A Look at an IS Ethical Code's Underlying Ethical Principles

http://www.diva-portal.org

Postprint

This is the accepted version of a paper presented at International Conference on Computer Ethics, 9-10 June 1997, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.

Citation for the original published paper:

Eberhagen, N. (1997) A look at an IS ethical code's underlying ethical principles. In: Collste, G. (ed.), International Conference on Computer Ethics Linköping, Sweden: Centre for Applied Ethics, Linköping University

N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.

Permanent link to this version: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-6361

A look at an IS ethical code's underlying ethical principles

Niclas Eberhagen

Växjö University Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science S-351 95 Växjö

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract The purpose if this paper is to give light to the underlying ethical principles of an ethical code. The ethical code here is the unified international ethical code and standards for IS- professionals as proposed by Effy Oz (1992). An ethical code and standard is the rules for morally correct behavior that a community or organization put forth to its members, serving as norms and guidelines for their interactions and relationships. The underlying ethical principles are represented by such moral philosophers as Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hegel, Hume, and Mill. The presentation and study of the ethical code is done in order to uncover what ethical principles its rules and norms are based upon.

Keywords: Ethical code and standards, IS-professionals, Ethical theories

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to throw light upon those underlying ethical principals whose representatives can be found in the work of Norman (1982) with regard to an ethical code and standard with relevance to the IS-field. By an ethical code and standard here is defined as those ethical principles that e.g. an organization or community put forth to its member to adhere to serving as guidelines or norms for the behavior between the members but also between the members and those outside the organization. The codes and standards, norms or rules, the members must follow in order for them to count themselves as members of the community or organization in question. An example of such an ethical code or standards is "the ACM Code of Ethics" which the members of that association must follow. Another example of an ethical guideline for an association, an early one, is the principle of Hippocrates stating that a doctor should not at least hurt their patients intentionally. Such an ethical principle is critical for a patient that a doctor adheres to since he is at the mercy of the whims of the doctor while undergoing treatment. This ethical principle seeks to establish a contract of trust between the moral agent and the stakeholder. If the patient cannot trust that the doctor in question can follow this basic ethical principle then there is no basis for trust between them. By a moral agent here is someone who has the potential to make a change of the current situation or status by choosing among different courses of actions. The stakeholder is the one who is affected by this change of current status. The stakeholders stand to gain or lose something from this change. They may or may not exercise some influence over the moral agent and or themselves. The moral agent may even himself be one of the stakeholders.

The ethical code and standards which will be presented and discussed here is the international unified one that Oz (1992) has come to formulate by doing a comparative study of five different within the IS-field. The work of Oz will be presented further on in this paper.

What is then ethics? Walsham (1996) gives us this brief definition by state that it is those norms that should guide our actions. Laudon (1995) however gives us a much clearer insight to what it is that we are dealing with by saying that it is all about decision making and choices of course of action of free individuals. Ethics should help us to reach the correct decisions by giving answers to questions like "what shall I do?” However this doesn't explain sufficiently enough what ethics is about.

Norman (1982) approaches a usable definition of ethics by making use of the concept of moral philosophy and to the fact that behind it lies an attempt to reach an understanding of the characteristics of human values regarding how we shall live and what is meant by and constitutes a morally correct behavior. Norman states further that reducing ethics or moral to being just a tool for deciding or estimating whether the conduct of individuals is morally admirable or not is a rather one-sided perspective. Studies of moral philosophy should concern more general questions such as: "how should one live?" What can be said to be a good life for individuals, not only what is necessarily morally good. Norman points on the difference between what he calls substantial ethics (i.e. normative ethics) and meta-ethics and claims that this division is fundamental. Normative ethics tries to give answer to questions such as: "how should I live?" and "how should I be?" and so forth. It tries to create rules for conduct which can be general to all individuals.

In the light of this Norman (1982) also let forth some critical voices of other philosophers who claims that we cannot create ethical theories concerning how one should live or act because there is no objective or general view of how we should live or act. It is the criteria of objectivity or generalizability that is questioned. They are critical to all attempts to establish objective general rules applicable to each and everyone despite the many cultures and forms of societies there exist. The critical philosophers tend to advocate some form of ethical subjectivism or relativism much in line whit the teachings of Protagoras stating that what is right for one society is also right for that society.

