In my security course, I have students look at and contrast the ACM and IEEE codes of ethics.
To be honest the ACM code is long winded, hard to follow, and (in my opinion) almost impossible to follow. It does not surprise me that it did not influence the people. What would surprise me is if they read the whole thing. The IEEE code is brief and less legalistic in tone. On 2/4/19 2:20 PM, Aaron Massey wrote: > Re: seeking empirical evidence about ethics instruction > > A recent publication at FSE attempted to evaluate the impact of the new > ACM code of ethics on decision-making and found no evidence of an effect > according to their methodology. You can read the paper here: > > https://people.engr.ncsu.edu/ermurph3/papers/fse18nier.pdf > > It’s worth asking whether this is the sort of structure a study of this > nature should have. For example, this study doesn’t really address many > (or any?) of the points Charles made earlier. > > Best, Aaron > > > On Mon 04 Feb 2019 07:40 AM, Charles M. Ess wrote: >> And thanks on both fronts! >> >> My acknowledging that it was a critical, spot-on point was not >> gratuitous or merely courteous: behind it is a larger point - one that >> we don't always point out to our undergraduate students. But >> Aristotle warned at the outset of his Nichomachean Ethics that no one >> under 30 should attempt it - precisely because of their comparative >> lack of experience as enculturated ethical beings. (Part of this >> enculturation includes precisely our learning from our mistakes - >> phronesis as self-correcting ethical judgment.) >> FWIW: while I loved teaching undergraduate philosophy courses, such as >> ethics and logic, for example - and still think that there's value and >> some measure of good effect from them - having so-called >> "non-traditional" was always a great pleasure, precisely because they >> could bring their greater experience into play. FWIW: the past couple >> of decades have been even better on this front as I've been privileged >> to work with a number of groups and communities who meet Aristotle's >> age requirement - and it shows up in insights, discussion, debates, >> dialogue, etc. that are that much richer for it. >> >> In all events - yes, kudos and great thanks, Paul! >> - c. >> >> On 04/02/2019 05:32, Paul wrote: >>> Charles, >>> I would like to claim partial credit for spurring your excellent >>> response. ;) >>> Paul >> >> -- >> Professor in Media Studies >> Department of Media and Communication >> University of Oslo >> <http://www.hf.uio.no/imk/english/people/aca/charlees/index.html> >> >> Postboks 1093 >> Blindern 0317 >> Oslo, Norway >> c.m....@media.uio.no >> -- >> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major >> commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you >> moderated: >> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. >> Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing >> liberationtech-ow...@lists.stanford.edu. > -- =================== R. R. Brooks Professor Holcombe Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Clemson University 313-C Riggs Hall PO Box 340915 Clemson, SC 29634-0915 USA Tel. 864-656-0920 Fax. 864-656-5910 Voicemail: 864-986-0813 email: r...@acm.org web: http://www.clemson.edu/~rrb PGP: 48EC1E30 -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing liberationtech-ow...@lists.stanford.edu.