Professional Context of ICT INFO3020 What is Computer Ethics?
Dec 28, 2015
Professional Context of ICT
INFO3020
What is Computer Ethics?
Introduction
What is Computer Ethics? Problems with Computer Ethics Primary areas of interest Definitions of Computer Ethics Ethical Theories
– Utiliterianism
– Deontologism Conclusions
What is Computer Ethics? There are many views on what Computer
Ethics comprises Depends on perspectives and focus:
– social– professional– universal activist– parochial– ethics only– multi-disciplinary
What is Computer Ethics?
Different starting points:– properties of computer technology– concept of computing– application of computing– the environment– the human value impact of computing
Primary areas of interest
Original Concerns:– Abuses committed with computers:
• fraud, theft
– Effects computers have on changing society– Issues related to the development of software systems
Order of precedence now changed: – Changes to society - impact of the Internet– Abuses– Software development
What is Computer Ethics?
James Moor – 2 key aspects:
• the analysis of the nature and social impact of computer technology
• the corresponding formulation and justification of policies for the ethical use of such technology
– Computers are a special technology and raise special ethical issues through their properties of logical malleability and speed
• pervasive alteration of social and cultural situations– There is a Policy vacuum about how computer
technology is used
What is Computer Ethics?
James Moor - policy vacuums and conceptual muddles– analysis of nature and social impact of computer technology and
corresponding formulation and justification of policies– new capabilities and choices of action through technology led to
policy and conceptual vacuum– new values emerge– concerned with essential involvement– considers relationships among facts, conceptualisation, policies and
values with regard to constantly changing computer technology– practical importance
Some Other Definitions
Deborah Johnson - a study into the way computers pose new versions of standard moral problems and dilemmas
Johnson & Millar - working on something new whilst drawing on something old
Spinello - any technology tends to create a new environment - concerned that it does not violate personal rights or the values of fairness and justice
Miller - software different from other manufactured products and thus raises different and difficult ethical issues
Ethical Concerns
Oz - speed of change left a big ethical vacuum
– 3 categories of misuse
• pre-existing offences facilitated by computers
• offences against computers, equipment, software
• invasion of privacy
Approaches to Computer Ethics
Maner - examines the ethical problems aggravated, transformed or created by computing
application of ethical theories used by philosophers
different from sociology of computing and technology assessment
Approaches to Computer Ethics
Terry Bynum (1992) - concerned with how to integrate computing and human values for the protection of human values– Takes a broader perspective - applied ethics,
sociology of computing, technology assessment, computer law and related fields
– Looks at the impact on human values the goal
– “To integrate computing technology and human values in such a way that technology advances and protects human values rather than doing damage to them”
Approaches to Computer Ethics
Rogerson & Bynum (1996) Information Ethics: the Second Generation
Dawning of a new era - mid 1990s– Conceptual dimension - theoretical development lags
technology revolution. – Multi-disciplined approach– Application dimension - develop set of ethical instruments that
promote good practice – Embrace professional practice, user and potential user
concerns, policy and strategy formulation, technological impact Realise democratic and empowering technology rather
than an enslaving and debilitating one
Ethical Reasoning
“Gut feeling” or instinct: Intuition Many decisions taken this way Can’t always trust instincts Sometimes no relevant intuitions
SO Break situation down into elements, apply moral
theories
Requires knowledge of ethical theories and techniques of moral argument
Ethics
Ethical theories– search for the ideal theory– criticism of theories– argument for particular theory
Normative ethics– quest for practical truth of how one’s
choices and actions will be good and worthwhile
Universalism What is right is right for everyone everywhere What is wrong is wrong for everyone
everywhere
– Provided the circumstances are the same in all relevant ways
• If it is right to do x in circumstance a, and wrong to do x in circumstance b
• must be some relevant difference between a and b
– explain why it might be right to do x in case a, wrong in case b.
Universal Moral Theories
3 Ethical frameworks:
– Consequentialism - teleologism
– Duty based – deontologism
– Rights based - deontologism
Consequentialism
Teleologism - greek word ‘telos’ meaning goal Act is right if it is likely to have good
consequences, and avoid bad consequences Consequences for every person/thing of moral
relevance– slight harm to 1,000,000 people, for large
benefit of 1 An action is right if it produces the most
happiness for ALL parties affected by it.
Deontologism There are a variety of types
– Duty based– Rights based
Greek word ‘deon’ meaning duty/obligation An act is right if it conforms to rule(s) of
behaviour Actions are intrinsically right or wrong
regardless of the consequences– e.g. Deontological reason why you shouldn’t steal is
that stealing is wrong– Not simply because it will make another person
unhappy, or deprive them of needed things.
Duty based Deontologism
W D Ross– Spinello pages 26 - 28
Immanuel Kant– Derivative theories - called Kantian– 18th century German philosopher– stresses fidelity to principle and duty– happiness is not always good
Duty based Deontologism Happiness if not deserved: repellent If happiness is denied when deserved: also
repellent.
