Hacker News Reader

The "hey, I've got a family to feed" argument is pretty weak. A lot of people have families to feed. A doctor is not going to behave unethically just because some "business exec or MBA" told him to experiment on babies. They take their oath seriously. We ought to have a "do no harm" oath also, and we should take it seriously, too. At the very least, we should apply the "Would we want our name and face all over national newspapers associated with this code?" test.

Well, they also have a professional organization that covers for them.

Software engineers can't even bargain for overtime pay. Pathetic.

What did you do now... now you're just going to get a bunch of replies about how professional organizations would indulge slacker programmers and ultimately cramp good programmers' style and payslip.

> Software engineers can't even bargain for overtime pay.

We do in Europe.

what do you mean can't? my god, did I break "the rules" every time I did it?

That's what it means to be salaried vs. hourly. You get the job done and don't mess around.

More people should go read "The Strategy of Conflict": doctors can point to penalties (far worse than the loss of a job) that they will suffer if they give in, MBAs know this so they won't even ask. Software developers on the other hand will suffer no such penalties so they are pressured to give in.

It is kind of the same as the books point on blackmail: you want to put draconian penalties on the victim of blackmail (if he does what you want) so that he can point to them and say that whatever you are going to blackmail him with ain't as bad as that, thus you wouldn't try to blackmail him in the first case.

> But like 99% of the rest of us, software engineers have families to feed and they can't go on a moral crusade.

I don't think "can't" is the right word. "Choose not to" is more appropriate. Are you willing to make a personal sacrifice for the greater good? There's always a choice.

> But like 99% of the rest of us, software engineers have families to feed and they can't go on a moral crusade.

That's such a crap excuse.

If at a dinner gathering, I ran into the COBOL programmer who happened to write that code, in my opinion, it would be highly inappropriate to back him into a corner and lecture him about morals. I'm sure he's quite aware that customers don't like it and I don't need to insult his intelligence. It's likely he's morally troubled by it -- he's just not in a position of power to change it.

That type of discussion about banking practices & fees is totally above his pay grade. Likewise, I'd be called out as a social justice warrior to berate that software engineer on something he doesn't control.

I guess we just have to disagree. I'm not sure what action or solution you're proposing? Should the software engineer quit his job?

I was asked a few years ago (when money was in fact still quite tight) to program a system that took the data from an insurance company and subsequently use that to launch a new product without the customers of the insurance company being the wiser that their data had been 'mined' by the newly formed company. It seemed totally un-ethical to me to do this, and it crossed some privacy laws as well regarding the creation of databases with privacy sensitive information on individuals.

Someone else stepped up and built it for them, I couldn't care less about that at least it wasn't my work that went to screw over a bunch of unsuspecting consumers.

At the same time I've had the porn industry as my customer for over two decades. I guess we all draw our lines in different places such that for every problem there is always going to be someone who will take up the slack.

Feel free to berate me for having sold to the porn industry, I have absolutely no excuse.

A guideline that would make stuff like this more clear would be appreciated, right now the only one I have is the law: if it's legal: I'll build it, if I feel that it is illegal or gray then I will refuse.

Did your porn industry customers practice human trafficking or other forms of coercion? If not, then how would that sully you any more than someone who visits a porn site?

I have quit my job in the past after being asked to write code I considered unethical. And it was nothing even close to the seriousness of deliberately screwing poor people with banking fees.

Let me turn it around. If I were interviewing someone for a job writing software, and somehow I found out he worked on that re-ordering software at the bank, while it wouldn't be an instant no-hire, I would very much like to hear an explanation about what good that person thought he was doing.

providing value for the banks shareholders who are pension funds.

the old cannibalize the young, because they can no longer work. if you look at any asset class, this is how the western advanced civilisations work.

I guess we just have to disagree. I'm not sure what action or solution you're proposing? Should the software engineer quit his job?

Without getting into the rest of the argument, a reply to that last paragraph:

The absence of an alternative course of action doesn't make it right, it just explains it. Saying "I can't think of another way to deal with it" isn't an excuse, it's an explanation. He still did The Thing. You can't think of an alternative? Okay, that doesn't change that he did it.

It's an important detail because you're putting the onus of dealing with his situation on the rest of the world, while he is the one who got himself in there.

