We can allow enabling "machine dignity" to inform and generate a rich, and I'd even argue more comprehensive, definition of quality than is typically considered.
Aiming for that type of quality means asking ourselves two simple questions:
- Would I want to perform this code myself if I were the machine?
- Does this aid in the machine/program's flourishing?
At various points, we can adopt "lenses" that can generate quality in programs for given audiences:
- Personal (Do I want to work with this code?)
- Shared (Do others want to work with this code?)
- Aesthetic (Does this code impress or inspire anyone?)
- Civil (Does this code express a considerate worldview?)
The most common alternative is for quality to be stopped at lens 1 or 2, leaving 3 to industry luminaries and 4 to whatever company one happens to work for.