Evil behavior, however precisely defined, has been and always will be with us. Technology enhances what we do as human beings and, hence, always has the potential to be applied to ill uses. If someone, then, takes what you develop and applies it for a purpose you never intended in creating it, that is an item beyond your control. Alan Turing - who applied his genius to confer what can only be called immeasurable benefits on society and who used his skills to crack Nazi codes to help end a terrible war - is
not ethically responsible for the many consequences inevitably brought into the world simply because computing power can be used to magnify the effects of human evil. Was he (or is any other engineer whose technology is misused) a causal agent in the various bad outcomes we can identify in, for example, the enhanced lethality of weaponry or in the massive spying by governments on their citizenry? In a narrow sense, perhaps yes. When one traces things back up a causal chain, one can theoretically identify every individual actor who made technical innovations that culminated ultimately in a particular bad use of whatever type that afflicts us today. But, though a cause-in-fact, Mr. Turing (and the many engineers who followed him respecting any given facet of computing technology) is not what the lawyers call the "proximate cause" - that is, the immediately enabling agent - of the outcome. Meaning, if you deem it unethical to build bombs, then don't do work for a defense contractor helping to build bombs because your every innovation will be immediately applied to a use you deem unethical. The same for working for NSA in developing sophisticated spying technology. Or for whatever other ill use you can identify in society. But, beyond avoiding direct conduct by which you are proximately helping to cause an outcome you deem wrong, you as a technologist basically have no control over how your work may be applied by others and, as the collective results of such work eventually permeate society, your moral responsibility for the indirect results of your work effectively stand at zero. If the operative standard were otherwise, then all innovation would stand frozen altogether because it is always possible to conceive of an ill use for any technology that makes things faster, more powerful, more efficient, etc. Put any such thing into the hands of human actors and
some bad results are guaranteed to follow given enough time and opportunity. Thus, unless one is to freeze all productive activity or is to go insane second-guessing how others might pervert that which is being done for good, engineers must perforce ignore tangential ethical implications over which they have no effective control.
I think it is fair to say that each of us in our given professions (mine being law) ought to avoid being a proximate cause of something deemed wrong even though technically legal (for example, I would not be a "mob lawyer" even though there are some technically very good lawyers who do that work). But even here that is an individual choice for each actor to make. For engineers, some may see it as a great opportunity to do advanced work in some of the social media companies while others may regard such companies as being engaged in unethical conduct as they at least sometimes use dubious techniques to try corral us as consumers into their tight little worlds. For any given engineer, working for such a company doing such things is a matter of conscience. Some may say yes, others no. The same is true in working for a defense contractor or for the government. Or for any other work that is legal but ethically suspect in the eyes of some but not others. It is your choice and it is your conscience.
The author of this piece reflects what I call the bane of associational thinking. He uses the royal "we" to define a group (here, engineers) and then prescribes very broad goals for what "we" "ought" to do. Since all the things described now stand as a matter of private choice over which the "we" group as a whole has no say, then the only way to translate this sort of thing into practical action is to form formal associations, assign things to committees, and then issue a series of prescriptions on what the group members ought to do. That may be fine in terms of the association giving rules that amount to exhortations to do good (who would disagree with that). But, beyond that, do you really want an organized association dictating what today stand as your private choices for your career? Or, worse, do you want such an association to lobby governments to adopt their strictures and give them the force of law? I would think not. How, then, can "we" do better? Of course, the question is always described as difficult and is left for further discussion precisely because it has no real answer apart from acting on individual conscience or apart from the potentially coercive ones of letting some association or government dictate your career choices and opportunities. Perhaps this sort of reasoning is justified as encouraging people to have a heightened conscience about what they do, and in that respect it is fine. But that is really as far as it goes before veering into unacceptable alternatives.
Our capacity to do wrong is innate to our nature, as is our capacity to do good. We should not stop trying to do good through our creativity just because others can take what we do and commit wrongs with it. Nor should we feel guilty about what we do as long as we in good conscience can say to ourselves that we are doing something productive and worthwhile and not directly causing harm to others. The "we" issue is in reality much more of an "I" issue and, for that, you should examine what you do carefully and strive for the good regardless of what others may do with it. If you want to exhort others to do better by your standards, then all the better. Just don't dictate to them on matters over which people in good conscience may disagree.
I think it is fair to say that each of us in our given professions (mine being law) ought to avoid being a proximate cause of something deemed wrong even though technically legal (for example, I would not be a "mob lawyer" even though there are some technically very good lawyers who do that work). But even here that is an individual choice for each actor to make. For engineers, some may see it as a great opportunity to do advanced work in some of the social media companies while others may regard such companies as being engaged in unethical conduct as they at least sometimes use dubious techniques to try corral us as consumers into their tight little worlds. For any given engineer, working for such a company doing such things is a matter of conscience. Some may say yes, others no. The same is true in working for a defense contractor or for the government. Or for any other work that is legal but ethically suspect in the eyes of some but not others. It is your choice and it is your conscience.
The author of this piece reflects what I call the bane of associational thinking. He uses the royal "we" to define a group (here, engineers) and then prescribes very broad goals for what "we" "ought" to do. Since all the things described now stand as a matter of private choice over which the "we" group as a whole has no say, then the only way to translate this sort of thing into practical action is to form formal associations, assign things to committees, and then issue a series of prescriptions on what the group members ought to do. That may be fine in terms of the association giving rules that amount to exhortations to do good (who would disagree with that). But, beyond that, do you really want an organized association dictating what today stand as your private choices for your career? Or, worse, do you want such an association to lobby governments to adopt their strictures and give them the force of law? I would think not. How, then, can "we" do better? Of course, the question is always described as difficult and is left for further discussion precisely because it has no real answer apart from acting on individual conscience or apart from the potentially coercive ones of letting some association or government dictate your career choices and opportunities. Perhaps this sort of reasoning is justified as encouraging people to have a heightened conscience about what they do, and in that respect it is fine. But that is really as far as it goes before veering into unacceptable alternatives.
Our capacity to do wrong is innate to our nature, as is our capacity to do good. We should not stop trying to do good through our creativity just because others can take what we do and commit wrongs with it. Nor should we feel guilty about what we do as long as we in good conscience can say to ourselves that we are doing something productive and worthwhile and not directly causing harm to others. The "we" issue is in reality much more of an "I" issue and, for that, you should examine what you do carefully and strive for the good regardless of what others may do with it. If you want to exhort others to do better by your standards, then all the better. Just don't dictate to them on matters over which people in good conscience may disagree.