In Bill Sourour’s “The Code Im Still Ashamed Of” Sourour writes about a drug that he was told to advertise on a website through a quiz targeted at young girls. The code that he wrote for the quiz, however, violated all moral and ethical boundaries that should have been present during the creation process. Sourour’s quiz resulted in a 100% probability rate to buy and take the pill advertised when taking the quiz not unless the girl utilizing the quiz was already taking or allergic to the pill. At the time he chalked it up to be just marketing however, because of his contribution to drug marketing his success led indirectly to a young girl’s death. The code he created indirectly caused harm to many people by convincing them to take the drug no matter what answers they put on the quiz. Because of this method of advertising young girls would falsely believe that they needed these pills when in reality they did not. What’s worse is that Sourour’s supervisor thought nothing of it because it sold the drug that they were trying to get people to buy at the expense of their health. The Ubuntu tool was desperately needed at the time of creation of his quiz and could have potentially prevented many young girls from taking a pill that they did not need to take. Sourour did not take humanness into account when creating his quiz which led to him denying himself an individualistic chance to benefit the community. In this Case Analysis I will argue that Ubuntu shows that the code was morally problematic because it did not include humanness during its creation and that Sourour should have used Ubuntu ethics to make a quiz that helped people so that he could contribute to society through individualistic means.    

In the ACM “Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct” the institution writes about a very detailed and thorough explanation of what is expected of coding professionals. The code that a professional write is supposed to adhere to a specific set of guidelines and therefore should never be morally incorrect as a result. An excellent example of the guidelines promising to never violate a moral code is noted when ACM writes “An essential aim of computing professionals is to minimize negative consequences of computing systems, including threats to health and safety” (ACM 2). This code that is part of the 1.1 section of the ACM code of ethics, provides insight regarding the professionals that they hire, will aim to prevent computing systems from hurting or threatening someone’s safety. Another beautiful example present in the ACM code of ethics is stated when they write “If system features are misrepresented to its users, coworkers, or supervisors, the individual computing professional is responsible for any resulting injury” (ACM 2). This specific instance of the ACM code of ethics refers to a computing professional making a misleading or false program to anyone and as a result the professional responsible is at fault for the consumers misfortune. The ACM code gives one last demonstration of what it means to be a good computing professional when they state “In the work environment the computing has the additional obligation to report any signs of system dangers that might result in serious personal or social damage. If one’s superiors do not act to curtail or mitigate such dangers, it may be necessary to “blow the whistle” to help correct the problem or reduce risk” (ACM 2). I believe that this is also important because it can stop immoral business practice from hurting the consumer or even employees. By telling someone of authority of an immoral practice you can potentially stop a disaster from happening of small to large capacity.  

Analyzing each concept allows us to see that Sourour clearly did not follow the ACM guidelines on how to be a professional computing individual. Starting with the first concept Sourour could have used his illegitimate quiz to minimize the threat to people’s safety but, he increased the threat by creating a quiz that motivated people who were potentially not sick to take pills that could harm them. The quiz he made indirectly caused harm to each person that received the result from the quiz violating the ACM code. The second concept relates to Sourour because after he did the quiz and as stated in the guidelines anyone who makes a misrepresenting or misleading computing program is responsible for any damage caused. Sourour is responsible for every person that he harmed, and he even validated it in his story when he resigned due to the suicide of the young girl who took the pills he helped advertise. Finally relating to the third concept mentioned, Sourour at the time of creation thought nothing of his supervisor’s reaction to his quiz being misleading in nature because it sold the product well. However, even after he realized her corrupt immoral standard, he still failed to alarm other individuals that her practices were egregious.  

In relation to Ubuntu ethics, I believe that Sourour easily could have used this tool to benefit those who needed the help at the time. Had he shown his humanity and understood the pain and suffering that those who could have had depression while taking his quiz he could have benefited society as an individual and played into Ubuntu philosophy. He could have made an honest quiz that referred the individuals who needed help to the doctor or told them if they really were showing signs of depression or not. Not only did he make the false quiz, but even after he knew about the danger of his quiz, he still failed show his humanity and contribute to society because he did not take down his quiz nor blow the whistle on his supervisor. His quiz could have been still potentially providing false information to people and convincing them to buy dangerous pills. If he had used Ubuntu based logic in this scenario he could have once again contributed to society and helped in his own individual role. The only action that Sourour took that was correct was after he found out about the girl’s suicide he resigned as a result. This was in line with Ubuntu ethics because he showed his humanity and understood the situation with compassion and regret.  