Similarly - loyalty: when this is to cause evil it can be wrong Duty - divorced from concerns about happiness
or pleasure
Duty based Deontologism
Impartiality for Kant at the heart of ethics Moral law (like science) must be rational
and universal - not grounded in human nature but in a common idea of duty
Kant believed that– the principles that we would have to live by
to not use others (formula of end in itself) would be precisely the same ones that would fit the formula of the universal law
Duty based Deontologism
“Categorical Imperative”– “Act only on the maxim through which you
can at the same time will that it be a universal law”
– (formula of the universal law)• this formulation entirely internal
• consistent with you having different maxims from me
– but there are still limits
Duty based Deontologism
Act according to maxim that fits the Categorical Imperative– ‘acting on a good will’– where the act that everybody that held maxims
fitting the Categorical Imperative (ie everybody with a good will) would have to do it
– then to do it is to act according to duty• obligatory
– failure to act in that way is forbidden
Duty based Deontologism
Alternative wording of the Categorical Imperative:
– “treat humanity in your own person or in the person of any other never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end”
– (formula of the end in itself)
Duty based Deontologism
To treat another person purely as a means– use them as a tool– not as if they are able to think for themselves– not just to do things they have consented to
but rather to do things it is impossible for them to consent to
• E.g. a con-man’s victims cannot consent because they do not know what he is really doing
• if they did know what he was doing they couldn’t consent to being deceived because they would know what they were consenting to not know
Duty based Deontologism
To treat another person as if they are able to think for themselves– must imply treating them not just as a means– but as if they are valuable in their self– an end in themselves
To treat somebody else as an end means:– enabling them to act– giving them support if needed– some support for their projects/aims
Can’t have a policy of refusing needed help (cf universal law formulation)
Duty based Deontologism
Demanding but there are limits:
– must treat self as an end too– obligation to develop own potential: to respect our
own humanity Because of this conflict (for Kant) it is
impossible to live a fully moral life: Crucial thing
– minimise the amount by which we fall short
Rights based Deontologism
John Rawls “A Theory of Justice” (1972)
– Similar approach to Hobbes & Locke - focuses on justice as fairness and gives priority to the right over the good
– Emphasises the fundamental rights or liberties which can never be suspended for any utilitarian considerations
Rights based Deontologism
Justice - 3 meanings:– to each according to his/her rights
• eg a workman agreed to work for £1000: justice in this sense requires that he be paid when he has kept his side of the bargain
– to each according to what is deserved• the work was only worth £100: justice in this sense only
requires him getting £100
– to each according to need• the workman has a large family of a dead brother to
support, and needs £1,500: justice in this sense requires him getting all that
A Theory of Justice A way to find out what justice requires: Imagine a group of people
– logical– self interested– no generosity– no envy– gathered to agree rules they will use in a society they will form
Perhaps: uninhabited island they will colonise– “Computer Ethics” Deborah Johnson, pg 13
Agreement: social contract to create a just society– what is called an “original position”
A Theory of Justice
Additionally individuals– don’t know what place they will hold– don’t know what their skills are– or how old they are– or if in a minority group
Behind “veil of ignorance”– You don’t know how you will do in the new
society so you can’t rig the rules in your own favour
Principles of Justice
1) Each person has an equal right to as much freedom as is consistent with others having that much
Rawls: gives– impartial legal system– freedom from arbitrary arrest– right to (some) property– political freedoms
Principles of Justice
2) Distributive justice: fair equality of opportunity– People will have different ability and therefore
there will be inequalities of wealth– Social and economic inequalities are allowed:
• if even worst off in society are better off as a result of that inequality existing
• So somebody can be paid more to do an important job that nobody wants to do (eg maintain the sewerage system)
Principles of Justice
First principle of justice always takes precedence:
– no amount of riches can make up for a reduction in freedom
Criticisms
Some say: behind the veil of ignorance you would be more bothered about equality and less about freedom
What precise rules come out depends on the precise details of what we are allowed to know, what our psychology is like, or assumed to be like
The original position is contradictory– if justice = whatever is agreed in the original position we
can’t know whether the rules of the original position are just, without having first been in the position.
A Test Case?
“Imagine discovering a continent so vast that it may have no end to its dimensions. Imagine a new world with more resources than all our future greed might exhaust, more opportunities than there will ever be entrepreneurs to exploit, and a peculiar kind of real estate that expands with development” (Johnson, 1994)
A Test Case? “Imagine a place where trespassers leave
no footprints, where goods can be stolen an infinite number of times and yet remain the possession of their original owners, where businesses you never heard of can own the history of your personal affairs, where only children feel completely at home, where the physics is that of thought rather than things, and where everyone is as virtual as the shadows in Plato’s cave” (Johnson, 1994)
A Test Case?
Barlow then goes on to explain that such a place exists:– “It consists of electron states, microwaves,
magnetic fields, light pulses, thought itself - a wave in the web of our electronic processing and communication systems” (Johnson, 1994)
Eg: Computer technology = the “new territory”
Conclusions
Presumption– “we ought to create rules, attitudes,
conventions and laws that will encourage the development and use of computer technology for the good of humanity”
Conclusions Need to look at:
– The role of the computer professional
– Issues of ownership
– Development of safe, reliable and useful software
– Protection of privacy
– How much security we want, at what cost?
– Open system of on-line communication or limited access?
– How will the rules be enforced?
– How do we deal with those who violate the rules?