Consider asking projects & companies to exclusively hire pleged engineers

[danielquinn]

It seems to me that a pledge like this is the first step toward establishing a standard of ethics within our profession, but to move from "it's nice that some engineers think like this" to "this is how engineers should behave" you need to recognise a set of core values within the trade.

To my mind, the best way to accomplish this is to get Free software projects and companies to publicly state that they only work with engineers who adhere to an ethical standard. In the same way that our conferences are all starting to carry standard codes of conduct for attendance, perhaps it's time to call for a standard code of "do no harm" for the profession in general.

[skyzyx]

With respect, this is a huge 👎👎👎 from me, personally.

The first amendment to the US Constitution allows that people are free to be wrong-headed. That freedom is something that I believe very, very strongly in. It's one of our core civil rights as Americans. Although I strongly agree with what this project stands for, I vehemently disagree with the idea of leveraging social darwinism to remove dissent and non-conformity from the software industry.

If this idea is any good (and I believe that it is), it should be able to stand on its own feet. Relying on the crutch of having it pushed on people by their companies and organizations is not only a Bad Thing™, but also suggests that the idea isn’t strong enough on its own. We should be able to use persuasion to show the merits of this idea and have it be received positively instead of telling other people how they should think.

• Encouraging free will and free thought, +1.
• Leveraging social darwinism to weed-out non-conformity, -1.

[danielquinn]

I have the same reservations, but I think that given the awesome power we wield in society, we have to take some collective responsibility for our actions. Just as civil engineers have their own code of ethics and conduct, shouldn't we?

To be clear, I don't want to live in a world that prevents people from writing whatever software their heart desires, but I think it's reasonable that in order for people to be considered "professional" they should be practising their profession ethically.

We're writing software upon which society is dependent. Shouldn't we be holding each other responsible for our actions?

[ryanprior]

Attaching that kind of economic weight to it would injure the statement by giving people an incentive to sign on to get ahead instead in their career instead of signing on to get behind the marginalized people who are being threatened. Only people who are willing to put others before themselves can sign this statement in good faith. Of course we'd like to have people like that in our companies, but you can't get there just by pressuring people to sign on to a statement.

[danielquinn]

I think I understand the disconnect we're having here. While you're concerned with the political weight of the pledge, I'm more interested in the practical application of it in industry. I think both positions are valid, but given that the first reaction I hear from most people regarding the pledge is: "What's the point, there will always be someone to do the work", I think it's reasonable to want this sort of thing to extend beyond its current status of moral uprising.

The truth is that there will always be some unethical person willing to do this sort of work, so it's on us to make sure that it's not in their interests to do it.

[daveloyall]

I think @skyzyx has a point and I think that @ryanprior has a better one.

I support pushing companies to consider any position statements regarding ethics that professionals may have made. 'Cause that'll be a public conversation about software ethics. I'm for it.