In Armstrong’s “Confidentiality A Comparison Across the Professions of Medicine, Engineering and Accounting” Armstrong compares the concept of cofidentiality between three different career fields. Within this document he provides an insight regarding a principle made by the AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) who developed a code of conduct for their workers. The insight states “In discharging their professional responsibilities, members may encounter conflicting pressures from among each of [several] groups [clients, credit grantors, governments, employers, investors, the business and financial community” (Armstrong 84). After he cites the statement, he explains how in this situation of conflict the person at question should respond in a manner that maintains their integrity with the precept that when they fulfill these roles with integrity they are best served. He is claiming that if an individual is pressured or told to do something out of the ordinary, they must refuse to maintain their moral balance. Another instance of Armstrong’s conceptual offerings comes from this excerpt “Some might argue that the threat to public safety exposed by an engineer is serious enough to warrant such a drastic action as whistleblowing” (Armstrong 86). I believe this concept is important because he exemplifies how incorrect actions that are deemed not safe or hazardous to anyone should be exposed accordingly. It shows that the code that the AICPA wrote for their employees to follow does not tolerate any form of shortcuts when it comes to working.  

Using the concepts mentioned previously to analyze the case you can put Sourour in the same situation as a normal AICPA worker and realize that he made the wrong decision when creating his illegitimate quiz. The concept from Armstrong states that when you are put in the situation that Sourour was put you must answer with an integrity-based answer. Obviously, Sourour did not follow that logic and as a result he ended up resigning due to a guilty conscience as he should. Sourour thought nothing of his quiz even after his supervisor told him it was broken because it gives her one answer instead of a more in-depth explanation on how depression can damage an individual and cause long term side effects. Moving to the second concept I believe it is important to note that this concept applies to Sourour after he find out about the girl’s tragic death. Using Armstrong’s logic, you would think that a young girl’s suicide from a pill that you indirectly caused would be enough to warrant whistleblowing about what is happening at the establishment that you work at. Sourour essentially took a shortcut to success by making an illegitimate quiz that ultimately resulted in many individuals getting either some form of indirect physical or mental harm. He should have realized that his quiz was going to expose people to harm and potentially endanger peoples’ lives.  

Using Ubuntu logic to rectify Sourour’s mistakes from the previous concept application would be easy for me to apply to his situation. Starting with putting myself in the situation he was in and then after I am asked to make the quiz, I use Ubuntu logic to help others by providing a very insightful quiz regarding the effects of depression. This in return will allow me to achieve the idea of being a person who is a person through other persons. By effectively, understanding that our humanity recognizes our interdependence (in Sourour’s case our ability to help each other by creating a useful tool) to help others, we can create a tool that people will continue to pass on and use to help fight depression. That is how Sourour could have been a person through another person, but he missed that opportunity. Moving to the second concept, Sourour realized that his supervisor had ill intentions in hindsight and did not tell anyone, which I consider to be a violation of his humanity as previously stated. The Ubuntu philosophy discusses freedom within our community and Sourour could have experienced this feeling had he blown the whistle on his former supervisor. What I mean by that is if Sourour told someone of authority what his quiz was doing he would have experienced a sense of reconciliation among the families or friends who lost someone to suicide. By stopping the process of indirectly hurting someone, Sourour could have benefited society through mutual recognition of his mistake amongst other individuals within society. This mutual recognition and mutual interdependence are what makes someone free in Ubuntu logic and Sourour should have taken his chance when he had it.  

In the end I do sympathize with Sourour because he did not mean to cause any harm in the long run. However, after he realized that his quiz was causing harm to people it seemed like he did not do much to stop it from further damaging anyone else. He was young and when we are young, we do tend to make terrible mistakes and he is aware of that now so he will never repeat what he did years ago. It’s simply unfortunate that Sourour did not have Ubuntu ethics to help him overcome the obstacle that was put in front of him at the time because it was truly the perfect scenario for the situation, but he was not aware of it. Sourour did not account for humanness being present in his quiz and because of his actions he hurt innocent people indirectly. If he had done this from the start he could have contributed to society as an individual or even after the fact he made the illegitimate quiz, he could have found freedom within his community if he had just blown the whistle about his quiz. Aside from the past, Sourour does seem to have a firm understanding of Ubuntu ethics at the end of document as he shows true sympathy for those affected by depression and does show signs of regret for the quiz he made. So at least Sourour has that to confide with those that he chooses to write to in his newsletters in the present.