Dennis Müller

An argument is presented that mathematics teachers would benefit from an ethics framework that allows them to reflect upon their position regarding the teaching of ethics within mathematics. We present such a framework, adapted from Chiodo and Bursill-Hall’s (Four levels of ethical engagement. EiM Discussion Papers 1/2018, 2018) levels of ethical engagement for mathematicians, with discussion of its applications and implications. Awareness of ethical and social responsibility amongst mathematicians and mathematics educators is a newly established field, and yet it is crucially important, if we are to use mathematics for good and the avoidance of harm—in other words to use mathematics for justice, belonging, peace, care, education, lawmaking, building, creativity, equity, connection, fairness, rulemaking and order. Here, we present a way to extend ideas from ethics in the field of mathematics for mathematicians to the field of mathematics education for mathematics teachers, aiming to contribute to this transdisciplinary work and advance the field further. We also explore links to ideas of equity, and silence and voice, drawing on the consequences of a deeper examination of the entanglements of mathematical–ethical dilemmas for mathematics teachers both inside and outside the classroom.

In this paper, we situate the educational movement of “Ethics in Mathematics,” as outlined by the Cambridge University Ethics in Mathematics Project, in the wider area of mathematics ethics education. By focusing on the core message coming out of Ethics in Mathematics, its target group, and educational philosophy, we set it into relation with “Mathematics for Social Justice” and Paul Ernest’s recent work on ethics of mathematics. We conclude that, although both Ethics in Mathematics and Mathematics for Social Justice appear antagonistic at first glance, they can be understood as complementary rather than competing educational strategies.

We extend Langdon Winner's idea that artifacts have politics into the realm of mathematics. To do so, we first provide a list of examples showing the existence of mathematical artifacts that have politics. In the second step, we provide an argument that shows that all mathematical artifacts have politics. We conclude by showing the implications for embedding ethics into mathematical curricula. We show how acknowledging that mathematical artifacts have politics can help mathematicians design better exercises for their mathematics students.

While the consequences of mathematically-based software, algorithms and strategies have become ever wider and better appreciated, ethical reflection on mathematics has remained primitive. We review the somewhat disconnected suggestions of commentators in recent decades with a view to piecing together a coherent approach to ethics in mathematics. Calls for a Hippocratic Oath for mathematicians are examined and it is concluded that while lessons can be learned from the medical profession, the relation of mathematicians to those affected by their work is significantly different. There is something to be learned also from the codes of conduct of cognate but professionalised quantitative disciplines such as engineering and accountancy, as well as from legal principles bearing on professional work. We conclude with recommendations that professional societies in mathematics should sponsor an (international) code of ethics, institutional mission statements for mathematicians and syllabuses of ethics courses for incorporation into mathematics degrees.