Introduction

In “The Code I’m Still Ashamed Of,” Bill Sourour describes how he created a quiz code for a pharmaceutical company that was designed to trick consumers into thinking they were getting unbiased information, even though the content was purposefully designed to promote a certain drug. Software developer Sourour was tasked with writing code that would present customers with quiz results that seemed objective. However, these results might cause participants to support the company’s drug, which would go against the principles of openness and overall fairness in the medical field. After giving it some thought, Sourour admits that he was ashamed to have built this code since it was dishonest. In this case Analysis, I will argue that deontology shows the code was unethical since it was dishonest and intended to influence users, and that Sourour should have behaved differently by refusing to contribute to the creation of the misleading material.

ACM Code of ethics and professional conduct

The fundamental foundation for moral behavior in the computing and technology industries is provided by the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. The Code outlines several principles that guide software developers’ responsibilities, with a particular emphasis on the need to ensure that their work serves the public interest and does not have a negative impact on it. The ACM Code has two main tenets: 1) “Promote the welfare of society and individuals” and 2) “Integrity and openness.”

The first idea, “Contribute to society and human well-being,” addresses developers’ responsibility to ensure that their work does not have a harmful impact on people or society at large. In this case, the pharmaceutical quiz was misleading and might have put users at risk by promoting false information about a drug, leading them to base their health decisions on changed results. It’s possible that the quiz affected users’ healthcare choices, which would have been a serious violation of their welfare. Sourour was ignoring the moral obligation to have a good influence on society by purposefully creating an instrument for deception.

The second concept, “Honesty and transparency,” highlights how important it is to provide the public with accurate and understandable information. The purpose of the questions and the quiz’s results were concealed by the way the pharmaceutical quiz was constructed. The coding was biased to support a pharmaceutical product, but participants were led to believe they were receiving unbiased input. The ethical premise that developers should be honest with the public and ensure that their work does not mislead is violated by this lack of openness.

Applying these ACM guidelines suggests that Sourour’s actions raised moral questions. His role in developing a code that hid the quiz’s true intent went against the need to be honest and transparent with users as well as the concept of advancing human welfare.

Deontological Analysis

Immanuel Kant developed deontological ethics, which points out the importance of obligation and moral principles in determining whether a certain action is right. According to deontology, an action’s ethical character is determined by its compliance with moral obligations, regardless of the results. In this case, Kant’s categorical imperative, which holds that one should only act in ways that are universally desirable—can be used to analyze Sourour’s involvement in coding.

It is impossible to generalize the creation of misleading content in the pharmaceutical quiz without compromising decision-making integrity and information’s trustworthiness. The whole idea of trust in digital information would collapse if all developers engaged in coding to trick users for financial gain. Wider societal effects would result from people losing faith in the dependability of the systems they use, whether in the financial, medical, or other sectors. Because it violated the universal norms of honesty and respect for others, coding the quiz was therefore unethical from a deontological perspective.

Additionally, the quiz was designed to sway users’ decisions by providing them with false information. Deontologically speaking, this behavior disregarded the moral duty to respect people as ends in and of themselves rather than as means to an aim. In violation of the ethical duty to treat people with respect and dignity, the quiz participants were reduced to nothing more than tools for the pharmaceutical company’s financial gain. Therefore, from my personal point of view, Sourour’s participation in the code’s creation was immoral.

Armstrong’s Ethical Framework

Armstrong’s studies on professional behavior ethics focus on the need of transparency, accountability, and the impact of one’s activities on society. According to Armstrong, professionals have an obligation to act in ways that promote both individual success and the welfare of society. This obligation is expressed in the idea of “the greater good” and the moral obligation to avoid damage. Armstrong’s emphasis on professional accountability is clearly at odds with Sourour’s introduction of the dishonest pharmaceutical quiz. Sourour did not fulfill his obligation to make sure that his actions were in line with the greater good by taking part in a system that affected users’ health decisions.

Armstrong also stresses how crucial honesty and openness are in all business dealings. These core principles were violated by the quiz’s design, which concealed the covert business motivation. Users were unable to make educated decisions due to the lack of openness, which was obviously against Armstrong’s ethical standards. Sourour admits to feeling uncomfortable during his reflection, suggesting that he partially accepted the violation of these moral precepts. Sourour betrayed his professional integrity and his obligation to society by failing to recognize the long-term consequences of creating such a deceptive system.

Deontological Analysis of Armstrong’s Framework

The ethical problems associated with the pharmaceutical quiz become more apparent when the principles of deontology are merged with Armstrong’s ethical perspectives. From a deontological viewpoint, the duty to regard others as ends in themselves and the tenet of honesty are essential. Sourour’s actions breached these responsibilities, as his participation in developing the quiz caused users to be deceived. Deontologists, adhering to Kantian ethics, would contend that by altering the quiz results to fulfill a business agenda, Sourour regarded users as simply tools to achieve a goal—specifically, increasing pharmaceutical sales—rather than honoring their autonomy and ability to make informed choices. In this situation, the users were stripped of the capacity to make decisions based on truthful information, which compromised their dignity and independence. 

Furthermore, Armstrong’s emphasis on acting for the greater good aligns with deontological principles, particularly the idea that moral actions should serve the well-being of society rather than prioritize individual or corporate gain. Armstrong stresses that professionals have an ethical responsibility to avoid causing harm and to foster a positive impact on society. In this scenario, the misleading nature of the quiz clearly serves the interests of the pharmaceutical company but risks harming users by encouraging decisions based on false or incomplete information. The harm caused by such actions could lead to individuals making choices that negatively affect their health, which is a direct contradiction to the ethical imperative to act in ways that support society’s collective well-being.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the creation of the pharmaceutical quiz code raised ethical concerns since it violated fundamental moral principles like integrity, openness, and respect for individual liberty. While I can understand some blaming Sourour for this might be harsh, but he is still guilty by association, he should have refused to participate in the initiative or at least expressed her displeasure with the quiz’s deceptive character. By doing this, he would have protected the users’ wellbeing and fulfilled his ethical obligations but instead of opting out he helped with the coding for the pharmacal quiz and compromised people’s trust. Armstrong’s ethical framework and the ACM Code both place a heavy emphasis on the value of maintaining professional integrity and the duty to act in a way that respects human dignity. Ultimately, Sourour’s reflection on his behavior emphasizes how important it is to align one’s efforts with these core moral principles to ensure positive outcomes for society.