In the article “The Code I’m Still Ashamed of,” Bill Sourour shares his story of landing a full-time coding job at an interactive marketing firm. While working there, he was assigned a project involving a drug marketed to teenage girls. The drug was promoted via a website that, through its graphics and overall style, was clearly targeted at young women. The site featured a quiz that asked girls various questions and then recommended a specific drug based on their answers. Sourour explains that the website did not overtly advertise any particular drug, presenting itself as a general information source instead. His job was to code the quiz, but he became uneasy when he realized that the quiz was rigged to always recommend the client’s drug, regardless of the responses given. Additionally, Sourour did not know that the drug had side effects, including depression and suicidal thoughts. In this case analysis, I will argue that utilitarianism reveals the ethical issues with the code, as it resulted in more harm than good. Sourour should have taken a different approach to uphold “the greatest good for the greatest number” of people.

In her article, Armstrong emphasizes the critical role of confidentiality for companies, asserting that it should be maintained when there is a justifiable reason. This principle makes sense, as safeguarding certain details is essential for protecting the company and its stakeholders. Armstrong refers to this as professional confidentiality, defining it as a moral obligation for professionals unless it conflicts with more pressing duties. She states, “it therefore follows that it is morally binding on professionals unless it is in conflict with equal or stronger duties” (Armstrong, 1994). Despite this, Armstrong acknowledges that not all companies act with the public’s welfare in mind. For example, the company that used Sourour’s quiz to promote a drug exemplifies a failure to prioritize ethical considerations over commercial interests.

Armstrong also explores the AIDS epidemic to illustrate the nuanced challenges of confidentiality. During this crisis, those with AIDS endured profound social stigma and exclusion. Armstrong notes that “AIDS patients are often ostracized from society and left to die” (Armstrong, 1994). This dire situation has fueled discussions about how to manage confidential medical information and what should be revealed to the public. The central challenge is balancing the need to protect individual privacy with the necessity of informing the public about significant health issues. From a utilitarian perspective, the emphasis is on improving public health by sharing information about the disease, even if it means that those with AIDS may face increased discrimination. This dilemma underscores the ethical complexity of navigating the tension between individual privacy and the broader societal need for awareness and intervention. It raises important questions about the responsibility of both medical professionals and companies to act in ways that advance the common good while respecting individual rights.

From a utilitarian viewpoint, Armstrong highlights “the positive benefits to society when professionals can be trusted to keep confidences” (Armstrong, 1994). This principle is crucial in understanding the unethical actions described in Sourour’s article regarding the pharmaceutical quiz. The quiz required users to reveal personal information to receive drug recommendations, a practice that is highly unethical due to the quiz’s lack of security. This vulnerability meant that anyone could potentially hack into the system and misuse the private information of the young women. Evaluating confidentiality in a corporate context is complex, as there are varying opinions on what information should remain private and what should be disclosed to the public.

Also, a utilitarian perspective would assert that the greater good of protecting the general population outweighs the need to protect individuals with AIDS. This viewpoint supports complete transparency from doctors regarding the risks of contracting the disease, to better inform and protect the public. In contrast, the pharmaceutical quiz was designed with little regard for the welfare of young girls, focusing solely on promoting a specific drug. Although Sourour was tasked with coding the quiz and did not initially foresee its broader implications, his ongoing involvement, despite knowing the quiz was engineered to consistently recommend only one drug, undermines ethical standards. His actions are further compromised by the lack of consideration for the potential harm inflicted on the young users of the quiz, highlighting a significant moral lapse in prioritizing commercial interests over ethical responsibility.

A core tenet from the Code of Ethics pertinent to this situation is the obligation to avoid any actions that deceive the public. The company where Sourour was employed continued to promote its products aggressively, even as reports of suicides linked to the drug began to emerge. The article reveals that Sourour’s project manager personally tested the quiz and found that it unerringly recommended the client’s drug. She noted, “everything leads to the client’s drug” (Sourour, 2016). Despite this clear bias, she did not consider the potential consequences for the young girls targeted by the quiz. The company’s primary concern remained profit, rather than the welfare of its users.

