1. Introduction to Ethical Systems and the IEEE Code of Ethics

2. Overview Definitions Ethical Systems IEEE Code of Ethics
Ethics & Member Conduct Committee (EMCC)
Member Conduct Cases
Promoting Ethics within IEEE

3. Definition Ethics Study of Morality (a.k.a. Moral Systems)
Transcends Moral System
Discipline of Philosophy
Science
Universal

4. Definitions Society Morality Ethics
Association of people organized under a system of rules
Rules: advance the good of members over time
Morality
A society’s rules of conduct
What people ought / ought not to do in various situations
Ethics
Rational examination of morality
Evaluation of people’s behavior

5. Definitions Moral System System of Rules for Guiding Human Conduct
Informal (Evaluated by Peers)
Different for Different Groups of People
Inspires and Partially Overlaps Legal Systems

6. Definitions Legal System
System of Specific Rules to Enforce Specific Behavior
Deviant Behavior is Sanctioned
Formal (Evaluated by Judges)

7. Features of a Moral System
Public
Rules are Known to All Members
Informal
No Formal Judges Enforce the System
Rational
Based on Principles of Logical Reason Accessible to All Members
Impartial
Applied Equitably to All Members

8. Deriving (Grounding) Moral Rules
Consider the Rule “Do not Steal”
Present in Virtually Every Moral System
Why is stealing morally wrong?
Rules must be justified by general principles.
Three Sources of Grounding
Religion
Law
Philosophical Ethics

9. Deriving (Grounding) Moral Rules
Grounding in a Religious System
Stealing is wrong because it violates one of God's commandments
Grounding in a Legal System
Stealing is wrong because it violates the law
Grounding in a System of Philosophical Ethics
Stealing is wrong because it is wrong

10. Scenario
Alexis, a gifted high school student, wants to become a doctor. Because she comes from a poor family, she will need a scholarship in order to attend college. Some of her classes require extra research projects in order to get an “A”. Her high school has a few older PCs, but there are always long lines of students waiting to use them during the school day. After school, she usually works at a part-time job in order to support her family.

11. Scenario
On some evenings, Alexis goes to the library of a private college a few miles from her family’s apartment, where she always finds plenty of unused PCs connected to the Internet. On the few occasions when the librarian asks her if she is a student at the college, she says “Yes” and the librarian leaves her alone. Using the resources of this library, Alexis efficiently completes her extra projects, graduates from high school with straight A marks, and gets a full ride scholarship to attend a prestigious university.

12. Questions Did Alexis do anything wrong?
Who benefited from Alexis’s course of action?
Who was hurt by Alexis’s course of action?
Did Alexis have an unfair advantage over her high school classmates?
Would any of your answers change if it turns out Alexis did not win a college scholarship after all?
In what other ways could Alexis have accomplished her objective?
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

13. More on Ethics Ethics: rational, systematic analysis
“Doing ethics”: answers need explanations
Explanations: facts, shared values, logic
Ethics: voluntary, moral choices
Workable ethical theory: produces explanations that might be persuasive to a skeptical, yet open-minded audience
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

14. Ethical Systems (Sample)
Kantianism
Categorical Imperative (Golden Rule)
Utilitarianism
Increasing Happiness
Divine Command
Supreme Authority
Social Contract Theory
Liberty vs. Security

15. Kantianism Good will: the desire to do the right thing
Immanuel Kant: Only thing in the world good without qualification is good will.
Reason should cultivate desire to do right thing.
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

16. Categorical Imperative (1st Formulation)
Act only from moral rules that you can at the
same time will to be universal moral laws.
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

17. Illustration of 1st Formulation
Question: Can a person in dire straits make a promise with the intention of breaking it later?
Proposed rule: “I may make promises with the intention of later breaking them.”
The person in trouble wants his promise to be believed so he can get what he needs.
Universalize rule: Everyone may make & break promises
Everyone breaking promises would make promises unbelievable, contradicting desire to have promise believed
The rule is flawed. The answer is “No.”
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

