Critical Approaches to using Professional Codes in Teaching Computer Ethics

Graeme Gooday

Codes of ethics are undeniably useful in introducing computing students to some basic concepts in computer ethics. But experience shows that a simple code-centred approach to teaching cannot by itself nurture the power of ethical judgement required in developing a sense of professional responsibility. The following problems arise:

  • Students treat professional codes as if they were a sort of ethical algorithm
  • They assume ethical problems can be solved simply by referring to codes
  • They do not learn the general moral principles underlying codes
  • They do not develop critical skills that are essential to ethical debate
  • They do not understand codes as the mere end product of ethical deliberation
  • They do not see how ethical codes are fallible and prone to improvement
  • They do not see a given code as limited in scope and potentially in conflict with another code of ethics.

A more effective way of using codes of ethics in teaching is critical and comparative, particularly in comparing the BCS and ACM codes. Useful lessons to be learned by students by guided case studies are as follows:

  • The BCS code has a 'deontological' focus on the obligation to prevent harm
  • The ACM code has a 'utilitarian' emphasis on enhancing end-user welfare
  • Problems arise for professionals trying to follow both BCS and ACM codes
  • Neither offers a complete guide to all possible situations
  • Codes of ethics are neither necessary nor sufficient for moral judgement

i) computing professionals can assess their duties without referring to a code

ii) reference to a code of ethics is never enough to solve a moral problem

Interpretive analytical skills are needed to apply a code to a practical situation.

The important point in teaching computer ethics is to help students develop their own 'professional' judgement by practice at using critical and analytical skills.

Codes of Ethics can be used in this approach so long as they are not taken as infallible gospel truth from professional computing bodies, but seen as the starting point for informed moral debate.


Created on: April 17th 2007

Updated on: February 25th 2009