"What do you suggest he'd do?" Well, not getting into that situation in the first place would be a good start. Or at least assume responsibility for your actions, when you do.

> That type of discussion about banking practices & fees is totally above his pay grade. Likewise, I'd be called out as a social justice warrior to berate that software engineer on something he doesn't control.

Morals are not determined by pay grades. And anyone who uses "social justice warrior" as a pejorative is someone not worth listening to. If you act in fear of being called a name that says you care about social justice, you need to reconsider your world, for it is a rotten one and bad for you.

Be mindful of you, and expect others to be mindful of themselves, and hold yourself, and them, accountable for the choices they make. That's the only route--the only route--to a society worth living in. And yes, that does mean giving somebody a ration of shit for jobsworthing us into a worse world.

> Should the software engineer quit his job?

I have. I'd do it again. We are so very, very privileged in that money can be had more cheaply than self-respect. But so many of us, I think because we as a profession house so many people who are stunted in their ability to measure the world, act as if it were the reverse.

>Morals are not determined by pay grades.

Please don't put words in my mouth to make you look ethical and make me look amoral. I said "banking fees" not "morals" are above his pay grade. Which bank allows software programmers to set banking fees? None.

>"social justice warrior" as a pejorative is someone not worth listening to. If you act in fear of being called a name that says you care about social justice,

No. The SJW pejorative[1] would actually say I don't care and I would deserve such an epithet. Lecturing someone about morals if I'm in no position to help them quit their job, is empty platitudes and theatrics. It's the theatrics (not the moral principles) that's called out as SJW and rightfully so. When a parent tells a child not to steal the candy from the store, that's not SJW. The parent has the power to buy the candy or find a substitute later at home.

Yes, we, to some extent as (anonymous) HN posters can all espouse the idea of holding people to a higher moral standard. Sure, in this thread, "someone losing their job" is just some abstract concept so I can definitely join the chorus and tell them to quit the job consequences be damned. Nobody here would know the difference.

However, I was talking about a real life situation where the COBOL programmer was directly in front of me. In that scenario, I will not lecture him. I hope others are not so crass to do it either (especially if the moral crusader is wearing tennis shoes made by exploited children but that's another discussion.) The programmer already feels bad about it. Lecturing him just depicts me as smug & superior and him as inferior.

>Be mindful of you, and expect others to be mindful of themselves, and hold yourself, and them, accountable for the choices they make.

I mostly agree with this. Where I disagree with the other posters is that I'm sympathetic to the all those programmers who are basically good people but are stuck in Dilbert cubicles writing code they really don't want to write. The programmers aren't happy about it but they don't have other opportunities. The list is endless...

The programmers writing dark patterns on LinkedIn, the correlation tracking on Facebook, the dynamic ticket pricing at airlines, etc.

I'm not talking about programmers writing Superfish, or ransom-ware that encrypts the harddrive unless the user pays into a bitcoin account. Those folks are evil and if they didn't have programming skill to write viruses, they'd find another outlet for their evil such as skimming casino accounts or falsifying company expense reports.

Not everybody gets to write software to send virtual "Get Well" cards to kids with cancer. There just aren't enough of those morally perfect jobs to go around.

I'm talking about the hundreds of thousands just getting through the day at the office. I'm actually shocked that more of us aren't sympathetic to the situation and see that not every programmer supporting business grey areas can just quit. And testimonials from a handful of HN posters proudly proclaiming they quit does not convince people. That shows a total lack of understanding in what type dialogue actually works. People need empathy and support, not righteousness.

It's not just programmers. It's the young lady selling overpriced cosmetics at the department store to the customers that don't need it. It's the minimum wage cashier at McDonald's constantly asking, "would you like extra supersize fries with that?" even though the customer in front her weighs 300 pounds and is one burger away from a heart attack. You think someone lecturing a low-level worker about selling fries is appropriate?

I believe in moral sermons backed up by support (financial, offering a home to say, etc) if the employee loses his job. Otherwise, it's empty platitudes.

[1]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=social+justic...

> programmers writing dark patterns on LinkedIn, the correlation tracking on Facebook, the dynamic ticket pricing at airlines, etc.

are those jobs really dilbert cubicles? i really have negative sympathy for these people's essentially first world problems and a backlash against them is inevitable, and in my opinion welcome at this point.

