Activity 1: Ethical Decision-Making

Ethical Decision-Making in Computer Engineering

Objective: Apply ethical theories and professional codes of ethics to real-life case studies and dilemmas in computer engineering, developing critical thinking skills for navigating complex moral challenges in technology development and deployment.

Foundational Ethical Frameworks

Understanding ethical decision-making requires familiarity with key philosophical frameworks that guide moral reasoning in computer engineering:

1. Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)

Consequentialism evaluates the morality of actions based on their outcomes. The most well-known form is utilitarianism, which advocates for actions that produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In computer engineering, this framework encourages developers to consider the broader societal impact of their technologies.

Application in Computing: When developing an algorithm, a consequentialist approach would prioritize maximizing benefits (improved efficiency, accessibility, user satisfaction) while minimizing harms (privacy violations, bias, security risks).

Strengths: Practical focus on outcomes, emphasis on societal welfare, quantifiable decision-making criteria.

Limitations: Difficulty predicting all consequences, potential to justify harmful actions if benefits outweigh costs, challenges in measuring and comparing different types of outcomes.

2. Deontological Ethics (Duty-Based Ethics)

Deontological ethics, most notably associated with philosopher Immanuel Kant, focuses on adherence to moral duties and rules regardless of consequences. Actions are evaluated based on whether they conform to moral principles such as honesty, respect for autonomy, and fairness.

Application in Computing: A deontological approach emphasizes respecting user privacy as an inherent right, maintaining transparency in algorithmic decision-making, and adhering to professional codes of conduct even when violations might yield beneficial outcomes.

Strengths: Clear moral boundaries, protection of individual rights, consistency in ethical application, alignment with professional codes.

Limitations: Potential conflicts between competing duties, rigidity in complex situations, limited consideration of practical outcomes.

3. Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics emphasizes character development and the cultivation of moral virtues such as honesty, courage, compassion, and integrity. Rather than focusing on rules or consequences, this framework asks: “What would a virtuous person do in this situation?”

Application in Computing: Virtue ethics encourages computer engineers to develop professional character traits including technical excellence, intellectual humility, responsibility, and commitment to public welfare. It emphasizes ongoing moral development rather than merely following rules.

Strengths: Focus on professional character development, flexibility in application, emphasis on moral motivation and intention.

Limitations: Subjectivity in defining virtues, lack of clear decision-making procedures, cultural variations in virtue conception.

Professional Codes of Ethics

IEEE Code of Ethics

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Code of Ethics provides fundamental principles for electrical and computer engineers. The code commits members to:

1. Accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment.
2. Avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist.
3. Be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data.
4. Reject bribery in all its forms.
5. Improve understanding by individuals and society of the capabilities and societal implications of conventional and emerging technologies, including intelligent systems.
6. Maintain and improve technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations.
7. Seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others.
8. Treat fairly all persons and to not engage in acts of discrimination based on race, religion, gender, disability, age, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
9. Avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action.
10. Assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics.

ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct

The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct provides comprehensive ethical guidance for computing professionals. Key principles include:

General Ethical Principles:

• Contribute to society and to human well-being, acknowledging that all people are stakeholders in computing
• Avoid harm
• Be honest and trustworthy
• Be fair and take action not to discriminate
• Respect the work required to produce new ideas, inventions, creative works, and computing artifacts
• Respect privacy
• Honor confidentiality

Professional Responsibilities:

• Strive to achieve high quality in both the processes and products of professional work
• Maintain high standards of professional competence, conduct, and ethical practice
• Know and respect existing rules pertaining to professional work
• Accept and provide appropriate professional review
• Give comprehensive and thorough evaluations of computer systems and their impacts, including analysis of possible risks
• Perform work only in areas of competence
• Foster public awareness and understanding of computing, related technologies, and their consequences
• Access computing and communication resources only when authorized or when compelled by the public good
• Design and implement systems that are robustly and usably secure

Ethical Dilemmas Framework

Ethical dilemmas in computer engineering arise when professional obligations conflict, when the right course of action is unclear, or when multiple stakeholders have competing interests. The following table presents common dilemma categories:

