IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Winter 2014 - 45

hat's a profession without a
code of ethics?
Being a legitimate
profession almost
requires drafting a code and, at
least nominally, making members
follow it. Codes of ethics (henceforth "codes") exist for a number
of reasons - many of which can
vary widely from profession to profession - but above all they are a
form of codified self-regulation.
Jamal and Bowie [12], in their conceptual framework for creating a
meaningful code, classify three
provisions that professional codes
are meant to address:
1) "Provisions that address problems of moral hazard." There is
often an asymmetry of knowledge between professionals
and their clients. The asymmetry provides numerous opportunities for professionals to take
advantage of their client or the
general public by exploiting
their lack of expertise. Codes
can prohibit such actions.
2) "Provisions that provide norms
of professional courtesy." Professions might see a need to
place restrictions on the way
that members act towards each
other. In general, codes can
prohibit members from lying,
cheating, stealing, or acting
unfairly towards each other.
3) "Provisions that define the public interest." Here the code lays
out any obligations a professional has towards the public at
large. Now, what that means will
change amongst professions -
it can be ambiguous or precise,
and everywhere in between.
Different professions place
more weight on certain provisional
categories over others: some focus
on legal liability, loyalty to clients,
and the profession's reputation;
some try to ensure coordination
and civility among members; and
some direct attention towards

social responsibility and service.
Codes change over time, but they're
often obdurate documents. Of
course there might be incremental
revisions, additions, and deletions
to the code, but rarely does a profession's focus or purpose change.
Historically, for instance, "the
early ethics codes in professional
engineering - such as those formulated in 1912 by the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (later to
become the Institute of Electrical
and Electronic Engineers) and in
1914 by the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE) - defined
the primary duty of the engineer to
be of service as a 'faithful agent or
trustee' of an employing company"
[16]. Arguably, five out of six Fundamental Canons in the current code
for the National Society of Professional Engineer (NSPE) fall under
the provision of addressing moral
hazards and legal liability [21].
Many scholars argue that codes
are necessary for providing professions with a coherent mission. Bullock and Panicker [1] conducted a
comparative analysis of almost 45
codes across a wide range of scien-

[members], or even their selfless
devotion to their employer," from
harming everybody else [8].

Contra-Codes
While codes can be beneficial, I
argue that when we scratch below
the surface, there are many problems at their root. In terms of efficacy, codes can serve as a form of
ethical window dressing, rather
than effective rules for behavior.
But even more that, codes can
degrade the meaning behind being
a good person who acts ethically
for the right reasons.
I do not go so far to claim that,
"The Urmythos from which all
of the myths in the professional
mythology spring is that professions are oriented to the service of
humanity" [13]. There are obvious
connections we can draw between
modern professions and the guilds
of old. It's disingenuous, though, to
think that professions are deviously
self-interested - like the guilds that
were set up to protect monopolies
and secure economic and political
power - to the point where codes
are intentionally created as tools of

While codes can be beneficial,
when we scratch below the
surface, there are many problems
at their root.
tific and engineering associations
in order to determine both which
aspects remain constant, and which
themes are unique to certain fields.
They explain that, across the professions, codes are broadly constructed to serve "the function of
creating a common set of standards
that define norms of behavior for
professionals within a domain or
discipline, thus safeguarding both
the integrity as well as the reputation of the discipline." Other scholars believe that codes are necessary
for setting up constraints that prevent "the self-interest of individual

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

WINTER 2014

deceit. Instead, one problem with
codes resides in the fact that they
receive so little educational attention and professional support that
they become ineffective. In this
case, I will use engineering ethics
as an illustrative example - and,
admittedly, the focus will largely be
in a U.S. context - however, my
argument is not necessarily limited
to this specific profession.
Engineering education has only
recently begun to take seriously the
imperative of incorporating ethical
training into the standard curricula
for engineers. It is easy to chalk
|

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Winter 2014