Meta-ethics looks upon normative ethics and questions "what does it mean when we say that an action is god or correct?” At the bottom of this lies an analysis of the very language and concepts that are used in normative ethic and the questions that it raises. The purpose of meta-ethics is not to discover what is good or correct but what is meant by saying that something is good or correct. If normative ethics is occupied with practical issues and questions then the purpose of meta-ethics is to discover or uncloak that which is going on within normative ethics.

A meta-ethical thinking represents a self-reflective thinking where the moral agent is preoccupied with the basis for theory of his moral reflections and may pose questions regarding the definition of fundamental concepts e.g. what is meant by a morally good action. In this way the moral agent may come to change the ethical principles he follows when faced with a moral dilemma.

Norman (1982) lets a number of representatives for different moral philosophical schools come forth and present their ideas. Starting with the Sophists in the ancient Greece 600-500 B.C. through Plato and Aristotle in classical antique Greece to modern philosophers such as Hume, Mill, and Kant, and Hegel all the way to the contemporary ones such as Marx and Freud. Others, less known, are also given the opportunity to voice their ideas and thoughts but the one mentioned here comes to represent the mainstream of philosophical ideas and thinking. Last but not least Norman is as brave enough as to attempt to state what, in his own opinion, a moral ethical theory should include, and thereby trying to overcome some of the critique he and others have given regarding the work of the earlier moral philosophers. However this attempt may in itself be the object of another discussion and will not be taken up within here.

Ethical questions do not necessarily have to be of normative character to be interesting but may as well be descriptive. Such descriptive ethical questions tries to uncover the ethical facts which are relevant to the situation at hand by giving answers to questions such as "what is...?". Mason (1995) points on a framework with four questions which may be used to discover those facts, more or less of ethical character, which underlies an ethical situation, choice or dilemma. The framework states that facts in a situation may be gathered by answering the following questions: 1) who is the moral agent? Here it is the identification of the one whose actions may bring about change; 2) what possible courses of actions are available to the moral agent? Since actions bring about the realization of consequences question number three automatically follows; 3) what are the consequences that may be realized when different courses of action are chosen?; and 4) who are the stakeholders in the situation? The identification of them is important because they are the ones who stand to gain or lose something through the action of the moral agent. The answers to these questions within the framework help us to establish the facts of the situation that gives answers to such questions as "what is...?", but they do not tell us how we should act or behave.

Some relevant ethical theories

What is meant by relevant ethical theories? They are here those theories which have the greatest relevance in studies of ethical principles or questions with regard to the IS-field. In order to find these a study has been undertaken of a number of contemporary authors, which have discussed ethics and ethical dilemmas within the IS-field. The authors who have lent their foremost inspiration to this study are, besides Norman (1982), Collins, Miller, Spielman, and Wherry (1994), Hosmer (1995), Laudon (1995), Mason (1994 and 1995), and Walsham (1996). These authors have come to function as some sort of selection criteria or filter for choosing relevant ethical theories. The ethical theories chosen for their relevance to the IS-field will be presented and discussed further on. There may very well be other ethical theories and authors, some may argue, that are at least as relevant as the once that have been filtered out as constituting the mainstream, but nevertheless these are the once identified and discussed in this paper.

One interesting thing to do is to throw light upon is what and how these, above mentioned authors, have done in order to study contemporary ethical issues and moral dilemma in relation to ethical theories. Here the work of Laudon (1995) may be mentioned. He creates a framework for studying the ethical theories by classifying them according to three critical dimensions, which he claims the ethical literature may be divided into two. These dimensions are: 1) phenomenology vs. positivism; 2) rules vs. consequences; and 3) the individual vs. the collective.

According to the first dimension, phenomenology vs. positivism, the ethical schools try to give answers to questions such as "what should I do?” The phenomenologist’s claim that which is good in a situation may be derived from the logic and language of the situation or through debate about the good in itself. The positivists, on the contrary, claim that one should study the real world in order to inductively derive ethical principles from facts.

According to the second dimension, rules vs. consequences, it is stated that good actions should follow as a result from abiding to the correct rules for behavior. These rules are universal and applicable to each and everyone. However the school of consequentialists state that one should consider the consequences of one's action and chose those courses of actions that produces the best results or brings about those consequences with the greatest good.

