The purpose of having a code of ethics is to know that every member of a team can be held accountable in their actions, to have a level of trust that allows work to be executed in harmony. If there did not exists a code of ethics, there would be no standard or explicit expectation of morality, which would make it incredibly difficult to faithfully interact in a professional setting.
When I am faced with ethical situations, I try to objectively consider the situation. I think about the situation with myself removed, and try to consider how I would advise another in that situation. When that fails (and it usually does; I find it difficult to be objective when I am directly concerned with a situation), I consult a group of trusted friends, including my sister, whose opinions I respect and value. With these consultations in mind, I try to let them guide my decision.
The issue that I examined was the case of “Who can change proprietary source code?”. The main issue here is whether the original use of the source code was allowed. After much thought, the conclusion was arrived at that the original adaptation of the source code was allowable, since it was a skill he learned at the previous job, and not the actual source code. I personally was under the belief that the code fell on the other side of the line (that he should not have used the code without permission). A decision was reached that the most ethical decision would have been to contact the previous company and make them aware of the situation, even if it meant admitting fault in the initial adaptation of the source code.
Of the six virtues discussed, the three most applicable are honesty, fidelity, and responsibility. Honesty is perhaps the most applicable; as if the person in the story had been honest this would not have been an issue. Honesty here means being forthright and explicating that the code in question was derived from a former employer. Ideally, it means checking with one’s current supervisor before adapting the code. It also entails making clear the fact that the code has roots from another company as soon as the question of expansion is brought up. This relates strongly to the concept of fidelity.
It’s clear from the description of honesty how the truthfulness aspect of fidelity is relevant, but the core pillar of fidelity, faithfulness, is also a key component. If the programmer had demonstrated constant fidelity, he would have contacted his former employer, demonstrating the loyalty that he still has to them. If they’d given him permission, or denied it, there would be no issue. And, with the previous company already aware of the situation, they are in a better position to act (whether it means taking legal action or leasing the code) if the new company does decide they want to use a modification of the existing source code. Finally, we have responsibility.
Responsibility is less of an issue in the beginning of the story, but plays a huge role in deciding how the story ends. A responsible employee would admit that he made a mistake, that the blame falls on him, and be adamant that the code is not used company-wide without first speaking to the other company. It might mean that the employee will look bad for the initial transgression of using the code, but it would save the company from an embarrassing lawsuit down the line. If such a lawsuit were to be implemented, it would almost certainly come out that the specific programmer is the link between the two companies. Responsibility is the difference between taking blame now, and waiting around to get fired when the company needs a scapegoat later.
Integrity is also a key factor in this scenario; it really incorporates the aspects of fidelity and honesty, as well as the responsibility portion from here on out. Because it is so all-encompassing, it’s hard to explicitly define what is covered by integrity, but a programmer with high integrity would likely not be in this situation. Conversely, self-discipline and charity are not terribly relevant here. There isn’t an issue of helping others, nor of restraining oneself. This issue is pretty cut and dry in terms of being a matter of personal ethics covered by the four traits discussed above.
When I am faced with ethical situations, I try to objectively consider the situation. I think about the situation with myself removed, and try to consider how I would advise another in that situation. When that fails (and it usually does; I find it difficult to be objective when I am directly concerned with a situation), I consult a group of trusted friends, including my sister, whose opinions I respect and value. With these consultations in mind, I try to let them guide my decision.
The issue that I examined was the case of “Who can change proprietary source code?”. The main issue here is whether the original use of the source code was allowed. After much thought, the conclusion was arrived at that the original adaptation of the source code was allowable, since it was a skill he learned at the previous job, and not the actual source code. I personally was under the belief that the code fell on the other side of the line (that he should not have used the code without permission). A decision was reached that the most ethical decision would have been to contact the previous company and make them aware of the situation, even if it meant admitting fault in the initial adaptation of the source code.
Of the six virtues discussed, the three most applicable are honesty, fidelity, and responsibility. Honesty is perhaps the most applicable; as if the person in the story had been honest this would not have been an issue. Honesty here means being forthright and explicating that the code in question was derived from a former employer. Ideally, it means checking with one’s current supervisor before adapting the code. It also entails making clear the fact that the code has roots from another company as soon as the question of expansion is brought up. This relates strongly to the concept of fidelity.
It’s clear from the description of honesty how the truthfulness aspect of fidelity is relevant, but the core pillar of fidelity, faithfulness, is also a key component. If the programmer had demonstrated constant fidelity, he would have contacted his former employer, demonstrating the loyalty that he still has to them. If they’d given him permission, or denied it, there would be no issue. And, with the previous company already aware of the situation, they are in a better position to act (whether it means taking legal action or leasing the code) if the new company does decide they want to use a modification of the existing source code. Finally, we have responsibility.
Responsibility is less of an issue in the beginning of the story, but plays a huge role in deciding how the story ends. A responsible employee would admit that he made a mistake, that the blame falls on him, and be adamant that the code is not used company-wide without first speaking to the other company. It might mean that the employee will look bad for the initial transgression of using the code, but it would save the company from an embarrassing lawsuit down the line. If such a lawsuit were to be implemented, it would almost certainly come out that the specific programmer is the link between the two companies. Responsibility is the difference between taking blame now, and waiting around to get fired when the company needs a scapegoat later.
Integrity is also a key factor in this scenario; it really incorporates the aspects of fidelity and honesty, as well as the responsibility portion from here on out. Because it is so all-encompassing, it’s hard to explicitly define what is covered by integrity, but a programmer with high integrity would likely not be in this situation. Conversely, self-discipline and charity are not terribly relevant here. There isn’t an issue of helping others, nor of restraining oneself. This issue is pretty cut and dry in terms of being a matter of personal ethics covered by the four traits discussed above.