Skip to main content

Codes of Professional Ethics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Towards a Code of Ethics for Artificial Intelligence
  • 5939 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter outlines the features of the professional practice which lead to the necessity for codes of professional ethics, and which underpin the nature and typical content of such codes. There are a variety of codes and regulations regarding professional practices, which may serve different purposes. Members of a profession possess certain skills, knowledge and capacities that their clients and the general public typically lack. This creates a gradient of power and of relative vulnerability between the professional and others. Codes of ethics aim to mitigate the potentially deleterious effects, or the misuse, of such professional power. Codes of professional ethics may be backed up by hard or soft power . Since each profession deals with a certain area of endeavour, codes of professional ethics typically concern themselves with values, benefit and harms in relation to their own area of expertise. Nonetheless, there are general values underlying such codes, even if these are implicit. These may be hard to articulate and may indeed be controversial. The value of autonomy is examined as an example especially relevant to AI. Codes of ethics can only function effectively with both adequate institutional and societal backing. Understanding the history and context of development of codes of ethics is important to understand their underlying values, and especially where social and technological change is occurring. Codes of ethics may develop in response to catastrophe, in anticipation of problems, and with reference to codes of ethics in key areas, and all of these may give rise to problems. Codes of ethics may have certain failings, and in some cases even make a situation worse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adams G, Balfour D (2014) Unmasking administrative evil, 4th edn. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson P (2009) Ethics and ethnography. Twenty First Century Soc 4(1):17–30. doi:10.1080/17450140802648439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartholmew J (2015) Hating the Daily Mail is a substitute for doing good. The Spectator, 18 April 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman MH, Tenbrunsel AE (2011) Blind spots: why we fail to do what’s right, and what to do about it. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2001) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Belloc H (1907) Cautionary tales for children: designed for the admonition of children between the ages of eight and fourteen years. Harcourt, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Benatar SR, Singer PA (2000) A new look at international research ethics. BMJ 321(7264):824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg P, Baltimore D, Brenner S, Roblin RO, Singer MF (1975) Summary statement of the Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA molecules. Proc Natl Acad Sci 72(6):1981–1984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boddington P, Hogben S (2006) Working up policy: the use of specific disease exemplars in formulating general principles governing childhood genetic testing. Health Care Anal 14(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boddington P, Räisänen U (2009) Theoretical and practical issues in the definition of health: insights from Aboriginal Australia. J Med Philos 34(1):49–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boorse C (1975) On the distinction between disease and illness. Philos Public Aff 5:49–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowden P, Surma A (2003) Codes of ethics: texts in practice. Prof Ethics 11(1):19–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowie N (2009) Organisational integrity and moral climates. In: Brenkert GG (ed) Oxford handbook of business ethics, Oxford handbooks online. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges J, Wilkinson C (2011) Achieving dignity for older people with dementia in hospital. Nurs Stand 25(29):42–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson J (2012) The making of the EPSRC principles of robotics. AISB Q 133(Spring 2012):14–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler J (1827) Fifteen sermons preached at the Rolls Chapel. Hilliard, Grey, Little and Wilkins, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Castilla EJ, Benard S (2010) The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Adm Sci Q 55(4):543–676. doi:10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caulfield T, McGuire AL, Cho M, Buchanan JA, Burgess MM, Danilczyk U, Diaz CM, Fryer-Edwards K, Green SK, Hodosh MA (2008) Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: consensus statement. PLoS Biol 6(3):e73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers T (1999) The fiction of bioethics (Reflective bioethics). Routledge, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson A (2010) The future of bioethics: three dogmas and a cup of hemlock. Bioethics 24(5):218–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJP (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Ann Inter Med, 21 Sept 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Dingwall R (2008) The ethical case against ethical regulation in humanities and social science research. Twenty First Century Soc 3(1):1–12. doi:10.1080/17450140701749189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Directorate General for Internal Policies, European Union (2016) European civil law rules in robotics. European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duguid MM, Thomas-Hunt MC (2015) Condoning stereotyping? How awareness of stereotyping prevalence impacts expression of stereotypes. J Appl Psychol 100(2):343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Civil Law Rules in Robotics (2016) European Parliament