According to the third dimension, individuals vs. the collective, the focus is aimed to where the moral authority is placed. Either it is placed with the individual, who by self-reflection or analysis may come to the greater insight and develop the rules, or that the moral authority is placed with the collective, who by itself creates the rules for all its members to abide to.

The three dimensions are used by Laudon (1995) to create a model where he places the different ethical theories. The model is constituted by two dimensions where he places along the first the label rules vs. consequences. Along the other dimension he places the individuals vs. the collective. In this manner he has created four different classificational groups for ethical theories, which should be in accordance with the different ethical schools. When it comes to the above mentioned dimension of phenomenologists vs. positivists, Laudon states that phenomenologists may be found mostly with the ethical school of rules, and that the positivists tend to be mostly found with the consequentialists. The four different classificational groups thus are: 1) collective ethics of rules; 2) individual ethics of rules; 3) collective consequentialism; and 4) individual consequentialism. These classificational groups thus serve, according to Laudon, as the basis for categorizing the different ethical schools.

Norman (1982) does not do this categorization as Laudon (1995) has done. He satisfies himself by presenting the different ethical schools in a chronological fashion that start with the ancient Greeks and ends in modern time. However we may anyhow, through his attempt to a genealogy, yet see different divisions or categorizations of the different schools where one is trying to reach answers to questions such as "what person should I be?", "how should I live?", and "how should I act?". From this genealogy a categorization of four different ethical schools is possible, which seems to be in accordance with those of the work of the before mentioned authors, and it is also possible to place the different representatives of moral philosophy within these categories.

The pursuits of virtues

Within this category of ethical theories an improvement of the character of the moral agent is sought. A virtue centered theory for guidance of actions has the effect of creating a good society by the agent being a good human. The answers sought within in this line of reasoning are to questions like "what type of person should I be?” This school can be said to represented both by Plato (and thus Socrates through him) and Aristotle but also Hume. A consequentialistical view on this these type of ethical theories argues that specific virtues are worthy of cultivation if and only if their expression in action results in a contribution to the general good.

Norman (1982) shows that both Plato and Aristotle wants to show that the good and virtuous life is what is to be striven for since that is by all reason the most enriching and fruitful one. A morally good person should thus act in a manner of cultivating his courage, moderateness, feeling for justice and so forth, i.e. the virtues. A good society is achieved by every moral agent being good. One becomes good by cultivating virtues and acting according to them.

To Plato goodness in itself is a form or concept that can be described and approached by the individuals without them fully comprehending it. The task of ethics is here through dialog, literature, and language to discover the characteristics of goodness and then base all actions and goals upon this understanding or insight. Rules for a good behavior are collective, generally applicable to each and everyone, and not affected by the consequences.

According to Norman (1982) Aristotle doesn't agree with Plato about the ideas of ethical knowledge which should originate from the theories of forms. Ethical knowledge should guide our actions and will thus be knowledge about things that can undergo change since every action without doubt leads to change in some form. Ethical knowledge will thus be based upon knowledge about details and earthbound things. The ultimate goal for human actions is happiness. Happiness is the uttermost good. Happiness should not be separated from joy and wellbeing since the one who is happy also finds the joy in life. On the other hand happiness should not be confused with the fulfillment of wishes and lusts. Human actions must be interpreted in terms of means and ends.

Both Plato and Aristotle place the foundation for a moral authority outside the individual with the collective. Those rules that shall govern the human actions are valid for each and everyone and have been shaped by the society. But both of the philosophers differ when it comes to the source of knowledge for forming and shaping these rules. The basis for knowledge for Plato is phenomenological while Aristotle is a positivist. Aristotle argues that one should study the actions, laws, and customs of different cultures and societies in order to inductively reach a set of universal good actions, laws, and customs.

According to Norman (1982) Hume represents an ethical theory with strong streaks of altruism based upon his concept of sympathy or humanity. By sympathy Hume gives a broad definition which includes the ability to be moved or affected by the happiness or suffering of others, and being able to feel enjoyment of the success of others and feel pity with their pitfalls. Sympathy is a human quality that exists on its own accord. Sympathy is not, however, a virtue in itself but a source of moral approval. The strife for this quality is regarded as a virtue. Moral judgments are primarily judgments between virtues and vices, which also Plato and Aristotle argue. The different between Plato, together with Aristotle, and Hume lies in that which Hume counts as virtues. What distinguishes a quality as a virtue is if it is usable or pleasant for the owner or others. Qualities that are usable or pleasant for others may be regarded as virtues. This basing of virtues for the strife of attaining human qualities which are pleasant and usable to us and others should thus explain our appreciation of virtues.

