Stieb James A
Department of English and Philosophy, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2009 Mar;15(1):11-8. doi: 10.1007/s11948-008-9101-6. Epub 2008 Oct 22.
It has been claimed that (1) computer professionals should be held responsible for an undisclosed list of "undesirable events" associated with their work and (2) most if not all computer disasters can be avoided by truly understanding responsibility. Commentators of "A Critique of Positive Responsibility in Computing" argue that this is not Donald Gotterbarn's view (Gotterbarn, JSEE 14(2):235-239, 2008) but that a critique of the view nevertheless raises significant moral issues within computing such as the ethical goals of a computing profession, the appropriate ethical stance toward bugs, and the public good with respect to computing (Miller, JSEE 14(2):245-249, 2008). Commentators also argue that "A Critique"'s "profitable misreading" demonstrates the "moral ecology" of organizations "dedicated narrowly to financial success" and that other "moral ecologies" that are customer or quality driven can be shown to be more important or preeminent (Huff, JSEE 14(2):241-244, 2008). It is argued here that (1) the hyper-inflated reading of Gotterbarn's and Ladd's views on positive responsibility persists despite Gotterbarn's explicit rejection of it, and that (2) such a reading of positive responsibility cannot be placed within a single moral ecology, nor can a single moral ecology be shown to be any more important or preeminent than others.
（1）计算机专业人员应对与其工作相关的一系列未公开的“不良事件”负责；（2）几乎所有计算机灾难，即便不是全部，都可通过真正理解责任来避免。《对计算领域积极责任的批判》的评论家们认为，这并非唐纳德·戈特巴恩的观点（戈特巴恩，《软件工程伦理与职业行为杂志》14(2):235 - 239，2008年），但对该观点的批判在计算领域引发了重大道德问题，比如计算专业的伦理目标、对程序错误的恰当伦理立场以及计算领域的公共利益（米勒，《软件工程伦理与职业行为杂志》14(2):245 - 249，2008年）。评论家们还认为，《批判》的“有益误读”展示了“狭隘地致力于财务成功”的组织的“道德生态”，并且可以证明，以客户或质量为导向的其他“道德生态”更为重要或卓越（赫夫，《软件工程伦理与职业行为杂志》14(2):241 - 244，2008年）。本文认为：（1）尽管戈特巴恩明确予以否认，但对他和拉德关于积极责任观点的过度解读仍持续存在；（2）这种对积极责任的解读无法置于单一的道德生态之中，也无法证明某一种道德生态比其他道德生态更重要或卓越。
