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?