Which Ethics?

[pedicurus]

While translating the Expansion Pack, I encountered the terms ethic, ethical, and ethics multiple times—approximately nine in total. This raised an important question: What type of ethics did you have in mind while writing the Expansion Pack?

If a specific ethical framework was intended, I would expect it to be explicitly mentioned—because currently, the term remains vague. I acknowledge that a citation is provided, but it doesn’t resolve the ambiguity. As you may know, there are various ethical systems that can directly contradict each other in practical situations. Please consider the following scenario as an illustration of my concern:

Scenario: A runaway trolley is heading toward five people tied to a track. You can pull a lever to divert it to another track, where it would kill one person instead.

• Utilitarian Ethics (consequence-based):
  Do the greatest good for the greatest number.
  → Conclusion: Pull the lever – save five, sacrifice one.

• Deontological Ethics (duty/rule-based, e.g., Kantian):
  Never treat a person merely as a means to an end.
  → Conclusion: Do not pull the lever – pulling the lever would instrumentalize the one person, violating a moral duty.

Both of these are considered "ethical" systems, yet they lead to opposing moral choices in the same situation.

So, when a text like the Expansion Pack uses terms like ethical or ethics without clarification, it effectively leaves interpretation up to the reader—who may project their own ethical framework onto the material. This ambiguity can lead to confusion or inconsistency, especially in the process of localization and translation.

In short, I have one fundamental question:
Which ethical system did you base your work on when writing the Expansion Pack?
And further: Can you claim that this ethical stance is truly universal—applicable and beneficial across different cultures and contexts?

[pedicurus]

Dear @ViralGoodAgile and @Alinaderivarandi
I would like to invite you to collaborate on this topic.

[pedicurus]

Dear @MrHinsh

If you knew someone that can collaborate on this topic effectively, I would appreciate it to mention them.

Thanks

[MrHinsh]

Why would we presume to impose a universal ethical stance.

It's ok for different groups to have different ethical stances within their cultural construct and have different outcomes based on that.

I expect the reader to bring their own ethical stance, as well as the company, and other contextual ethics.

[pedicurus]

I appreciate that your intent is for each reader—and each organization—to apply their own ethical framework. However, to keep the term “ethical” meaningful across different contexts, could we at least clarify that it refers to broadly accepted professional principles, such as fairness and accountability, as outlined by Blackburn (2003)?

This clarification would support consistent interpretation without prescribing a specific moral theory. It would also help avoid potential misinterpretation, especially in multicultural or interdisciplinary settings.

[pedicurus]

What I’m trying to emphasize is this: It’s essential to make the concept of ethics transparent—at least by grounding it in core principles that we know humans broadly agree upon.

This ensures clarity, especially when terms like “ethical” are used across diverse cultures and domains.

[ViralGoodAgile]

Hi @pedicurus - I was on leave. Thank you for your patience. Thank you, @MrHinsh, for your perspective also.

@rjocham and I did not have specific theories in mind. It was more a case of not doing something your mother would prefer not to read in the newspapers about you.

@pedicurus and @MrHinsh ...

How about?
"Act in a way that you would be comfortable having your actions openly known and justified to anyone, regardless of culture or context.'

or

"Act, behave, or make decisions you would feel comfortable explaining to appropriate members of your organization and, when necessary, to wider professional or public audiences—being mindful of contextual, organizational, and cultural expectations."

Thoughts? Better suggestions?

[pedicurus]

Hi @ViralGoodAgile,

Thanks for jumping back in on this topic—especially right after coming off leave. I really appreciate your willingness to make “ethics” more than just a buzzword.

1. Why Context Matters
You see ethics as a straightforward rule: do what your mum wouldn’t mind reading about in the paper. From my side—after 15 years of diving into philosophy—ethics feels much more tangled. Different frameworks (like utilitarianism vs. deontology vs. virtue ethics) often lead to opposite answers in the same situation. If we don’t say which lens we’re using, everyone’s going to read their own ideas into the text. That makes translations and real-world decisions inconsistent.

2. Why the Two Drafts Fall Short

• Draft 1: “Act so you’d be fine having your actions openly known and justified to anyone, regardless of culture or context.”

  • In a toxic or punitive workplace, “anyone” can include people who punish you—so you’d stay silent, even if your idea could help.

• Draft 2: “Act, behave, or make decisions you’d feel comfortable explaining to the right people in your organization…and, when needed, a wider audience.”

  • “The right people” often means the same old gatekeepers who resist change. Again, good ideas get shut down.

3. Real-World Counterexamples

• Tehran Engineering Firm: A mid-career engineer spots a safety issue but won’t raise it to managers who see criticism as disloyal.
• Japanese Factory: Harmony is prized, so pointing out defects—even when it improves quality—is frowned upon.
• Brazilian Public Sector: Whistleblowers face real danger; “public justification” can lead to retaliation.

[The last two counterexamples were quoted by friends of mine who work there. However, they don’t reflect the situation as accurately as my own experience in Tehran.]

Each case shows that asking people to justify their actions to “anyone” or “the right people” doesn’t work when power dynamics, culture, or fear are in play. In any of these settings, someone showing courage (speaking up per Scrum values) can be branded unethical by the prevailing culture—turning a virtue into a liability.

4. A Better Way: An Iterative Ethical Manifesto
Let’s treat our ethics guidance like a Scrum artifact—something we build and refine together:

1. Form a small working group of Scrum practitioners and engineering-ethics experts.
2. Draft a few core principles (e.g., “Put people’s dignity first,” “Balance transparency with safety”).
3. Frame each principle as a hypothesis we can test.
4. Collect real-world counterexamples every sprint from different regions (UK, Iran, Japan, Brazil, etc.).
5. Review and tweak the wording or add safeguards (like “transparency with safe-harbor channels”).
6. Publish a living document that tracks changes and why we made them.
7. Hold quick ethical retrospectives in our Scrum events and keep channels open—anonymous if needed—for ongoing feedback.

This way, we inspect and adapt our ethics guidance just like any other complex product, making sure it actually works across cultures and power structures.

Thanks again for your openness.

[ViralGoodAgile]

Hi @pedicurus - we're open to the idea. Would you be willing to lead this initiative?

[pedicurus]

Hi @ViralGoodAgile

Thank you for considering me. I truly appreciate the opportunity and the trust. I wish I could take the lead, but at the moment, I don’t have the capacity to give it the focus and attention it deserves.

That said, I’d be glad to contribute and support the initiative as a team member wherever I can.