience of people directly.