Duties

Deontology or ethics of duties stresses the moral agent’s duty and tries to create a good society through making individuals doing the right or correct actions. Some actions are morally wrong or despicable in themselves even though the goals sought to attain are morally correct. This ethical theory strives to set up some form of code or standard of rules which one dedicatedly should follow in spite of current circumstances. The ethics of duty tries to give answers to questions like "how should I live?" by creating a list of rules to follow much like the Ten Commandments.

Kant may be seen as one of the foremost representatives of this ethical school. He advocates that some actions in themselves so genuinely good that choosing them should be regarded as a duty. The morally good lies in the performance of these actions or fulfillment of duties for their own sake and not that they give happiness or satisfaction. Moral rules or duties are expressed as categorical imperatives which are not dependent upon any purpose or affected by their consequences. These are not specific but universally applicable and generalized. Kant further claims that for an action to be morally acceptable it follows that what is right for one individual to do should be equally right for anyone else to do.

The basis for forming moral rules is the objective common sense or reason. The world cannot be observed directly without being colored by human understanding or compassion and such observations can't be objective enough to form the basis for formulating universal applicable rules. The correct courses of action must be in accordance with pure reasoning and erroneous actions are thus a violation of reason.

Kant doesn't take into consideration that duties may be conflicting. A duty such as that you should not steel may indeed conflict with the duty for a poor mother to feed her starving child. A variant of deontology which recognizes this conflict between different duties is the "Prima Facie" with Ross as its advocator. He states that every situation we are faced with brings about a number, at first sight, of duties to fulfill but these are not arranged in any order and ranked, but it is up to us to choose, on moral ground, the ones which we wish to fulfill. Ross represents an individualistic view of moral authority. It is the individual who by himself must decide which duties to fulfill.

A different variant of deontology is the one where the focus is placed upon fundamental rights, fundamental human right or right for every living creature, e.g. the right to life or freedom. The morally good here is to act in a manner that these rights are respected and considered.

Consequences

Here the focus of the actions is placed upon the consequences rather than, as was stated contrarily above, the righteousness in the action by itself. This form of ethical thinking is referred to as teleological or goal-centred and it is how one should act that is the main question to answer.

Consequentialism argues that it is the good consequences that should guide our choice of courses of action and that the moral agent should estimate the consequences of his actions and decide upon how much happiness or damage, goodness or evil, and gains or losses that is inflicted upon the stakeholders. One must analyze all consequences of all the possible courses of actions available to ensure that one is choosing the one that maximizes the good for each and everyone. When it is hard to foresee all of the possible outcomes of every possible course of action one must at least try to make the right choices based upon the knowledge at hand.

Against this consequentialistical line of thinking a lot of critique can be voiced since it allows bad actions to be performed as long as the results are good. In this line of thinking lies a fundamental conflict with deontology which states that one should choose only those actions that are good in themselves.

A variant of consequentialism is utilitarianism which tries to give a definition of good consequences by measuring the result of the action in terms of utility. The utility of the consequences of our actions should be added for all those stakeholders who are concerned and one should choose that action which maximizes the common utility. Mill, and with him Bentham, is the foreground figure of this school of ethics. A good society is achieved, according to utilitarianism, by maximizing the common utility i.e. the good. Utilitarianism bases itself upon empirical observations, upon the consequences, rather than absolute rules and upon the broad collective good for everyone. We should thus not follow rules blindly but act so that the happiness and wellbeing is ensured and maximized for each and everyone. A variant of utilitarianism is the hedonistical utilitarianism which states that one should act so that those consequences that bring about the highest possible joy and avoidance of pain for everyone are ensured.