This situation underscores a significant breach of ethical standards. The company exploited the naivety and vulnerability of young girls to drive sales, demonstrating a blatant disregard for ethical practices. Sourour, while not the originator of the unethical strategy, was involved in its implementation. His eventual realization of the ethical issues involved came too late, as the harm had already been done. Reflecting on the broader implications, Sourour acknowledges the increasing importance of ethical considerations in technology, stating, “the more software continues to take over every aspect of our lives, the more crucial it is for us to uphold ethical standards in our coding” (Sourour, 2016). This statement emphasizes the urgent need for ethical diligence in the tech industry, particularly as technology increasingly impacts every facet of our lives. It highlights the responsibility of professionals to anticipate and address potential ethical dilemmas proactively, ensuring that their work does not inadvertently cause harm or mislead the public.

Sourour did not fully contemplate how developing the pharmaceutical quiz could adversely affect the young girls using it. According to the article, he noted that he didn’t give much thought to the implications and was focused on simply completing his job. Sourour rationalized his involvement by claiming, “nothing that we were doing was illegal,” indicating a lack of ethical awareness, particularly from a utilitarian perspective. Utilitarian ethics would require transparency and honesty, aiming to benefit the greatest number of people. It would not justify deceptive practices for personal gain unless those practices were intended to promote overall well-being. In this instance, the quiz only harmed young women by directing them toward a drug without proper medical evaluation or regard for their individual health circumstances. This reflects a significant lapse in ethical judgment, prioritizing commercial interests over the well-being of users.

A utilitarian approach would have necessitated a comprehensive evaluation of the drug’s effects on young girls, prompting a redesign of the quiz to prevent deceptive outcomes. The company, particularly the project manager, should have considered the extensive societal impact and potential legal ramifications, such as lawsuits from families for emotional distress and misinformation. Additionally, from a utilitarian standpoint, it is crucial to maintain transparency regarding the drug’s risks and benefits, ensuring that the public receives all pertinent information.

Had the drug genuinely provided substantial benefits and caused minimal harm, a utilitarian might have supported its promotion. However, given that the drug caused considerable harm and the company concealed vital information, the decision to market it in this manner was profoundly unethical. A utilitarian would advocate for honesty and responsibility, recognizing that ethical practices not only protect individuals but also enhance long-term trust and credibility. By failing to disclose the drug’s adverse effects and manipulating the quiz results, the company not only jeopardized the health of young women but also undermined public trust. This case underscores the importance of integrating ethical considerations into business practices, prioritizing the well-being of individuals and society over short-term profits.

In conclusion, Sourour was conscious of the ethical issues surrounding his actions but chose to proceed with coding the quiz regardless. The company’s decision to continue its operations even after it became evident that their drug was causing suicides among young women is deeply concerning. This highlights their blatant disregard for the well-being of their customers, prioritizing profit over human lives. Sourour’s resignation was a positive step, demonstrating his recognition of the unethical nature of his actions and his remaining sense of morality.

From a utilitarian perspective, creating the quiz was morally indefensible because it caused harm rather than providing benefits to the broader population. The quiz contributed to loss of life, failing to promote the greatest good. Sourour’s reflection at the end of the article, “since that day, I always try to think twice about the effects of my code before I write it. I hope that you will too” (Sourour, 2016), serves as an essential reminder. It emphasizes the need for software developers to consider the ethical implications of their work. Sourour’s experience underscores the importance of placing ethical considerations above financial gain, particularly when the potential harm outweighs any benefits. This situation should serve as a wake-up call to the tech industry, highlighting the necessity of prioritizing ethical integrity and the well-being of individuals over profit. It is a poignant example of why ethics should be at the forefront of decision-making processes, especially in fields that have significant impacts on people’s lives.