A bridge is limited to a single purpose, like an appliance. If you insist on veto power over every outcome of what you build, that means you can only ever build sealed appliances for hapless consumers, not unfettered tools that empower clever human beings who will use them in unanticipated ways. Having sworn a Hippocratic oath, are you allowed to work on LLVM, which half of all evil apps probably depend on?

I could get behind a requirement that code be reliable and fit for purpose, though very few of us have any experience with the formal methods that might get us there, and most don't want to work that way.

Imagine if your manager copied the safe bridge you designed with a magic replicator and now uses that exact same design somewhere else. You tell him that the bridge was not designed for this location and that the bridge will collapse in 5 years. Your boss fires you but you are still responsible for the collapse of the bridge.

Let's go further into absurdity. The engineer is kidnapping the daughter of the manager and blackmailing the manager to take the bridge down. Is it ethical to force someone else to be ethical even if its only possible through unethical means? What if there is a hero saves the daughter? Will the hero be liable for the collapsed bridge?

Eh, this isn't a great analogy either. If I'm an engineer that develops a single beam in a bridge, is it my fault if someone assembles those beams together in such a way that is dangerous? At which point does a function become unethical? Do you now have to only use software made in your country by ethical developers?

Software isn't a bridge and comparisons fall apart quickly.

Engineers at the beam companies just certify that the beam meets its specs.

I'm not sure why software would be any different. Bridges are complicated and made up of versatile submodules, just like software. Some other software engineer eventually designs the "bridge" and selects "beams" for the structure. If those beams fail to meet their specs, then the engineers who stood by them are at fault. If the bridge fails because the beams weren't used in accordance with their spec, or didn't have a spec at all, then the engineers who approved their use in the bridge is at fault.

What if the engineer isn't allowed to certify his beams to save on costs? That's basically what happened with 737 MAX.

Then the engineer designing the bridge should probably choose a different beam supplier who can stand by their product.

Wow, I’m realizing what an unpopular opinion this is on HN! Yes, as a software developer you should absolutely be accountable for the ethical concerns around what that protobuf you’re moving around from one API layer to the other is used for. You’re not a code monkey. Ask, and refuse if it’s unacceptable. I have quit jobs where the ultimate purpose of what I was building was evil.

EDIT:

Forum the original OP:

> Software engineers are accountable to their bosses before their users, no matter how high minded we like to pretend to be.

They are accountable to themselves and their own conscience before both their bosses and their users. I understand this is an uncomfortable line of thinking if your employer asks for ethically questionable project work, but I’d argue that if this is the case for you, it warrants career introspection.

There is a gigantic difference between building an unethical software product and abusing an ethical software product for unethical purposes. The developer is not the user. Do you not understand that?

So the people that wrote java.util.List are liable for all unethical software that makes use of java.util.List?

No, of course they're not. Just like the scientists that developed morphine aren't responsible for a doctor later using it to kill a patient.

Sure, same as the LLVM example someone else pointed out. Good points. I’ll qualify my opinion then. To the extent that the engineer can know the ultimate application of their work, he or she should be responsible for ensuring it is being used ethically.

So, the engineer writing a binary search, knowingly working on “Project Orbital Death Ray” or “Voter Suppression 2.1” should know better. I hope we can at least agree on that one.

The engineer writing a linked list or moving around Protobufs for their some open source toolset gets a pass because their project as they understand it is ethically neutral. BUT there will be that engineer who then takes those tools and integrates it into “Project Orbital Death Ray”. That’s maybe where accountability should begin.

Everyone’s talking about the managers taking the blame and yes they’re culpable too. But at the end of the day an actual software developer’s fingers type the code in. If that developer knows what he is working on, he needs to bear the responsibility, too.

This argument is more akin to saying its the builders responsibility to decide whether a bad architectural decision should be built or not. They might bring it up, but it's not really expected that they get to decide.