Justice

One way to answers to the questions of how we should act is to strive for justice. Justice demands that every individual shall as far as possible have equal opportunity to develop his or her knowledge, abilities, and talents. This is achieved through taking just and correct actions based upon the rules that the society has created for its members to follow. The good society is achieved through a good and just division of all its resources, duties, and so forth, amongst its members

According to Rawls the society is formed based upon a social contract where free individuals choose the principles for justice. The members of the society interact with each other, both cooperatively and in conflict. They cooperate because it is easier to reach a better life together than in solitude. Rawls creates here an ethical theory based upon rules for the behavior within a society, i.e. some form of general theory of contract for all within the society. But for this contract to be created the members of the society must meet under specific conditions. Rawls places upon the participants the burden of rationality and forces them to put aside their specific interests, which may create tension, by placing a veil of ignorance on the participants. The participants thus do not know about what positions of powers were held and by whom and they do not know how the consequences will affect their own interests. The only thing they know is that the society must have a system of justice. Under these conditions they create those principles that are the basis for the rules within the social contract of the society. Under these conditions these free individuals create a society to protect them towards the worst imaginable that may occur. A society where maximal freedom is the same as equal freedom for everyone and a division of the prosperity so that even the worst affected by misfortune are the ones who live under the best conditions, thus we have a society that follows a maxi-min principle. Rawls argues that a collective moral authority, through the contract of the society, is based upon a foundation of positivism since all rules governing the actions within the contract are empirically derived.

The ethical code and standards

The ethical code and standards that will be presented here does not exist yet on its own accord but is an ethical code and standard for IS-professional at international level as proposed by Oz (1992). Oz made a comparative study of the differences and similarities between different ethical codes and standards at national level and pointed out the need for a unified international ethical code and standard. This need for an international code stems from the fact that many of the information systems developed today processes and distributes data at an international level between countries and those clients or third parties may be situated in a different country. The IS-field has become internationalized in a high degree and therefore the need for some form of unified ethical code and standard that is not only restricted to the laws of a specific country.

In order to find a basis for a unified ethical code Oz states the following: "Perhaps the best way to shape codes into a comprehensive, single code would be by examining the points of similarity between the profession and other professions that have widely accepted coherent ethical standards." (1992, p431). Oz then does exactly that by simply studying five different ethical codes and standards of organizations from different countries and point upon their similarities as a basis for a unified ethical code and standard. The organization are the following: DPMA (Data Processing Management Association) acting in both Canada and the USA; ICCP (Institute for Certification of Computer Professionals) in the USA; ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) who has members worldwide; CIPS (Canadian Information Processing Society) in Canada; and BCS (British Computer Society) located in England. Everyone of the ethical standards of these organizations seems to have some form of division between general ethical principles, which tries to give answer to questions such as "how should I be?", and rules for ethically good behavior or conduct where answer to question like "what should I do?" or "how should I do it?" are sought. It seems to imply that within these different ethical standards exists a division between ethical principles concerning duties or virtues and ethical rules concerning the consequences or the specific situation. This is approximately the same division that is also noted by Walsham (1996) in his work.

Oz (1992) divides her study of the ethical rules in the different ethical codes and standards into six different categories or groups of obligations: 1) obligations to society; 2) obligations to employer; 3) obligations to clients; 4) obligations to colleagues; 5) obligations to the IS- organization, which the individual is a member of e.g. ACM; and 6) obligations to the profession.

1) Obligations to society. The issue here is the relation that the IS-professional have to the society and its wellbeing. Integrity, security and economical interest of the general public are the issues of consideration that must be taken. If conflicts should rise concerning obligations then it is always the common good of the general public that should be advocated. Thus the IS-professional should:

- educate the public about information technology (IT) - protect privacy and confidentiality of information - avoid misrepresentation of member's qualifications - avoid misrepresentation of IT - obey laws - avoid taking credit for others' achievements

2) Obligations to employer. To protect the interests of the employer is indeed a sound moral of work, especially when the employer may not have direct insight into the work that is undertaken due to the expertise of the employee. However there are here other issues concerning the relation to the employer which is made clear by the following stating that the IS-professional should:

- update my knowledge in the field of IT - accept responsibility for my own work - present work-related information to the employer in an objective manner - respect confidentiality - protect employer's interests - inform the employer of, or reject a position that involves, conflicts of interest - reject work I cannot perform - not use employer's resources for my own use

These obligations do not conflict each other and the purpose of them is to protect the employer toward harmful behavior of the employee.