>are those jobs really dilbert cubicles?

Yes... that, or open office plans with Dilbert bosses. Direct your backlash at the corporate management, not the programmers. Many of the software engineers already feel bad and would like to do something else (start their own company, whatever.)

However, they have $50k-100k in college debt and avoiding the programming jobs that reprice airline tickets doesn't make that debt disappear.

really never considered linkedin or facebook as lower tier undesirable jobs. if somebody works there, they can pretty much work most places bar, google nasa etc.

it's not my backlash, i don't own it - therefore i won't be directing anything.

just because somebody got into debt to get education that isn't necessarily required to do a job - doesn't absolve them - or warrant any sympathy.

"That's such a crap excuse."

What, taking family before everything else? The relative effect a person can have to the society where they live in is usually non-existent (barring exceptional circumstances). Otoh the impact any parent can have on their families wellbeing by providing food and being an accessible parent, is usually significant.

So, does one choose the action that is unlikely to cause significant positive effect but is an opportunity cost, or the action that has obvious short term observable effects?

Man, it would be way cooler and more relaxing to be a moral crusader rather than a father but I choose the latter. It also drains me to a point where I really don't have any excess capacity to save the world.

Also the world has plenty of ineffective moral crusaders. Destroying yourself for no effective results can and should be frowned upon.

The soldiers in the Waffen-SS had families, too.

reordering transactions was the example here. slow down with the nazi comparisons, they're out of place.

Godwin wins again.

This is a modern take on the Nuremberg defense.

You're right in a way. Values like these come from the top, in the project manager, the CEO etc. Morality is found in the company culture, and shouldn't be found exclusively in the worker bee software engineers.

But what else I see is that this can also come from the bottom up, in the way software engineers can "manage up". Software engineers are by definition more intimately aware of the details of a project, and they need to be listened to by management when they have a concern. Because frankly management can't be so aware of the details. It's our responsibility to be concerned about ethics, so that we can better manage up to spread that concern throughout an organization, so that it can filter down to someone else.

There is a secondary dimension here. The Hippocratic oath works because all the other doctors have also agreed to do it. Whenever faced with one of these scenarios, you also have to ask yourself: "If this is the hill I choose to die on, will it actually make a difference?" If the next person is line is going to look at your example, shrug, and do the thing you refused to do, then your self-sacrifice was a senseless waste, because the thing has happened anyway and the only change you have effected in the world is self-harm.

As a software engineer, it is extremely likely that you are replaceable, and you always have to factor into your considerations what your replacement is going to do. You don't usually have the choice between "the thing happens or does not happen"; your choice is often something more like "you can do the thing, try to convince people that it's a bad idea, or roll the dice and see if your replacement - who is expected to be more average than you - is both willing and more able to convince people that it's a bad idea".

The average doctor follows the Hippocratic oath. What does the average software engineer do?

(The above argument does not apply if your goal is publicity/drama rather than effective change)

The Hippocratic Oath is so that people place trust in doctors - doctors can just as easily choose to accelerate your death as take care of you. The oath is a statement against that outcome.

Software engineering does not have that sort of heavy load.

>I suppose many of us can make an easy buck developing clever (and legal) sex/porn websites but many of us choose not to

My project pipeline is half full right now. Where are those easy buck projects ...

Labelling it a "moral crusade" is straw man rhetoric. It's simply about having the courage to do the right thing, to at least speak up rather than be a silent accomplice.

Most of the evil in the world is not due to top of the pyramid arch villains like the CEOs of the banks that screwed us all, Dick Cheney, the head of the NSA, or even Hitler. It's due to all the people below who enable it. It's called The Banality of Systemic Evil: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/the-banality....

>On the other hand, a software engineer who is making their mark in the world as an entrepreneur definitely has some choices. I suppose many of us can make an easy buck developing clever (and legal) sex/porn websites but many of us choose not to. We want to do something we wouldn't be embarrassed to show our mothers.

That is a potential interesting point you (accidentally) skipped over: I have zero moral issues in making a porn site, unless it did scummy things (install malware). How can we agree about ethics if what we genuinely consider bad is so different?