Post 1: Code of Ethics

Purpose

Under the Epicurean ethical framework an ethical action is determined by the consequence of that action. For an action to be ethical, its consequences must maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Epicurus goes on to distinguish between mental pleasure and physical pleasure. Mental pleasure is said to be pleasure that considers past, present, and future consequences whereas physical pleasure only considers present consequences. Mental pleasure is said to be greater than physical pleasure, and Epicurus claims that an ethical action will maximize mental pleasure. Additionally, pleasure if defined as the absence of suffering which leads into the Epicurus’ main goal for life: reaching ataraxia, a state of no anxiety about the future. By acting ethically in the way described, we maximize future pleasures and reduce future suffering thus reaching ataraxia.

With these expectations in place as to what makes an action ethical Epicurus would argue that we should constantly be questioning how ethical an action is. The framework says we have two options, to fulfill a desire or to eliminate a desire, and Epicurus always advocates for the latter. In order to help us determine which desires to fulfill and which to eliminate, Epicurus defines three different types of desire: natural and unnecessary desire, natural and necessary desire, and unnatural desire. Natural and necessary desires, which include items such as food, shelter, and drink, are the only types of desires we should fulfill. On the other hand, natural and unnecessary desires, including the desire for luxury goods, as well as unnatural desires, including the desire for symbolic items, should be eliminated. We want to try and minimize unnecessary and unnatural desires because these could increase future suffering if unfulfilled. Therefore, we should constantly evaluate our actions to make sure we are not fulfilling unnecessary desires and overindulging.

Due to Epicurus’ hedonist definition of an ethical action, it seems as though people would have an intrinsic predisposition to act ethically according to this framework. Again, maximizing individual pleasure and minimizing pain is the forefront of reasons why we make certain decisions. While this instinctive predisposition appears to exist, there are times when human indulgence gets in the way of the framework. People are human and make mistakes and at times will consciously decide to indulge in a pleasurable activity even if it could result in pain in the future. For example, many college students choose to procrastinate on assignments making time for more enjoyable activities even though it often means many painful, sleepless nights in the future. So, while it appears there should be an intrinsic predisposition our humanness gets in the way of us always making perfectly ethical decisions under this framework. Epicurus does not excuse our humanness and argues that acting under this ethical framework should require no predisposition at all because as humans we should all know how to rationalize our needs and adjust actions accordingly.

Epicurus was a man that believed in living life with simple pleasures and basic necessities so he most likely would have taken issue with the advance of technology altogether. However, there are a few specific areas that he would have a particular interest in. First of all, the advent of advanced computer technology has led to many copyright issues. The invention of word processors and the abundance of information we have access to, has made it increasingly easy to use other people’s work and not give them credit for it. Epicurus would agree with most on this debate, that this is by no means an ethical action. By taking somebody else’s work and using it as your own, you may experience initial pleasure, for example, if you are able to complete a task more quickly, but you will experience anxiety about potential future suffering. Additionally, this is a selfish, and unfriendly, action in which you are affecting the pleasure of the original author which Epicurus would argue is unethical. Furthermore, Epicurus would be very distressed about the prevalence of computer crime. He would argue that all forms of computer technology are an unnatural desire that you should choose to eliminate from your life. By fulfilling the desire to engage with computer technology you are making yourself vulnerable to future suffering caused by things such as hackers, viruses and other types of computer crime. The final area of computer technology that Epicurus would take issue with would be the prevalence of job automation. Along the same lines as computer crime, indulging in this unnatural desire and using robots in the workplace, seems to be creating pleasure for the company and government, but in reality a lot of pain is created. Epicurus would argue that our world before job automation was fine, and that by choosing to fulfill this desire we are getting further and further away from ataraxia.

