Computer Ethics

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

A.    Political Order: reflects the structure of power

What groups are afforded power? What groups are afforded rights?

In a:

· Monarchy,

· democracy,

· socialist state,

· communist (ideal: power to the workers and historical: based on political party that gains power),

·  dictatorship,

· theocracy

In a Democracy, we have the ruling body that is elected by the populace. The populace controls who the ruling body is and that body serves the populace. It is asocial contract where the populace allows the elected official to make laws and laws hopefully reflect the common good. In turn, the populace has certain rights that the government has to abide by. 

B. There is a tension between honoring rights and ruling. Kind of paternalistic attitude.

John Stuart Mill: civil libertarianism—heart of the ACLU: always start with citizens rights. Only in exceptional cases do you abridge these rights: 1. If an action would or has harmed others;

2. if the person is not competent (a child could fall under here where a guardian accepts the responsibility) 

It stresses individualism (we see a current manifestation of this in the cyberlibertarians who believe in no control in cyber space)

Aristotle wanted us to also look out for the polis. To achieve human flourishing you had to be an active member of the polis and decisions were not purely for the sake of the individual. 

Seesaw between society and the individual. Whom do we favor? Which rights predominate?

Democracy is based on a social contract in regard to the exercise of power. 

Power bestowed on government to ideally:

· provide security

· maintain social order

· promote public goods

Power reserved for citizens to ideally:

· control elected officials

· protect autonomy and self-determination

All sectors are pivotal to the balance, including but not exclusively the Internet.

Any shift favoring one or the other party may change the nature of democracy overall.

Internet: A democratic technology?

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

If we wish to study or analyze the Internet and its implications for democracy and democratic values,

· Kantian analysis of human beings as ends in themselves. 

· This underpins the value of individual autonomy and the value of democracy.

· It suggests a form of government that gives individuals freedom to pursue their lives, that gives them a say in governance of public institutions that directly and indirectly shape their lives

· A just society is one in which freedoms and constraints, benefits and burdens are fairly distributed (DJ) Is technology, esp the Internet instrumental in the dissemination of democracy in cyberspace. 

 Democratic Values in the Internet

·  Some claim that the Internet is  a democratic technology, i.e. inherently democratic.

·  Others say it can facilitate or enhance democracy: organizational, governmental: national, local or global. 

· Still others believe that the Internet should be developed along democratic principles.

1.  The core idea: political power should reside in the citizens of a nation rather than with a single person (monarch) or aristocracy(small group).

        2.  Citizens are the authority: govt is accountable to them

      3.     Moral idea underlying democracy: individuals are sovereign over themselves and to be   recognized as such, they must  have some say in the governments by which they are ruled. Individuals should have a vote and high degree of freedom.

    4.   Many see the fact that the Internet connects many individuals to many individuals as a democratic characteristic

· The Internet is democratic

Based on these assumptions:

· binary nature, ever-malleable bits (Negroponte)

· too fluid to be repressed

· provides new space for political organization

· provides window on the world

·       Unmediated, many-many interaction: any individual with access can talk to every other individual with access.

·          Power to communicate across the globe is in the hands of the many. 

·    Globality. Allows a diversity of sources even for institutionalized information.

·  Counterargument:      Unmediated communication and access to a diversity of resources can be undemocratic depending on their surrounding structure. 

        Unmediated communication = chaos

 In an anarchy,  There is no guarantee everyone will have a say. The loudest and most aggressive   may dominate

· Counter-argued by Joshua Kurlantzick, “ Dictatorship.com”:

· Evidence:  Singapore, Malaysia, and China have had increased access and more repression.

· Counter-assertions:

1. medium “is ill-suited for expressing and organizing dissent”

2. as a technology, easy for regimes to stifle, control, co-opt

3. Compete for our attention in order to disperse information pay for it…ads..so those who have $$$  have control.  

4. The Internet forms new associations as well  as consolidates old ones. It may give power to the already powerful

· Therefore we could state that there is the possibility of democratic processes but to make it a reality, we need rules of order and conduct etc. It must be structured in a way that supports democratic processes and institutions.