3) Obligations to clients. If one fails with the fulfillment of the contractual or ethical obligations of the employer toward a client then it is harmful for the employer. It is unrealistic to expect that the employee should be equally loyal to the clients in the same manner as towards the employer. It is after all the employer who pays the salary. It is only when the IS-professional himself or herself is an independent consultant that the main loyalty lies in the relation to the clients. Therefore the IS-professional should:

- protect confidential information and privacy - give comprehensive opinion regarding information systems - avoid, or notify the client of, conflict of interests - not diminish the effectiveness of a system through commission or omission - honor contractual obligations - avail expertise - as a consultant, not employ an employee of the client without the client's consent - avoid professional jargon

These obligations do not come in conflict with each other and the IS-professional should strive to fulfill or meet every one of them.

4) Obligations to colleagues. Members within the same profession share many common interests and are expected to help their colleagues and respect their work. In spite of this Oz (1992) identifies a clear obligation that the IS-professional should strive to meet, that seems to contradict the above, is that he or she should be encouraged to expose unethical acts of the colleagues. Here Oz points on the fact that this seems to imply that loyalty toward the profession and IS-organization is more important than the one to colleagues. However this could stem from the fact that by not exposing or revealing unethical acts of colleagues is in itself harmful to other colleagues in the long run.

5) Obligations to IS-organization. Professional organizations demands of their members that they should act in accordance to its goals and serve its interests to the common good for all its members. The members should thus not discredit the IS-organization. Members should also state when their own personal situation comes into conflict with the one of the IS- organization. Member should report violations to the IS-organization own standards and ethical code. Oz (1992) points out that the loyalty of a member to his or her organization should not overrun those to other organizations, i.e. members should not put themselves in a situation that gives rise to conflict of ethical principles between other IS-organizations which he or she is a member of.

6) Obligations to profession. Repeated crimes to contractual obligations may not only stain the reputation of the one committing them but is in themselves harmful for the profession as a whole. Loyalty to the profession is placed higher than the loyalty to colleagues, which is especially clear when the general good of the members of the profession demands that one must reports unethical acts of colleagues. Thus the IS-professional should:

- apply high professional standards to personal or social life - avoid acts detrimental to the profession - enhance public confidence in the profession

The last three groups of obligations are very similar to each other and are related to each other since they share same ethical principles and values. In the original framework that Johnson (1985) proposed as an instrument for analysis of an ethical code and standard it was found only four categories or groups of obligations. The last three groups that Oz (1992) here has proposed are in the framework of Johnson (1985) represented by his last group and in fact one namely "obligations to colleagues and professions". This division of the fourth category of obligations of Johnson (1985) into three separate ones is not motivated by Oz (1992) but one must assume that she found the very distinction between the loyalty to profession and colleagues interesting. Maybe she wanted to point upon the tension and ethical conflict that there is buried in the obligation to be loyal towards the profession and report colleagues that act unethically and at the same time respect one's colleagues since they share many interests and therefore help them inevitably seems as a source for moral dilemmas. It could on the other hand be a result from the effort of merging or unifying the four different national ethical codes and standards into one, since there perhaps were found elements in each of them that did not fit as nicely into one category alone.

The underlying ethical principles

The ethical code and standards, as proposed by Oz (1992), seems to be made up of both a set of deontological rules and consequentialistical rules which tells us how the IS-professional should be and act. The different types of obligations seem, as the very word implies, obligations (or duties), to reek of unrestrained deontology or ethics of duty. Alas it is not so but there are great strains of consequentialistical ethics which will be shown through the discussion that follows.

The first obligation, the one toward the society, points upon the concern of the general good and is indeed a consequence-ethical line of thinking. One should act thus that the results or consequences of one's action becomes as good as possible for as many as possible. In spite of this there may be found both deontological ethics in the form of "obeying laws" and Kant make himself reminded too by the obligation to "educate the public about information technology (IT)". Kant states that it is a duty to act thus so that every individual may develop his or her talents and potentials through education and knowledge. Even Aristotle argues in a similar fashion by pointing upon the obligation or duty that the society has towards its members of guaranteeing their further education. But this is also consequence-ethical since it contributes to the general good through informing the individual about the information technology and its potentials.