Epicurean Ethics Compared to ACM Ethics

As we know, Epicurean ethics is a hedonistic framework. As a result, it fundamentally differs from the professional and principle-based ACM ethical framework, but first, let’s begin evaluating the similarities. The ACM code of ethics identify “moral imperatives” with regard to professional peers. Such imperatives include avoiding harm and aiming for fairness of treatment and respect towards one’s professional peers. These ideas are very similar to the important Epicurean value of friendship. Epicurus highly valued friendship for one’s happiness, and friendship cannot be fostered without the core notion of these moral imperatives. Furthermore, the ACM code of ethics speaks of professional responsibilities such as maintaining professional competence, understanding laws related to the profession, providing professional review, and honoring agreements. These responsibilities resonate with the Epicurean notion of living virtuously, prudently, honorably, and justly because by performing such responsibilities, one would increase one’s happiness and minimize one’s potential future anxiety.

Although the ACM code of ethics shares many similarities with Epicurean ethics, there are some notable differences as well. Epicurean ethics present the notions of satisfying or eliminating a desire and pursuing an ascetic lifestyle. In turn, these seem to contrast with the ACM code of ethics which state the need to pursue the highest quality of a product and the goal to “enhance the quality of working life”. Epicurean ethics applied in the professional computing setting would identify a certain minimal level or degree that is required for a given project. By attaining this minimum requirement, there will be no need to attempt to pursue the best quality and possibly not reaching that goal (i.e. not satisfying that desire). Furthermore, most computing products are nothing but a luxury or indulgence for human life, and such unnatural goods would go against the Epicurean notion of an ascetic lifestyle.

In addition to these similarities and differences, the ACM code of ethics lacks a guideline on a defined “purpose” or “goal” of computing. However, Epicurean ethics could provide an answer to this by indicating that the goal of computing is ultimately the elimination of human “physical pain and mental anxiety”.

Epicurean Ethics Compared to IEEE Ethics

Epicurean ethics possesses many similarities to the IEEE Code of Ethics. A great portion of IEEE’s code stresses the need to minimize anxiety about the future, a tenant of Epicurean ethics. For example, IEEE stresses sustainable development practices so that these practices are able to be upheld in the future. By practicing sustainably, the anxiety of not being able to continue on in this way in the future is eliminated. Additionally, IEEE places great importance on being honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data. This serves to minimize future anxiety of not being able to deliver an overpromised solution.

Another similarity present is the emphasis on community. IEEE stresses the need to properly credit the contributions of others which coincides with the high value placed on friendship and loyalty in Epicurean ethics. IEEE also says to disclose promptly factors which could endanger the environment and public. This goes along with the need for community. Additionally, by disclosing promptly you minimize the anxiety caused by something that could endanger the community.

One main difference between Epicurean ethics and IEEE’s code of ethics is that IEEE wants its members to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. However, Epicurean ethics tells us to hold paramount the maximization of one’s own pleasure.

While the IEEE code of ethics is quite well developed, it makes no mention of how to handle justice and how to treat others who have violated the societal or company contract. This is something that Epicurus gave a well defined theory of, and states that fear of punishment is needed to keep those who do not respect the contract in line.

Epicurean Ethics Compared to ICCP Ethics

The primary focus of the ICCP code of ethics is to consider the overall impacts of your actions as a professional and to work towards the interests of the public good. In other words, the main consideration when trying to make an ethical decision should be the outcome of that decision. This aligns well with the Epicurean ethical framework, which also says that ethical decisions are determined by their outcome. In Section 1, which highlights the general principles that guide the ICCP code of ethics, section 1.2 says to “Avoid harm”. This can be easily compared to the Epicurean idea of avoiding displeasure, and solely make decision that bring pleasure. Another portion of the ICCP code of ethics, section 2.6, says to work only in “areas of confidence”. This somewhat resonates with the Epicurean idea that one should not attempt to gain unnecessary or unnatural pleasures, but be content only with necessary pleasures.

On the other hand, Epicurean ethics are different from the ICCP code of ethics because while the ICCP focuses on the impact of others, Epicurus says we should focus on what brings pleasure to the individual. According to section 3.1 of the ICCP code of ethics, the central concern of one’s work as a computing profession should be the public good. Epicurean ethics, on the other hand, would say that the pleasure of the individual should be the priority in making ethical decisions.

While the ICCP code of ethics focuses on the benefit of others around you and the public good in general, it does not have a guideline for making ethical decisions that relate to only the individual. Epicurean ethics could fulfill that missing piece and say that individuals should act in order to pursue their individual pleasures and should not pursue unnecessary pleasures.