A Morality of Convenience

Grady Booch, chief scientist at IBM Software Group's Rational division, has questioned whether software developers should be involved in creating systems that are deemed immoral or harmful to others. And Neville R. "Roy" Singham, founder and chairman of  ThoughtWorks, took up the subject of morality and code during a recent interview with eWEEK. Singham said he wants to do good, change the industry and make money. He is quoted as saying, "It used to be that shareholder optimization was the prime directive. Our model is serving society in an economically strong way, which is a multi-stakeholder approach. So we are all for gaining a more sustainable environment, the green movement. . . . The fact that it was legal to dump mercury in the river many years ago doesn't mean it was not immoral. The fact that it's not illegal but is immoral, who's accountable for that? The fact that a disproportionate number of African-American men go to prison in the United States or are on parole or probation and nobody seems to care about it or says, 'That's somebody else's problem,' is just wrong." Still, he realizes there are times when the social initiatives must take a back seat. "If we have a revenue shortfall . . . we're . . . going to go after revenue. . . ."

After telling us to love our enemies, Christ says, if you love only those who love you, what good is that? Even scoundrels do that much. So what good is doing what Mr. Singham says? If a company pledges to be moral only when the bottom line is black, except for those companies that never intend to do anything but get the other guy's money by hook and crook, how does Mr. Singham's company differ from others?

Doing good, doing socially responsible things, making moral decisions, is easy if it is only done when it doesn't hurt. But neither amounts to being good, being socially responsible, or being moral. If ideals can be discarded when a shortfall occurs, then it's really okay to dump mercury in the river or anything else to keep the bottom line black. And that's a definition of a scoundrel, a person with a black heart and a black soul.

An ancient Russian adage defines charity as sharing a bone with a dog when you're as hungry as the dog, and it has been pointed out that wealthy people who donate large amounts to charity are giving away what they should be giving back. Being moral and charitable when neither hurts is neither moral nor charitable. True morality cannot be compromised. Because businesses are willing to compromise morality, quality, and truth to keep the bottom line black is why poverty, hunger, disease, crime, and war kill, why people are enslaved and exploited, and why the planet has been raped. That they have done so to keep the bottom line black does not justify any of it. Scoundrels love to wear moral faces, and businessmen love to claim that they are do-gooders. Humbug! (11/23/2007)

Print article> Send to friend Author feedback