    Google Scholar 

  • Executive Office of the President (2016) Artificial intelligence, automation, and the economy. The White House, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulhati CM (2005) A new colonialism? Conducting clinical trials in India. N Engl J Med 352(16):1633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley M (2009) Against the ethicists: on the evils of ethical regulation. Int J Soc Res Methodol 12(3):211–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HapMap Iinternational Committee (2004) Integrating ethics and science in the International HapMap Project. Nat Rev Genet 5(6):467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herxheimer A (2003) Relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and patients’ organisations. BMJ 326(7400):1208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm S (2004) Like a frog in boiling water: the public, the HFEA and sex selection. Health Care Anal 12(1):27–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston S (1989) National Aboriginal Health Strategy Working Party. Aborig Isl Health Worker J 13(4):7

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones M (1999) Informed consent and other fairy stories. Med Law Rev 7(2):103–134. doi:10.1093/medlaw/7.2.103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurie GT (2001) Challenging medical-legal norms: the role of autonomy, confidentiality, and privacy in protecting individual and familial group rights in genetic information. J Leg Med 22(1):1–54

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • MacNaughton D (1988) Moral vision. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • McKerrow RE (1993) Critical rhetoric and the possibility of the subject. In: Angus I, Langsdor L (eds) The critical turn: rhetoric and philosophy in postmodern discourse. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL, pp 51–67

    Google Scholar 

  • McLean B, Elkind P (2013, 2004) The smartest guys in the room: the amazing rise and scandalous fall of Enron. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesmer-Magnus JR, Viswesvaran C (2005) Whistleblowing in organizations: an examination of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation. J Bus Ethics 62(3):277–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram S (1974) Obedience to authority. Harper Collins, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore FD (1989) The desperate case: CARE (costs, applicability, research, ethics). JAMA 261(10):1483–1484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novas C, Rose N (2000) Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual. Econ Soc 29(4):485–513. doi:10.1080/03085140050174750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padela AI, Malik AY, Curlin F, De Vries R (2015) [Re]considering respect for persons in a globalizing world. Dev World Bioeth 15(2):98–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plows A, Boddington P (2006) Troubles with biocitizenship? Genomics Soc Policy 2(3):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reverby SM (2012) Tuskegee’s truths: rethinking the Tuskegee syphilis study. UNC Press, Chapel Hill, NC

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes R (1998) Genetic links, family ties, and social bonds: rights and responsibilities in the face of genetic knowledge. J Med Philos 23(1):10–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robotics and Artificial Intelligence (2016) Science and technology committee. House of Commons, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Roff HM (2013) Responsibility, liability, and lethal autonomous robots. In: Routledge handbook of ethics and war: just war theory in the 21st century. Routledge, London, pp 352–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Roff HM (2014) The strategic robot problem: lethal autonomous weapons in war. J Mil Ethics 13(3):211–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross T (1988) Super Duper Jezebel. Anderson Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuster E (1997) Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg code. N Engl J Med 337(20):1436–1440. doi:10.1056/NEJM199711133372006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trash of the Titans (1998) The Simpsons, 9th series, 22nd episode edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinge V (1993) The coming technological singularity: how to survive in the post-human era. In: Proceedings of a Symposium Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science & Engineering in the Era of CyberSpace, held at NASA Lewis Research Center (NASA Conference Publication CP-10129)—1993

    Google Scholar 

  • Vollmann J, Winau R (1996) Informed consent in human experimentation before the Nuremberg code. BMJ 313(7070):1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams P, Wallace D (1989) Unit 731 the Japanese Army’s secret of secrets. Hodder and Stoughton, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimbardo P (2008) The Lucifer effect: understanding how good people turn evil. Random House, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Boddington, P. (2017). Codes of Professional Ethics. In: Towards a Code of Ethics for Artificial Intelligence. Artificial Intelligence: Foundations, Theory, and Algorithms. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60648-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60648-4_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60647-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60648-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics