Transcript COMPUTING & ETHICS BSYS 3067

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?