18. Categorical Imperative (2nd Formulation)
Act so that you treat both yourself
and other people as ends in themselves
and never only as a means to an end.
This is usually an easier formulation to work
with than the first formulation of the
Categorical Imperative.
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

19. Plagiarism Scenario Carla History class
Single mother
Works full time
Takes two evening courses/semester
History class
Requires more work than normal
Carla earning an “A” on all work so far
Carla doesn’t have time to write final report
Carla purchases report and submits it as her own work
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

20. Kantian Evaluation (1st Formulation)
Carla wants credit for plagiarized report
Rule: “You may claim credit for work performed by someone else”
If rule universalized, reports would no longer be credible indicators of students’ knowledge, and professors would not give credit for reports
Proposed moral rule is self-defeating
It is wrong for Carla to turn in a purchased report
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

21. Kantian Evaluation (2nd Formulation)
Carla submitted another person’s work as her own
She attempted to deceive professor
She treated professor as a means to an end
End: passing the course
Means: professor issues grade
What Carla did was wrong
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

22. Case for Kantianism Rational Produces universal moral guidelines
Treats all persons as moral equals
Workable ethical theory
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

23. Case Against Kantianism
Sometimes no rule adequately characterizes an action.
There is no way to resolve a conflict between rules.
Kantianism allows no exceptions to moral laws.
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

24. Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
An action is good if it benefits someone
An action is bad if it harms someone
Utility: tendency of an object to produce happiness or prevent unhappiness for an individual or a community
Happiness = advantage = benefit = good = pleasure
Unhappiness = disadvantage = cost = evil = pain
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

25. Principle of Utility (Greatest Happiness Principle)
An action is right (or wrong) to the extent
that it increases (or decreases) the
total happiness of the affected parties.
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

26. Act Utilitarianism Utilitarianism Act utilitarianism
Morality of an action has nothing to do with intent
Focuses on the consequences
A consequentialist theory
Act utilitarianism
Add up change in happiness of all affected beings
Sum > 0, action is good
Sum < 0, action is bad
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

27. Bentham: Weighing Pleasure/Pain
Intensity
Duration
Certainty
Propinquity
Fecundity
Purity
Extent
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

28. Highway Routing Scenario
State may replace a curvy stretch of highway
New highway segment 1 mile shorter
150 houses would have to be removed
Some wildlife habitat would be destroyed
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

29. Evaluation Costs Benefits Conclusion
$20 million to compensate homeowners
$10 million to construct new highway
Lost wildlife habitat worth $1 million
Benefits
$39 million savings in automobile driving costs
Conclusion
Benefits exceed costs
Building highway a good action
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

30. Case for Act Utilitarianism
Focuses on happiness
Down-to-earth (practical)
Comprehensive
Workable ethical theory
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

31. Case Against Act Utilitarianism
Unclear whom to include in calculations
Too much work
Ignores our innate sense of duty
Susceptible to the problem of moral luck
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

32. Rule Utilitarianism
We ought to adopt moral rules which, if followed by everyone, will lead to the greatest increase in total happiness
Act utilitarianism applies Principle of Utility to individual actions
Rule utilitarianism applies Principle of Utility to moral rules
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

33. Case for Rule Utilitarianism
Compared to act utilitarianism, it is easier to perform the utilitarian calculus.
Not every moral decision requires performing utilitarian calculus.
Moral rules survive exceptional situations
Avoids the problem of moral luck
Workable ethical theory
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

34. Case Against Utilitarianism in General
All consequences must be measured on a single scale.
Utilitarianism ignores the problem of an unjust distribution of good consequences.
Utilitarianism does not mean “the greatest good of the greatest number”
That requires a principle of justice
What happens when a conflict arises between the Principle of Utility and a principle of justice?
Copyright © 2005 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.