In the second group of obligations the relationship between the IS-professional and his or her employer is discussed. Here is addressed the many obligation the IS-professional has towards his or her employer such as "protect employer's interests", "accept responsibility for my own work", and so forth. But here we also find the old Aristotelian and Kantian obligation concerning education that the IS-professional shall "update my knowledge in the field of IT". But there are also consequence-ethical aspects such as "inform the employer of, or reject a position that involves, conflicts of interest". One should act in a manner of striving for a maximization of the universal good so that no interests conflict. There may even here be found a hedonistic strain here because one should act in a manner that does not bring harm to others.

Obligations towards clients are much similar to those formulated towards the employer and we may find by large the same underlying ethical principles here as well. Within this group is also found utilitarian ideas. The IS-professional should "use my expertise to provide the client with the best system within contractual limits". The consequences are specified to “the best system” and are equal to the utility. Ergo, one should act thus that the utility is maximized for each and everyone. This seems to be the only place where we may find a clear utilitarian principle.

Concerning the obligations towards colleagues, IS-organizations, and professions the ethical principles are easily recognized and are the same as the ones discussed before but there may be a possible hedonistical strain here since it is stated that the IS-professional shall "avoid acts detrimental to the profession". He must act in a manner that avoids harming to those concerned, i.e. the profession. Even consequentialistical principles such as that the IS- professional shall "enhance the public confidence in the profession". He should act in a way that ensures that the consequences become as good as possible, i.e. enhancing the confidence of the general public towards the profession.

When it comes to conflicting duties they show up on two occasions: obligations between the employer vs. obligations toward the client and obligations toward colleagues vs. obligations towards the IS-organization and profession. Regarding the first conflict there is not given any opportunity for applying any "Prima Facie" principles here. You as a professional must above all be loyal to the employer, especially since it is he who provides you with the salary or if you are your own consultant and independent then you are loyal to the client since it is he pays for the product. The conflicts concerning obligations towards colleagues vs. obligations toward the IS-organization are not recognized either since you as an IS- professional must be loyal to the IS-organization and profession before your colleagues.

There seems to be no apparent principles of virtues or justice embedded within the ethical code and standard, as proposed by Oz (1992). The only apparent strain of virtues seems to be found when Oz (1992) points that the IS-professional should be loyal. The IS-professional must be loyal towards his or her employer and is expected not to put the clients here in the first place. The IS-professional must also be loyal towards the IS-organization and profession in a higher degree than towards his or her colleagues. This is clear when it concerns the obligations toward the colleagues where it is stated that the IS-professional is encouraged to "report unethical act of colleague". Here the loyalty may be regarded as a virtue. Even helpfulness is regarded as a virtue. This is especially true when it comes to the obligations to the colleagues. Since the IS-professional shares many of the interests of the colleagues it is expected of him or her to help and respect the work of the colleagues. One could also argue that even a virtue-ethical strain may be found when it comes to obligations to the IS-organization since it is stated there that the IS-professional should "apply high professional standards to personal and social life". It seems that the IS-professional must strive to be virtuous in a manner that he or she acts as a rule-model to others. Concerning principles of justice there seems to no apparent trace of them amongst all of the obligations what so ever.

References

Collins, R,. Miller, K., Spielman, B., & Wherry, P. (1994). How Good Is Good Enough?: An Ethical Analysis of Software Construction and Use, Communication of the ACM, January, Vol. 37, No. 1.

Hosmer, L. (1995). Trust: The Connecting Link Between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 2.

Johnson, D.G., & Snapper, J.W., (1985). Ethical Issues in the Use of Computers, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California.

Laudon, K., (1995). Ethical Concepts and Information Technology, Communication of the ACM, December, Vol. 38, No. 12.

Mason, R. (1994). Convergence and Community: An Ethical Challenge, Educom Review, Mars/April, Vol. 29, No. 2.

Mason, R. (1995). Applying Ethics to Information Technology Issues, Communication of the ACM, December, Vol. 38, No. 12.

Norman, R. (1983) The Moral Philosophers: An Introduction To Ethics. Oxford University Press Inc., New York, USA.

Oz, E. (1992) Ethical standards for information systems: a case for unified code, MIS Quarterly, December.

Walsham, G. (1996) Ethical theory, codes of ethics and IS practice, Information Systems Journal, No. 6.