This paper examines ethical principles as they apply to information technology, drawing on historical and philosophical foundations — including Hammurabi's Code, Confucianism, virtue ethics, and Kant's categorical imperative — to propose practical guidelines for IT professionals. The paper addresses four key domains: software development ethics (guided by the principle "first, do no harm"), employer-employee transparency in workplace monitoring, work-life boundary expectations, and user privacy in online agreements. It argues that the rapid pace of technological change has outpaced existing ethical frameworks, creating gray areas that require both clear rules and good character to navigate responsibly.
The paper demonstrates analogical reasoning: it transplants established ethical principles from medicine, philosophy, law, and religion into the unfamiliar terrain of information technology. By mapping Hippocrates onto software development or Holmes's reasonable person standard onto online contracts, the author shows how existing moral frameworks can be adapted to emerging professional contexts without requiring entirely new systems of thought.
The paper opens with a comparative survey of foundational ethical systems (Hammurabi, Confucius, virtue ethics, Christian ethics) to establish theoretical context. It then identifies the unique challenges that digital technology poses for ethics-making. The body is organized into four domain-specific sections — software development, workplace monitoring, work-life balance, and privacy — each introduced with a guiding principle and developed with examples and citations. The conclusion of each section flows naturally into the next, creating a cohesive, progressive argument.
Two of the most famous ethical statements known to humanity are "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself." These two statements are often contrasted with one another. The second is usually depicted as compassionate; the first is said to be harsh and unyielding. However, in the case of Hammurabi's Code, at the time of its conception this philosophy was considered relatively compassionate. A ruler could not extract a punishment from the convicted individual that was worse than the crime committed. And in Hammurabi's day and age, simply having a code of ethics at all — harsh or not — was a step forward from having no rules at all. It limited the ethical abuses that could happen and set certain minimal standards for rulers and the ruled.
Likewise, the Confucian precept of "doing unto others," or the Golden Rule as it is often called, paints a rather deceptive portrait of the holistic ethical code of the philosopher. Confucius delineated an extremely hierarchical schema of reciprocal relationships between unequals, such as rulers and the ruled, parents and children. The ancient Chinese philosopher was no democrat, and did not see people as intrinsically equal. In fact, both the ancient systems of Hammurabi and Confucius reflect the belief that it is rules that make people good. In contrast, more modern ethical systems — like those of virtue ethicists — suggest that being a good person and having a good character, rather than a good set of rules, is what matters most. Responsiveness to human situations is seen as important, not rote memorization of a code of conduct.
Traditionally, in most ethical systems, consideration has been paid to both character and rules. This is reflected in Jesus' advice to the rich young man who asks to follow Christ. Jesus first tells the man to keep the commandments — that is, to follow the rules for what makes a decent human being. But when pressed, Jesus says that to be "perfect" one must sell all of one's possessions (Matthew 19:21). There is always a tension between placing too much emphasis on rules and being too vague in one's guidelines by leaving everything up to individual character.
Professionals in IT striving to create new ethical codes may find themselves in a double bind. On one hand, they dwell in a wild, uncharted ethical landscape. The Internet has changed the way human beings communicate so rapidly that technology has outpaced humanity's ability to create ethical frameworks to deal with the consequences of this brave new online world. Consider copyright issues, for example: if someone posts something on a blog in the public domain, to what degree does that person own the content? What if someone takes the same information and uses it without attribution on their own blog, but in a slightly revised format? On the other hand, too many regulations and too little trust in the individual can hamper the creativity of this new medium.
Regulations were recently passed mandating that website owners must be transparent about stating when they receive payment from advertisers to post favorable product reviews. But ethical gray areas still exist regarding the ownership of professionally developed content. Who owns a professor's lecture posted on an institution's website? The lecture would not exist without the support of the institution and its IT staff, yet the content itself is the professor's creative work. Only time and litigation will settle these matters. The following sections offer some possible ethical guidelines that might be useful across a variety of IT fields.
"First, do no harm" is the first principle of the Hippocratic Oath. The medical pioneer Hippocrates was, of course, referring to the treatment of the body. But his advice is relevant for software developers for a variety of reasons, not least because technology has become an integrated part of healthcare today. As one expert notes: "The ethical approach to the potential for harm, in my opinion, involves taking responsibility for your work and acting appropriately… a responsible, ethical software developer will spend much more time ensuring the quality of the heart monitor software — and rightly so. If we are going to trust software, we must trust the people who build it" (Pollice, 2006).
The designer must do all he or she can to mitigate the dangers of software being deployed for harmful purposes by users. Creating a program that can be used to hack into a system containing vital patient data or state secrets would be unethical. So would intentionally creating software prone to contracting viruses or harboring malware. A software program must leave the client — and ideally the world — better than before the program was created. Likewise, a program marketed as essential to an individual's future success, but containing token features that do not meaningfully enhance the user's experience, is being marketed in an unethical way.
Finally, a program that is incompatible with many alternative applications and forces the user to rely exclusively on the designer's ecosystem to remain minimally functional — for example, requiring a specific web browser, antivirus program, or email provider — is unethical. Microsoft's default installation of Internet Explorer as part of Windows teetered on the brink of this standard, as many users who were not internet-savvy were unaware that better web-browsing alternatives existed.
You’re 48% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.