Dilemma Category	Description	Common Scenarios
Privacy vs. Security	Balancing individual privacy rights with collective security needs	Encryption backdoors, surveillance systems, data collection
Innovation vs. Safety	Managing risks associated with emerging technologies	AI deployment, autonomous systems, beta releases
Transparency vs. Proprietary Interests	Disclosure obligations versus business confidentiality	Algorithm transparency, vulnerability disclosure, open source
Professional Loyalty vs. Public Interest	Employer obligations versus broader societal responsibilities	Whistleblowing, product safety concerns, environmental impact
Accessibility vs. Economic Viability	Universal design principles versus resource constraints	Digital divide, inclusive design, affordable technology
Automation vs. Employment	Technological efficiency versus workforce displacement	AI automation, job displacement, skill obsolescence

Comprehensive Case Studies

Case Study 1: The Security Vulnerability Dilemma

Scenario: Sarah, a software engineer at a major financial technology company, discovers a critical security vulnerability in the company’s mobile banking application during routine code review. The vulnerability could potentially allow unauthorized access to customer accounts. When she reports this to her immediate supervisor, she is told that fixing the vulnerability would require delaying the upcoming product launch by several weeks, potentially costing the company millions in lost revenue and competitive advantage. Management pressures her to keep the issue confidential and suggests implementing a “temporary patch” that would mask the vulnerability without fully resolving it. They argue that no breaches have occurred yet, and the probability of exploitation is low.

Stakeholder Analysis:

• Customers: Have a right to secure banking services and protection of personal financial data
• Company: Faces financial losses, reputational damage, and competitive disadvantage from delays
• Sarah: Professional reputation, employment security, ethical obligations
• Regulatory Bodies: Expect compliance with security standards and breach disclosure requirements
• Public: General trust in financial technology systems

Ethical Analysis:

Consequentialist Perspective: A consequentialist analysis would weigh the potential harms of a security breach (financial losses to customers, privacy violations, erosion of trust) against the harms of delaying the product launch (company financial losses, competitive disadvantage). The severity and probability of customer harm from a breach likely outweigh business losses from delay, suggesting that proper remediation should be prioritized.

Deontological Perspective: From a deontological standpoint, Sarah has a professional duty to prioritize public safety and security. The IEEE Code of Ethics explicitly requires accepting responsibility for public safety and disclosing factors that might endanger the public. The ACM Code emphasizes avoiding harm and maintaining system security. These duties are not contingent on business outcomes and should guide action regardless of consequences.

Virtue Ethics Perspective: A virtuous engineer would demonstrate integrity, courage, and professional responsibility by insisting on proper remediation despite pressure. This situation tests Sarah’s moral character and commitment to professional values over personal convenience or corporate pressure.

Professional Code Application:

• IEEE Code (Principle 1): Requires accepting responsibility for public safety and disclosing promptly factors that might endanger the public
• ACM Code (General Principle 2.5): Emphasizes comprehensive risk analysis and system security
• ACM Code (General Principle 1.2): Requires avoiding harm to others

Recommended Actions:

1. Document the vulnerability and all communications regarding it
2. Escalate the issue to senior management with a detailed risk assessment
3. Propose a comprehensive security remediation plan with timeline
4. If management refuses to act appropriately, consider whistleblowing to regulatory authorities
5. Consult with professional organizations or legal counsel for guidance

Case Study 2: Facial Recognition and Mass Surveillance

Scenario: A team of computer vision engineers is developing a state-of-the-art facial recognition system for their company. Initially marketed for security applications and consumer convenience (unlocking phones, photo organization), the system has attracted interest from government agencies seeking to deploy it for mass surveillance purposes. The technology could be used to track individuals’ movements in public spaces, identify protesters at demonstrations, or monitor minority populations. While the contract would be highly lucrative and advance the company’s technological reputation, team members have concerns about potential misuse, privacy implications, and disproportionate impact on marginalized communities. The system has also shown higher error rates for individuals with darker skin tones, raising equity concerns.

Stakeholder Analysis:

• General Public: Privacy rights, freedom of movement and assembly, protection from discrimination
• Marginalized Communities: Disproportionate surveillance impact, algorithmic bias effects
• Government Agencies: Public safety, law enforcement efficiency, security interests
• Company: Financial benefits, technological advancement, market position
• Development Team: Professional values, career implications, moral responsibility

Ethical Analysis:

Consequentialist Perspective: This framework requires careful analysis of both intended and potential unintended consequences. While surveillance systems might prevent some crimes, they could also enable authoritarian control, chill free expression, disproportionately harm vulnerable populations, and normalize invasive monitoring. The algorithmic bias presents additional harms through misidentification and discriminatory impacts. A thorough consequentialist analysis would likely conclude that the potential societal harms outweigh the benefits, particularly given the documented bias issues.

Deontological Perspective: Key duties include respecting individual privacy rights, avoiding discrimination, and refusing to participate in technologies that could violate human rights. The ACM Code’s emphasis on fairness and non-discrimination, combined with respect for privacy, suggests that developing biased surveillance technology violates fundamental professional obligations. Engineers have a duty to refuse work that conflicts with these principles.

Virtue Ethics Perspective: This situation challenges engineers to demonstrate moral courage, integrity, and social responsibility. A virtuous engineer would prioritize human dignity and social justice over financial incentives, recognize their complicity in enabling potential harms, and take principled stands against technologies that could facilitate oppression.

Professional Code Application:

• IEEE Code (Principle 1): Responsibility for public welfare extends to considering surveillance impacts on society
• IEEE Code (Principle 8): Obligation to treat all persons fairly and avoid discrimination applies to algorithmic systems
• ACM Code (Principle 1.4): Explicit requirement to be fair and take action not to discriminate
• ACM Code (Principle 1.6): Requirement to respect privacy
• ACM Code (Principle 2.5): Comprehensive evaluation of system impacts, including risks

Recommended Actions:

1. Conduct comprehensive bias audit and impact assessment before any deployment
2. Establish strict use case limitations and contractual safeguards against misuse
3. Implement transparency measures regarding system capabilities and limitations
4. Refuse deployment for mass surveillance purposes
5. Advocate for company policies governing responsible AI development
6. Consider collective action with other team members to voice concerns
7. Explore alternative projects aligned with professional values

Case Study 3: Autonomous Weapons Development

Scenario: Dr. Chen, an accomplished AI researcher specializing in machine learning and autonomous systems, receives a prestigious job offer from a defense contractor developing autonomous weapons systems. The position offers triple her current academic salary, access to cutting-edge technology and computational resources, and opportunities to work with leading researchers in AI. However, the primary application of her work would be developing systems capable of selecting and engaging targets without human intervention—so-called “lethal autonomous weapons systems” (LAWS). While the company emphasizes defensive applications and compliance with international law, Dr. Chen is troubled by the potential for autonomous systems to make life-and-death decisions, concerns about accountability for mistakes, and the possibility of an AI arms race that could destabilize international security.

Stakeholder Analysis:

• Military Personnel: Potential reduction in combat casualties, enhanced operational capabilities
• Civilian Populations: Risks from misidentification, system failures, lowered thresholds for armed conflict
• International Community: Arms race concerns, international law implications, global security stability
• Future Generations: Long-term implications of normalizing autonomous lethal systems
• Dr. Chen: Professional advancement, ethical integrity, research impact

Ethical Analysis:

Consequentialist Perspective: The consequences of autonomous weapons systems are profound and contested. Potential benefits include reduced military casualties and more precise targeting. However, potential harms include civilian casualties from system failures, accountability gaps when systems make errors, lowered barriers to armed conflict, acceleration of arms races, and fundamental challenges to human dignity in life-and-death decisions. The difficulty in predicting long-term consequences and the magnitude of potential harms suggest extreme caution.

Deontological Perspective: Key moral principles at stake include the inherent dignity of human life, the requirement for human responsibility in lethal decisions, and duties to avoid creating systems that could violate international humanitarian law. Many ethicists argue that delegating life-and-death decisions to machines violates fundamental duties to respect human dignity and maintain meaningful human control over the use of force.

Virtue Ethics Perspective: This decision tests Dr. Chen’s character, particularly virtues of practical wisdom, courage, and commitment to human welfare. A virtuous researcher would consider whether this work aligns with the proper ends of scientific inquiry and technological development, whether it contributes to human flourishing, and whether it represents the kind of legacy she wishes to create through her professional work.

Professional Code Application:

• IEEE Code (Principle 1): Responsibility for public safety and welfare extends to considering the societal implications of autonomous weapons
• ACM Code (Principle 1.1): Contributing to society and human well-being requires critically examining whether autonomous weapons serve these ends
• ACM Code (Principle 1.2): The imperative to avoid harm applies to both direct and indirect harms from autonomous systems
• ACM Code (Principle 2.5): Obligation to give comprehensive evaluations of system impacts and risks

Additional Considerations:

In 2015, thousands of AI and robotics researchers signed an open letter calling for a ban on autonomous weapons, arguing that they pose serious risks to international security and humanitarian law. The letter emphasizes that “AI has great potential to benefit humanity in many ways, and that the goal of the field should be to do so. Starting a military AI arms race is a bad idea.”

Recommended Reflection Questions:

1. Would working on autonomous weapons align with your professional values and desired legacy?
2. Can you ensure meaningful human control over lethal decisions?
3. What alternative research directions might allow you to advance AI while serving human welfare?
4. What responsibility do you bear for how your work might be used or misused?
5. How would you explain your decision to future students and colleagues?

Additional Ethical Dilemmas for Analysis

Dilemma 4: Algorithmic Bias in Hiring Systems

Your company’s AI-powered hiring system has shown impressive efficiency gains, processing thousands of applications quickly. However, internal analysis reveals that the system systematically rates female candidates lower for technical positions, apparently because it was trained on historical hiring data reflecting past gender bias. Management argues that the system still outperforms human recruiters on average and that correcting the bias would be time-consuming and expensive. They suggest simply monitoring for extreme cases rather than rebuilding the system.

Key Questions:

• What responsibility do engineers have for addressing bias in systems trained on historical data?
• How do efficiency gains compare to fairness concerns?
• What does the ACM Code’s principle of non-discrimination require in this situation?
• How can you balance business pressures with professional obligations?

Dilemma 5: Dark Patterns and User Manipulation

As a UX engineer at a social media company, you’re asked to implement features designed to maximize user engagement time. These include making it difficult to find account deletion options, using psychological triggers to encourage compulsive checking, and defaulting to maximum data sharing settings. While these features boost metrics that determine your team’s bonuses, you’re concerned they exploit psychological vulnerabilities and harm user autonomy.

Key Questions:

• What constitutes “harm” in the context of user experience design?
• Do engineers have obligations to protect users from their own companies?
• How does the ACM Code’s emphasis on honesty apply to interface design?
• What alternatives could you propose that align business goals with ethical design?

Dilemma 6: Environmental Impact of Cryptocurrency

You’re offered a senior engineering position at a cryptocurrency startup developing a new blockchain platform. The technology is innovative and could democratize finance, but the proof-of-work consensus mechanism requires massive computational power, consuming electricity equivalent to a small country and contributing significantly to carbon emissions. The company dismisses environmental concerns, arguing that the benefits of financial inclusion outweigh environmental costs and that energy consumption will become more sustainable over time.

Key Questions:

• How should engineers weigh technological innovation against environmental responsibility?
• What does the IEEE Code’s emphasis on public welfare imply about environmental impact?
• Can you advocate for more sustainable technical approaches while accepting the position?
• What responsibility do individual engineers bear for systemic environmental harms?

Dilemma 7: Data Breach Disclosure

You discover evidence that your company experienced a data breach six months ago that potentially exposed customer personal information, including email addresses, passwords, and payment information. Initial investigation suggests the breach was contained quickly, but you cannot be certain that all compromised data has been identified. Company lawyers argue that public disclosure would trigger costly lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny, and recommend quietly improving security without notifying affected customers unless legally required in specific jurisdictions.

Key Questions:

• What duty do engineers have to disclose security breaches to affected users?
• How do legal requirements interact with ethical obligations?
• What would each ethical framework suggest about disclosure timing and scope?
• How can you balance institutional loyalty with professional responsibility?

Dilemma 8: Accessibility vs. Budget Constraints

Your team is developing a new educational platform with tight budget and timeline constraints. Implementing comprehensive accessibility features (screen reader compatibility, keyboard navigation, color contrast options, captions for all videos) would require an additional 20% of development time and budget. Product managers argue that accessibility features would only benefit a small percentage of users and suggest launching with basic accessibility compliance, planning to enhance features in future versions if the product succeeds.

Key Questions:

• What ethical obligations exist regarding accessibility in educational technology?
• How does the IEEE Code’s anti-discrimination principle apply to feature prioritization?
• Can you propose phased accessibility implementation that balances competing concerns?
• What precedent does this decision set for future projects?

Structured Activity: Group Ethical Analysis

Activity Objectives:

• Apply ethical theories and professional codes to real-world scenarios
• Develop analytical skills for identifying ethical dimensions of technical decisions
• Practice articulating and defending ethical positions
• Recognize complexity and legitimate disagreement in ethical reasoning
• Build collaborative problem-solving capabilities

Activity Instructions

Step 1: Group Formation (5 minutes)

• Divide into small groups of 2-3 students
• Each group will be assigned one of the case studies or dilemmas presented above
• Designate roles: facilitator (guides discussion), recorder (takes notes), presenter (shares findings)

Step 2: Case Analysis (20 minutes)

Within your group, systematically analyze the assigned case study using the following framework:

