Benjamin Krueger <[email protected]> writes:
> Already, I've heard the argument that there is nothing for us to do. If we
> don't
> build these systems, we will be fired and somebody else will. I think that is
> effectively a punt on an important ethical question and we can do better than
> that.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with your assertion. It's not a punt, it's
reality. IMO, the question is more about what people in our profession are
willing to go along with, what are our personal ethical "bright lines", and
what criteria guide us. And I assert there are three choices, not just "go
along" or "quit or be fired". The third choice is Push Back.
My basic guiding framework is:
1. Is it illegal? Bright line: Don't do it.
2. Is it legal, but immoral? Very gray area demanding case by case look. What
value of ${immoral} can I live with?
3. Is it stupid? Do it, but fiduciary duty requires one time informing
Supervisor that it's ..... suboptimal (a much better conversational word than
"stupid"). Yes, I can do Stupid.
Do you hate the military or tobacco companies or publicly subsidized religious
institutions or <name your questionable activity>? Unless you are growing tofu
in the mountains, self sufficient and off the grid, then you are likely one of
the majority who pays your taxes and is part of the system.
When I was getting near my college graduation and looking for my first real
job, I had two bright line criteria:
1. No work north of Chicago (I grew up near Chicago, and didn't want to freeze
more than that)
2. No lending my hand directly to weapons work. I know there is a role for a
cop or an infantryman. I just don't have to the one.
I got a job working on ground radar software. The primary mission was detecting
the presence of "bad guys". I could live with that.
Fast forward 12 years, and I'm on a large Air Defense project. My first ethical
decision point arrives, with significant real world implications for me.There
is an extreme dearth of work, both in my work and in my field, and the project
needs more people in the Weapons and Targeting component. I've arrived at the
"Rubber meets the road" point in my ethical framework. Do I move my bright
line, Push Back, or quit. So, I rehearse my "conscientious objector" speech, as
in, "Boss, I have this value system and I'll be happy to free up other labor
for you, but I can't work on weapons directly", an then I headed to my boss'
office. It wound up that I was fortunate enough to not have to choose between
my existing income stream and my bright line, but at least I prepared for the
possibility.
I've had other ethical decision points, e.g.,
1. A tech director insisted "process" was so foolproof that they would
recompile/rebuild an entire Air Traffic Control system after testing, and they
would ship the rebuilt output - not the binaries that were actually tested.
2. Means justify the end : A coworker admits to me they exaggerated findings to
secure project funding - "I know the data is faulty but it's important to get
this project funded"
I can go on, but I may be boring people. Everyone has their own examples, and
they have to choose which ones are worth a fight, worth a Push Back, or are a
deal breaker.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
