Transcript Reason, Relativity, and Responsibility in Computer Ethics

Reason, Relativity, and
Responsibility in Computer
Ethics
James H. Moor
Searching for Ethics in the
Global Village
• “We are entering a generation marked by
globalization and ubiquitous computing. The
second generation of computer ethics,
therefore must be an era of ‘global
information ethics.’” Bynum and Rogerson
• “The widespread desire to be wired should
make us reflect on what awaits as the
computer revolution explodes around the
world. The digital genie is out of the bottle on
a world-wide scale.” Moor
Global Village (2)
• There is disagreement about the nature of
computer ethics
– He disagrees with two positions, both are popular
• A) “Routine Ethics” position – ethical problems in
computing are regarded as no different from ethical
problems in any field, there is nothing special about
them.
– Apply established customs, laws, and norms to access the
situations straightforwardly
• B) “Cultural Relativism” – local customs and laws
determine what is right and wrong
» But computing crosses cultural boundaries as well as
national and state boundaries
Dilemma
• Routine ethics makes computer ethics
trivial, and
• Cultural Relativism makes it impossible
• Discuss the above two statements
• The problems of computer ethics, in
some cases, are special and exert
pressure on our understanding
Logical Malleability and
Informational Enrichment
• Computers are logically malleable – they are
general purpose machines like no others
• Computers are informationally enriching
– They certainly automate, and
– They informate – they are able to collect
information while working, that information can be
used in making decisions
• How does this contrast with industrial age machines?
The Special Nature of
Computer Ethics
• Moor believes that computer ethics is a special field of ethical
research and application in that
– “Computer ethics has two parts: (I) the analysis of the nature
and social impact of computer technology and (ii) the
corresponding formulation and justification of policies for the
ethical use of such technology.”
• Should a supervisor be able to read a workers e-mail or should
government be able to censor information on the Internet?
– Initially, there may be no clear policies on such matters
– They never arose before
– There are policy vacuums in these situations
Special Nature (2)
• Sometimes may just need to establish policy
• Othertimes may need more analysis
– Is e-mail in the workplace more like correspondence on
company stationary in company files or more like private and
personal phone conversations
• There is often a conceptual muddle where the issues are not
trivial matters of semantics
• Suppose a supervisor learns about a workers health issues by
review of e-mail – the consequences may be significant
• Eventually some clear understanding of the issues and
justifiable policy should emerge
• Because computers are logically malleable, they will continue to
be applied in unpredictable and novel ways generating
numerous policy vacuums for the forseeable future.
Reasons within Relative Frameworks
• Computer ethics is not rote
• But, rejecting Routine Ethics leaves many uncomfortable
– If ethics is not routine how can it be done at all?
• Cultural Relativism doesn’t help solve the problem
– Cultural Relativism indicates that ethical issues must be decided
situationally on the basis of local customs and laws
• Problem: since computing activity is globally interactive, using local
customs and laws will not in general help us with an answer when
customs and laws conflict
• Do you pick the customs and laws of the originator or the receiver?
• Problem: If we go the route of Cultural Relativism we can now run into
policy vacuums for every culture
• A computing situation may prove to be so novel that there are no
customs or laws established anywhere to cope with it
What to Do?
• Shortcomings of routine ethics and cultural relativism
may make one cautious about doing applied ethics at
all
• Moor feels that this may be one reason why some
are sometimes reluctant to teach computer ethics
• Ethical issues seem to be too elusive and vague
• Computer folks generally like facts, true, false, right,
wrong
• Remember introduction to semester: “Ethics is not a
science”
Reasons within Relative
Frameworks: Example
• Value frameworks provide us with the sorts of reasons we
consider relevant when justifying particular value judgments
• In doing computing one must often make decisions using values
of the discipline
• A computer programmer knows what makes a computer
program a good program
– It works, has been thoroughly tested, doesn’t have bugs, it well
structured, is well documents, runs efficiently, is easy to maintain,
has a friendly interface
– These are all properties of a good program
– These values are essentially standards that are agreed upon
among professional computer programmers
• What are Ethical Principles? (Day 1)
– What is the connection to this discussion?
Reasoning Frameworks (2)
• Computer programmers may disagree on facts
• Eg, Is object oriented programming better than structured
programming?
• This may seem like a disagreement of standards but by testing
which produces fewer bugs
• This may seem like a disagreement about values but the value
is still to produce programs with fewer bugs
• The dispute is which technique (fact) produces the desired
result
• No programmer regards ineffective, untested, buggy,
unstructured, undocumented, inefficient, unmaintainable code
with an unfriendly interface as a good program!
Many/Any p. 50
• Discussion of the relativity of values sometimes
engage in the Many/Any Fallacy
• This occurs when one reasons from the fact that
many alternatives are acceptable to the claim that
any alternative is acceptable
• Ex) There are many ways for a travel agent to route
someone between Savannah and Kalamazoo
– It doesn’t follow that any way of sending someone between
these cities is acceptable
• Similarly, many different computer programs may be
good but not just any computer program is good
Core Values p 50?
• You read this section
• End coverage of this chapter