John’s Dilemma Case Study

This case study explores John's dilemma of whether to give credit to borrowed code and the violation of ACS code of ethics. It discusses the values and clauses from the ACS ethics code that John fails to observe, as well as the problem resolution methodology suggested by Chris MacDonald. The recommendation is for John to seek assistance from his core-workers instead of copying others' work without giving credit.

Running head: JOHN’S DILEMMA CASE STUDY 1
John’s dilemma case study
Name
Professor
Course
Date

JOHN’S DILEMMA CASE STUDY 2
John’s dilemma case study
Introduction
A dilemma is a challenging situation in which one has to choose between two or more
options. John who is a statistical database programmer is faced with the dilemma of whether to
give credit to the areas of code borrowed from the works of Software Company and a core-
worker. By so doing John goes against the various provisional clauses in the ACS code of
ethics.
ACS code values and clauses
The three values from the ACS ethics code that John fails to observe are competency,
honesty and professionalism. Competency value from clause 4.3.2 requires one to work
diligently and competently for stakeholders but John fails to accept the fact that he has
challenges in writing the code. Honesty value in clause 4.3.3 requires one to be transparent in
the way skills, products, services and knowledge are presented. John copies areas of code from
other sources without giving credit and pretends to be his (Burmeister, 2013, p. 29).
Professionalism value from clause 4.3.6 requires that one behaves in a manner that is not
against the professional codes of ethics of doing the right. John goes against the ethical
behavior that is expected from a programming professional. The professional code of conduct
involves clause 4.5.3 where one is expected to respect the proprietary nature of other people’s
information. John disrespects the work done by others when he can readily acquire code areas
and pretends they are original works. Clause 4.6.4 expects one to protect and respect the
proprietary interests of clients and employer. John applies the wrong means towards the
proprietary interest of his employer (Glosoff and Matrone, 2010, p. 251). Clause 4.7.2 requires
that one should not misrepresent knowledge and skills. John misrepresents other people’s
works as his own. Clause 4.7.6 requires one to give credit to other people’s work. John breaks
this clause for copying other people’s work and failing to give credit. The Australian Copyright
Act of 1968, section 14, clause 14.2 protects originality in people’s works in the country and
states that ones’ work should be original and free from plagiarism (von Konsky, Ivins and
Gribble, 2007, p .167).
Chris MacDonald's problem resolution methodology
John needs to utilize the Chris MacDonald's methodology of resolving a dilemma by
carrying out the following steps (MacDonald 2010, par. 1).
 Step 1 involves recognizing the dimension of the moral dilemma. John needs to identify
the conflicts from the act of copy pasting without giving credit.
 Step 2 involves identifying the involved parties. These include John, his core-worker and
the company that owns the software.
 Step 3 involves identifying the ethical principles involved. These include competency,
honest and professionalism principles which revolve around misrepresenting skills and
knowledge (Burmeister and Weckert, 2003, p. 127).
 Step 4 involves sketching out options. John could use the code areas and give credit in
his work or doing the codes without copying from outside sources.
 Step 5 involves weighing benefits and burdens (MacDonald, 2010, par. 4). Benefits
involve finishing the work in time while burdens involve going against the code of
professional ethics, which could see his work revoked for plagiarism.
 Step 6 involves analyzing relevant cases similar to the present one. John needs to see
how the dilemma was resolved and see how he could apply the same criteria.

JOHN’S DILEMMA CASE STUDY 3
 Step 7 is about involving relevant others and making a choice (MacDonald 2010, par. 6).
John could approach other programming professionals within the company and seek
guidance on the choice to be taken.
 Step 8 involves relating the choice to ethical codes of professionalism and law. John
needed to evaluate what the ACS code and the Australian law says about plagiarism
and giving credit.
 Step 9 requires one to see the possibility of being comfortable with the choice. John
needs to ask himself whether he is comfortable sharing to others about what he does.
Recommendation
John should admit that there are areas in the code that are beyond his knowledge or skill
and then seek assistance from the core-workers instead of copy pasting the work of others and
failing to give credit or he can include them and just give credit.
Conclusion
Copying sections of work from other people’s intellectual work without giving credit is
against the ACS code of ethics. John needs to acknowledge the efforts of others by making his
work originally or referencing the code areas he copy pasted from the company software and
the work of his core-coworker.
References

JOHN’S DILEMMA CASE STUDY 4
Burmeister, O.K, and Weckert, J. 2003. Applying the new software engineering code of ethics to
usability engineering: A study of four cases. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics
in Society, 1(3), pp.119-132.
Burmeister, O.K, 2013. Achieving the goal of a global computing code of ethics through an
international-localisation hybrid. Ethical Space, 10(4), pp.25-32.
Glosoff, H.L, and Matrone, K.F, 2010. Ethical issues in rehabilitation counselor supervision and
the new 2010 code of ethics. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 53(4), pp.249-254.
MacDonald, C 2010. A Guide to Moral Decision Making. Australian Computer Society, Inc. p 1.
www.ethicsweb.ca/guide/
von Konsky, B.R, Ivins, J and Gribble, S.J, 2007January. Engaging undergraduates in
discussions about ethics in computing. In Proceedings of the ninth Australasian conference on
Computing education-Volume 66 (pp. 163-169).