Response to Commentators of “A Critique of Positive Responsibility”.
It has been claimed that (1) computer professionals should be held responsible for an undisclosed list of “undesirable events” associated with their work and (2) most if not all computer disasters can be avoided by truly understanding responsibility. Commentators of “A Critique of Positive Responsib...
| Published in: | Science & Engineering Ethics Vol. 15; no. 1; pp. 11 - 19 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Springer Nature
Mar2009
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=36420162&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 36420162 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 13533452 GNI jtl: Science & Engineering Ethics issn: 13533452 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Mar2009 vid: 15 iid: 1 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 36420162 10.1007/s11948-008-9101-6 ppf: 11 ppct: 8 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 131KB tig: atl: Response to Commentators of “A Critique of Positive Responsibility”. aug: au: Stieb, James A. affil: Department of English and Philosophy, Drexel University, 5055 MacAllister, 3141 Chestnut St, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA su: Altruism Computer ethics Responsibility Professionalism Biology sug: subj: Altruism Computer ethics Responsibility Professionalism Biology keyword: Computer Ethics Positive Responsibility ab: It has been claimed that (1) computer professionals should be held responsible for an undisclosed list of “undesirable events” associated with their work and (2) most if not all computer disasters can be avoided by truly understanding responsibility. Commentators of “A Critique of Positive Responsibility in Computing” argue that this is not Donald Gotterbarn’s view (Gotterbarn, JSEE 14(2):235–239, 2008) but that a critique of the view nevertheless raises significant moral issues within computing such as the ethical goals of a computing profession, the appropriate ethical stance toward bugs, and the public good with respect to computing (Miller, JSEE 14(2):245–249, 2008). Commentators also argue that “A Critique”’s “profitable misreading” demonstrates the “moral ecology” of organizations “dedicated narrowly to financial success” and that other “moral ecologies” that are customer or quality driven can be shown to be more important or preeminent (Huff, JSEE 14(2):241–244, 2008). It is argued here that (1) the hyper-inflated reading of Gotterbarn’s and Ladd’s views on positive responsibility persists despite Gotterbarn’s explicit rejection of it, and that (2) such a reading of positive responsibility cannot be placed within a single moral ecology, nor can a single moral ecology be shown to be any more important or preeminent than others. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Science & Engineering Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2009. All Rights Reserved. item: Science & Engineering Ethics holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2009 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|