I object (haha) to the word “objective.” It’s an impossible ideal, but more to the point, a lot of CS professionals (in my experience) don’t know that it’s impossible. This leads to two crucial flaws in their capacity for ethical reasoning: they treat objectivity becomes a kind of gold standard, and accordingly discount information or input which cannot, by its very nature, attain that standard; and they conflate “reasonably balanced or well-considered” with objective, accord themselves the honor, and cease to push themselves to see things from new perspectives. Because hey, I’m an objective person, what I see is what’s really there, right?
So let’s replace objective with something else, please. Balanced? broad-minded? I think a full sentence dedicated to this clot of concepts would not go amiss, something like [quote=“bo.brinkman, post:1, topic:105”]
Computing professionals should strive to be perceptive and thorough when evaluating, recommending, and presenting system descriptions and alternatives. They should be receptive to a range of perspectives of kinds of information, and balance that range of information in their assessments.
And I would replace the second “objective” with “broadly-informed.”