Blog Post 1: Code of Ethics

Statement of Purpose

What makes an action ethical?

The recommended structure in the legalist ethical framework is a highly centralized government in which the ruler retains firm control of the “two handles” of government, which are punishment and favor. In this ethical framework, the people are guided by clear edicts and strong punishments rather than a sense of shame. Therefore, an action is considered ethical if it abides by the law that the ruler has drawn up and put into place. An example of ethical behavior in this framework would include farmers who were rewarded if they exceeded their quotas for the year. In this case, unethical behavior would occur if a farmer underperformed their quota and became enslaved as their punishment. The quota was put in place by the ruler for farmers to follow, which corresponds with the framework; the ruler makes edicts, and the people obey.

What triggers the need to evaluate how ethical an action is?

The need to evaluate how ethical an action is the maintenance of a structurally sound society or group. The objective of a legalist society is to create and maintain rules to determine if each action is right or wrong. When new rules are added or different actions that do not fall into the current rules occur, the government needs to ensure that it will maintain in control.

What is each person’s ethical predisposition?

According to the legalist ethical framework, people who abide by the laws enforced by the ruler will be rewarded, and those who do not abide by the laws will be punished. In almost all cases people would prefer being rewarded, or favored, over being punished and we think this alone would cause people to act ethically. In this framework people will choose to act with obedience to the law based on the fear of punishment they could suffer from if they chose to act immorally. People will also choose to follow the law based on the favor they could receive from their ruler, or government. The framework assumes that people cannot be trusted to act ethically on their own, and must be guided by law.

What are some relevant technological issues?

Privacy vs. Security

Especially following the Snowden leaks, debates over privacy versus security have risen to the forefront. Government surveillance can potentially prevent crimes and catch perpetrators, but at the cost of privacy. Under a legalistic framework, privacy is irrelevant unless it contributes to the state’s authority, but security is a very important issue. One of the founders of legalism, Shang Yang, implemented a mutual spying system (peer review, as its known today), with the goal of keeping citizens in check. It is certain that under a legalistic framework, statewide surveillance would be applauded as a necessary measure to maintain control.

Copyright is the legal right that the creator of an intellectual property owns the rights to their intellectual property. However, with fair use in place, it is possible that other parties may take and use these works protected by copyright as their own, so long as it transforms the original source in some way. This can be done by way of critique, parody, or research. Outside of the Legalistic framework, debates arise around whether one work is a valid transformation, especially in the world of parody. With regard to Legalism, fair use would be essential - even if only for the sake of news broadcasting - so there would be clear and strict guidelines for what would fall into these categories. If one were to violate these rules, they would be forced to remove their content as well as be fined - for the revenue lost to the original creator and for breaking the law.

Cryptocurrency

Cryptocurrency is highly unstable, with the amount of available currency defined by the creator of a blockchain and the current value based on the number of miners and trust in that currency. It is likely that under a legalistic framework, cryptocurrency’s instability would be unethical. A blockchain cannot be regulated or controlled by a single entity without an enormous amount of resources, and cannot be easily updated or overwritten. Power is placed in the hands of individuals on the blockchain network, which weakens the control of any government over the currency. A legalistic system would ban blockchain currency, since there are too many unknowns, no control, and no stability.

Response to the IEEE Code of Ethics

The focus of the IEEE code is on prescribing general rules for members to follow. The language is ambiguous, and no punishments are listed (there is the implicit idea that membership to the IEEE depends on following the code of ethics, but there is no explicit punishment). Our framework prescribes unambiguous rules and harsh punishments. Additionally, the burden is placed on individual members of the IEEE to follow the code of ethics, whereas the moral burden is solely placed on the ruler of a state (possibly, by extension, a corporation or group). If individuals act immorally, that is the “fault” of the ruler for not providing clear guidelines and strict punishments.

The IEEE states the need for the code is “in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life throughout the world”. The need for legalist ethics stems from the chaotic environment of the “Warring States” period, which, like technology, prompted an ethical debate.

The focus on public good does have similarities to legalism, in that there is supposed to be a widespread benefit to following the code of ethics, and that this good is not for the benefit of the individual. Although the moral burden is placed on individuals in the IEEE and only the state in legalism, both attempt to make a difference on a widespread scale.

Some missing portions of the IEEE code are the ambiguity and lack of punishments, as previously mentioned. The ambiguous language, while allowing for flexible interpretation, makes it difficult to apply in specific situations. One of the main goals of legalism was to provide specific rules and guidelines for all situations, making it relatively easy to make a decision. The lack of punishments may lead readers to conclude that there is no incentive for following the IEEE code of ethics, while there is no such doubt in a legalistic framework.

Response to the ACM Code of Ethics

Legalism is only successfully implemented if harsh punishments are attached to violations of clear edicts. What is notably absent from each of these code of ethics, including ACM’s, is punishments for violations of its tenets. ACM’s code does mention that violations of the code may result in membership being revoked (4.2), but it is not clear what type of violation would result in this outcome. Another departure from legalism can be found in the implicit belief of the code that members are guided by some sort of virtue ethic; however, legalism denies that humans can be consistently motivated by unselfish or nonmaterial desires. Therefore, tenets such as 1.3 and 1.4, which require members to practice fairness and honesty of their own accord, are inert without corresponding punishments for failing to uphold them. Finally, in ACM’s code there is placed special emphasis on ensuring privacy and confidentiality in professional dealings, while in legalism this may not be so crucial if it were to impede progress or the realization of goals.

While there are many clear differences between ACM’s code of ethics and the practice of legalism, there are a few commonalities. Both can be thought to have a similar guiding imperative: to ensure the public good. This is stated numerous times throughout the ACM code, most explicitly in 1.1 and 3.1. Also similar to legalism is that the code of ethics encourages members to operate within the boundaries of their roles (2.6 and 2.8). Legalism is especially adherent to this principle, even punishing beneficial or over-and-above work if it is outside the defined role of the individual. As has been made clear so far, legalism is only maintained with an organized and strict set of rules followed by everyone at each level of the hierarchy. Tenet 2.3 calls for this, requiring members to “know and respect existing rules.”

Response to the ICCP Code of Ethics

Though the principles of Legalism do not closely comport with the ICCP Code of Ethics, there are some similarities. Broadly speaking, both are concerned with a collective public good, although in different ways. Along these lines, both encourage attitudes of service Legalism emphasizing service of the state and the ICCP suggesting pro bono work (1.1). Likewise, both expect high quality of work in service of their respective understandings of the common good (2.1). Both the ICCP and Legalist thinkers have an expectation that workers will follow the laws that govern them (2.3). The ICCP outlines an expectation of system security in section 2.9 and this corresponds with Legalism’s goal of a strong state. Finally, just as Legalism encourages subjects to monitor one another, the ICCP expects its members to do the same through peer review (2.4) and by reporting violations (4.2).

While both Legalism and the ICCP base their principles in a concept of a collective good, these concepts differ in important ways. While Legalism’s core principle is the strength and stability of the state itself, the ICCP maintains a concept of individual human rights and dignity (2.1, 3.3). Along with this dignity comes with an expectation of autonomy and personal privacy (1.1, 1.6), both of which contradict the Legalist philosophy. Along similar lines, the ICCP guidelines promote respect for creators and their intellectual properties (1.5) whereas Legalists would almost certainly expect all technology to come under the control of the state. Another difference appears in section 1.1 when the ICCP Code outlines its expectation of respect for diversity and preferential treatment for the disadvantaged; Legalism has no such interest in individual identity. Finally, while the ICCP recognizes that failures can occur mistakenly and allows workers to take responsibility for their errors, Legalism punishes even unintentional flaws to threaten onlookers through displays of power.

One thing that Legalism has that the ICCP neglects is a system of punishment. While the ICCP’s code is thorough in its description of appropriate behavior, it does not address any possibility for punitive action. Where the ICCP seems toothless, Legalism is anything but. The historical example of punishing unproductive farmers with slavery shows an extreme willingness to judge and punish. The ICCP probably does not wish to be so vindictive, but they may be able to replicate the Legalist system on a smaller, more merciful scale.