35. IEEE
The World's Leading Transnational Professional Association for the Advancement of Technology
More than 395,000 Members, including 90,000 Students, in over 160 Countries.
331 Sections in Ten Geographic Regions Worldwide
More than 1,800 Student Branches at Colleges and Universities in 80 Countries

36. IEEE
38 Societies and 7 Technical Councils Representing the Wide Range of Technical Interests
148 Transactions, Journals and Magazines
More than 1100 Conferences Worldwide Each Year
About 1300 IEEE Standards Active and Under Development

37. Drafting the IEEE Code of Ethics
Problems with Grounding
Religions Differ Across and Within Countries
Legal Systems Differ Across Countries
IEEE as a Transnational Organization Can Only Rely on Philosophical Ethics
Consequence: The IEEE Code of Ethics is Broad and Unspecific
Not an Algorithm
Does not Relieve You from Thinking

38. IEEE Code of Ethics has a Long History
1912 – Code adopted by the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE).
1963 – IEEE endorsed “Canons of Ethics of Engineers” after AIEE/IRE merger.
1974 – Board of Directors approved “IEEE Code of Ethics for Engineers”.
– Code underwent a few revisions.
Board of Directors approved simplified IEEE Code of Ethics.
2006 – Board of Directors approved revision to the IEEE Code of Ethics.

39. IEEE Code of Ethics We the members of IEEE, in recognition of the
importance of our technologies in affecting the
quality of life throughout the world and in accepting
a personal obligation to our profession, its members
and the communities we serve, do hereby commit
ourselves to the highest ethical and professional
conduct and agree:
To accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;

40. IEEE Code of Ethics (cont.)
To avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist;
To be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;
To reject bribery in all its forms;
To improve the understanding of technology, its appropriate application, and potential consequences;

41. IEEE Code of Ethics (cont.)
To maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations;
To seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others;

42. IEEE Code of Ethics (cont.)
To treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race, religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin;
To avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action;
To assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics.

43. IEEE Ethics & Member Conduct Committee
Reports to the IEEE Board of Directors.
Recommends policy & educational programs to promote ethical behavior of members and staff.
Administers proceedings relating to member & officer discipline.
Administers requests for ethical support.
Fosters an awareness of ethical issues.

44. Summary of Handling Member Conduct Complaints
EMCC receives complaints from members about the conduct of other members.
EMCC conducts preliminary investigation.
If the EMCC finds that the facts can be proven and constitute cause for censure, suspension or expulsion a Hearing Board is convened.
Hearing Board deliberates.
Board of Directors takes final action.
See: Bylaw I-110, I-111 & Policy 7.11

45. Ethical Support
Members placed in jeopardy as a consequence of adhering to the IEEE Code of Ethics, may receive support from IEEE in the form of an amicus curiae (friend of court brief).

46. Promoting Ethics within IEEE
EMCC booth available on loan for IEEE meetings, conferences, etc.
Brochures & Codes of Ethics Cards
Resource page:
Student Ethics Competition

47. Student Ethics Competition
Developed by IEEE EMCC in 2004
For use at IEEE student events
At Regional or other student events
First event held at Region 2 Student Activities Conference, 8 April 2005
Provides $600 US for prizes for up to 10 events per year
Provides tools & recommendations

48. SEC Goals Foster familiarity with IEEE Code of Ethics and concepts
Promote a model for discussing and analyzing ethical questions
Learn about ethics in a “fun” context
Provide experience in applying ethical concepts to hypothetical professional situations
Supplement Regional/Sectional ethics programs

49. Guidelines & Requirements www.ieee.org/ethics
Funding for maximum of 10 events per year spread among the 10 IEEE Regions
Competition is suggested to be between 4 to 6 teams made up of 2 to3 IEEE Student/Graduate members
Each team represents their student branch or similar
Each team is sequestered & given a period of time to prepare a presentation and defense of an ethical situation provided by the sponsor
Each team’s presentation/defense will be judged by a group of 3 to 6 judges using a standardized judging form.

50. First Competition The first SEC was held in April 2005 in Region 2
Hosted by IEEE Student Branch at Rowan University
Temple University was the winner ($400)
Penn State Harrisburg was the runner-up ($200)
Host utilized its theater department to stage the common case study via a 7-minute playlet
Competition among 9 teams
Case did not have a right or wrong answer
Program was a great success as viewed by competitors, sponsors and attendees

51. Contact/Web Information
For inquiries or resource material. (booth, brochures, etc.)
Web: