Reason, Relativity, and Responsibility in Computer Ethics

1. Reason, Relativity, and Responsibility in Computer Ethics James H. Moor

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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?

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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”

10. 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?

11. 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!

12. 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

13. Core Values p 50? • You read this section • End coverage of this chapter