1. Stakeholder Identification: Who is affected by this situation? What are their interests and concerns?
2. Ethical Framework Application:
   • Consequentialist Analysis: What are the potential outcomes of different courses of action? Which produces the best overall consequences?
   • Deontological Analysis: What duties and obligations are relevant? What do professional codes require?
   • Virtue Ethics Analysis: What would a person of good professional character do in this situation?
3. Professional Code Review:
   • Which specific provisions of the IEEE and ACM codes apply?
   • Do the codes provide clear guidance, or are there tensions between different principles?
4. Conflict Identification:
   • Are there conflicts between ethical frameworks?
   • Are there tensions between different professional obligations?
   • How might these conflicts be resolved or managed?
5. Recommendation Development:
   • What specific actions would you recommend?
   • What is your rationale based on ethical theories and professional codes?
   • What are potential objections to your recommendation, and how would you respond?

Step 3: Presentation Preparation (5 minutes)

• Prepare a 3-5 minute presentation summarizing your analysis
• Focus on your key reasoning and recommendations
• Anticipate questions and challenges from other groups

Step 4: Group Presentations (15-20 minutes)

• Each group presents their analysis and recommendations
• Other groups ask clarifying questions and offer alternative perspectives
• Instructor facilitates discussion of different approaches

Step 5: Class Discussion and Reflection (10-15 minutes)

Engage in whole-class discussion addressing:

• What common themes emerged across different cases?
• When did different ethical frameworks lead to different conclusions?
• What role do professional codes play in resolving ethical dilemmas?
• What practical challenges exist in implementing ethical recommendations?
• How can engineers develop the moral courage to act on ethical convictions?
• What institutional supports or changes would facilitate ethical engineering practice?

Practice Scenarios for Individual Reflection

Consider the following brief scenarios and practice applying ethical frameworks:

Scenario 1: Code Review Pressure

You’re asked to approve code that you haven’t had adequate time to review thoroughly. Your manager emphasizes the importance of meeting the deployment deadline. What ethical principles are at stake, and how should you respond?

Scenario 2: Resume Padding

A colleague asks you to be listed as a reference and suggests you exaggerate their contributions to a collaborative project you both worked on. How do professional codes of honesty and supporting colleagues interact in this situation?

Scenario 3: Open Source Contribution

You’ve developed a useful tool using company time and resources. You’d like to open-source it to benefit the broader community, but your company’s IP policy is ambiguous about ownership. What approach balances professional obligations with community contribution?

Scenario 4: Scope Creep

A client keeps requesting additional features beyond the original project scope without additional budget or timeline. Your manager wants to maintain the client relationship by accommodating requests, but this compromises code quality and team well-being. How do you navigate competing obligations?

Resources for Further Learning

Professional Codes:

• IEEE Code of Ethics: https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html
• ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct: https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics

Key Academic Resources:

• Gotterbarn, D., Miller, K., & Rogerson, S. (1997). “Software Engineering Code of Ethics.” Communications of the ACM, 40(11), 110-118.
• Johnson, D. G. (2009). Computer Ethics (4th ed.). Pearson.
• Vallor, S. (2016). Technology and the Virtues: A Philosophical Guide to a Future Worth Wanting. Oxford University Press.
• Floridi, L., & Taddeo, M. (2016). “What is Data Ethics?” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 374(2083).

Organizations and Initiatives:

• IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems
• Partnership on AI
• Algorithm Watch
• Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

Conclusion

Ethical decision-making in computer engineering is not a simple matter of applying rules to clear-cut situations. It requires cultivating moral sensitivity to recognize ethical dimensions of technical work, developing analytical skills to reason through complex dilemmas, building moral courage to act on ethical convictions despite pressures and costs, and committing to ongoing professional development as technologies and ethical challenges evolve. The case studies and frameworks presented here provide tools for this essential work, but ultimately, ethical engineering practice depends on individual and collective commitment to prioritizing human welfare, justice, and dignity in technological development.

As future computer engineers, you have significant power to shape how technology affects society. This power comes with profound responsibility. By engaging seriously with ethical frameworks, professional codes, and real-world dilemmas, you prepare yourselves to exercise that responsibility wisely and contribute to a technological future that genuinely serves human flourishing.

---

Professional Practice in Engineering

• Philosophical Frameworks and Cultural Issues – Broader context for ethical decisions
• Computer Engineering Career Guide – Professional development path
• Technopreneurship – Ethics in business and innovation
• The Core: Science and Inspiration – Ethics of scientific accuracy vs inspiration