In his article, “The Code I’m Still Ashamed Of,” Bill Sourour reflects on an experience from his early career that has haunted him ever since. In 2000, he was tasked with coding a quiz for a pharmaceutical website targeting teenage girls. Although the site presented itself as a general health resource, the quiz was rigged to recommend a specific drug regardless of users’ answers. At the time, Sourour complied with the project’s requirements without questioning the ethical implications. However, he later discovered that the drug had serious side effects, including depression and suicidal thoughts. Learning this, and realizing his role in misleading vulnerable users, Sourour came to regret his actions deeply. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that virtue ethics shows us that the code was morally problematic because it conflicts with core virtues like honesty and integrity, and that Sourour should have acted differently by questioning the project’s ethics, as developers have a duty to protect user welfare and prevent harm.

The key concept of honesty in professional ethics involves not just avoiding lies but also ensuring transparency and avoiding actions that might mislead others. This situation highlights the importance of honesty in software development. By coding a quiz that misrepresented its true purpose of profiting from a drug, Sourour compromised the trust that users have in technology. Users believed they were engaging with a neutral health tool, but it had a hidden agenda. This shows why transparency is essential because users deserve to understand the intent behind the technology they interact with, especially when it impacts their health. When people trust technology, they often do so because they assume it was created ethically and with their best interests in mind. In this case, Sourour’s actions violated the principle of honesty by failing to reveal the true intent of the quiz, which raises ethical concerns about his responsibility to the users. Another crucial point is the specific impact on teenage girls, who are often more vulnerable to persuasive tactics, especially when it comes to health advice. As a developer, Sourour had a duty to think critically about who his work would affect and how they might interpret the information he presented. Because he was creating a tool that users would rely on for health guidance, it was particularly important for him to ensure that it was accurate and free of hidden agendas. By following instructions without question, he turned the quiz into a tool for manipulation, which compromised the trust that users might have placed in him as a professional, as well as in the technology itself.

The concept of the golden mean in virtue ethics teaches that moral virtues lie between two extremes. For honesty, this means finding a balance between being overly blunt, which can be harmful, and being deceitful, which is equally problematic. In Sourour’s case, the ethical challenge was to find a balanced path where he could be transparent about his concerns without entirely disregarding his professional role. Virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of developing good character traits, such as honesty, courage, and integrity, to guide ethical decision-making. In this situation, a virtuous developer would have sought a middle ground that allowed him to raise concerns without outright rejecting his role in the project. Sourour could have considered discussing the project’s goals with his manager to express his reservations about how the quiz might mislead users. This doesn’t mean he had to refuse the project entirely; rather, he could have looked for a way to make the quiz more informative and less deceptive. This approach would align with the golden mean of honesty by respecting both his professional obligations and his ethical principles. Finding this balance is challenging, especially in a professional environment where there may be pressure to follow directions. However, it’s part of a developer’s responsibility to think about the broader impact of their work. A balanced approach would have allowed Sourour to express his concerns and potentially influence the project’s direction. By pursuing this middle path, he could have addressed his ethical duties to the users while still fulfilling his role within the organization. This would have demonstrated a commitment to honesty, showing that he cared about the users’ well-being and the potential consequences of his work. The golden mean doesn’t ask for extreme actions but for a balanced approach that acknowledges the importance of both professional and ethical obligations. By seeking this balance, Sourour could have upheld honesty without being confrontational or jeopardizing his position.

Armstrong’s concept of professional duty emphasizes that professionals owe a responsibility not only to their employers but also to the broader society. In fields like software development, where what you create can really shape how people think and act, this responsibility becomes especially important. Armstrong believes that professionals have a big influence and, with that, an ethical obligation to consider the impact of their work on society. For Sourour, this responsibility meant he should have thought about how the quiz might influence teenage users who were likely to trust its recommendations. They have to be aware of how their work can affect people, especially those who might not realize the biases built into the software. By moving forward with the project without questioning its ethical side, Sourour missed a chance to fulfill this duty to the public. This shows why it’s so important for software developers to think about the ethical aspects of their projects. Their work can shape people’s choices, their health, and even their beliefs. Armstrong encourages developers to ask themselves if their work genuinely benefits society, especially when it could potentially mislead or harm users. By doing so, they can uphold a higher standard that goes beyond just following orders and truly values the well-being of the public.

Virtue ethics teaches that ethical behavior comes from building strong character traits, like courage and integrity. Courage isn’t just about taking risks, it’s about having the moral strength to act in line with your values, even when it’s tough or when you might face backlash. For Sourour, showing courage would have meant speaking up about the project’s transparency and how it could affect young users, even if it might upset his employer. This kind of courage involves facing uncomfortable truths and pushing for changes that protect users. Integrity, on the other hand, is about staying true to your moral values. For a developer, this means making sure their work aligns with principles like honesty and caring for users, rather than just going along with projects that might compromise these values. In Sourour’s case, integrity would mean thinking critically about the quiz’s purpose and deciding to act in a way that matched his ethical beliefs. He could have looked for ways to reduce any harm caused by the quiz or, if necessary, refused to work on it. Virtue ethics suggests that integrity is about keeping your actions consistent with your beliefs. When professionals uphold integrity, they’re not just following orders but they’re driven by their ethics and are dedicated to making positive contributions through their work. In our tech-driven world, where technology shapes so much of our lives, courage and integrity are crucial in making ethical decisions. These traits encourage developers to challenge unethical practices and advocate for user welfare. Integrity keeps their actions in line with their values, building trust and respect in their field. Ultimately, these virtues are essential for creating a tech landscape where ethics are as important as technical skills. They ensure that developers aren’t just making products but are also contributing positively to society.

In conclusion, Bill Sourour’s experience underscores the complex balance between fulfilling job responsibilities and upholding ethical values. Through the lens of virtue ethics, I’ve argued that Sourour should have prioritized honesty and integrity, given his duty to protect users from potential harm. However, it is worth considering possible objections because some might argue that as a developer, Sourour’s primary responsibility was to complete the task assigned by his employer, which might not have left room to question the project’s ethics. Additionally, raising ethical concerns could have jeopardized his job security, a real concern for anyone early in their career. These objections highlight the broader need for workplace cultures that support ethical questioning without fear of retaliation. When professionals feel unable to speak up about ethical issues, it indicates a systemic problem, not just an individual one. Sourour’s case also invites reflection on the expanding role of technology in daily life. As developers wield greater influence, they must consider the ethical implications of their work. Ultimately, while virtue ethics offers valuable insights, it also highlights the need for changes within organizations to foster environments where ethical decision-making can truly thrive, especially in the fast-paced world of technology.