Why is ethics taught to engineers and computer scientists at all, rather than left to philosophers?
Because the people who build a system decide what it does — so the question "could we build this?" has to be joined by "should we, and how should we shape it?"
The argument, made forcefully by Harvard's Barbara Grosz in her work on embedding ethics into computer-science teaching, is that technical training answers only half the question. A competent engineer can tell you whether a recommender, a face-recognition pipeline or a credit-scoring model is feasible. Nothing in that training tells them whether it should exist, who it will hurt, or which design choice quietly settles a moral question.
Two habits follow, and they are the actual learning goal:
- Recognition — noticing that a situation contains an ethical question in the first place. This is the hard part: most harmful designs were not chosen over an obvious alternative, they were shipped by people who never saw a decision being made. Alison Simmons frames the aim as getting used to asking "in this context, how might an ethical question arise?"
- Justification — being able to say why one answer is better, in terms someone who disagrees can engage with. "It felt wrong" does not survive a design review; "this treats users as a means only, and here is the alternative" does.
Ethics in a technical curriculum is therefore not a compliance module bolted on at the end. It is the claim that design decisions are moral decisions, so they belong in the same room as the architecture.
Go deeper:
Embedded EthiCS @ Harvard — the programme Barbara Grosz co-founded to teach ethics inside computer-science courses rather than beside them.- Wikipedia: Ethics of technology — the wider field: how design choices settle moral questions before anyone debates them.