Computer Ethics

1-*

Chapter 2:
Introduction
to Ethics

1-*

2.1 Introduction
We Live in Communities

1-*

The Ethical Point of View

• Most everyone shares “core values”, desiring:

Life

Happiness

Ability to accomplish goals

• Two ways to view world

Selfish point of view: consider only your own self and your core values

Ethical point of view: respect other people and their core values

Chapter Overview

• Introduction
• Review of nine ethical theories
• Comparing workable ethical theories
• Morality of breaking the law

1-*

1-*

Defining Terms

• Society

Association of people organized under a system of rules

Rules: advance the good of members over time. We call these rules morality.

• Morality

A society’s rules of conduct

What people should / should not to do in various situations

• Ethics

Rational examination of morality

Evaluation of people’s behavior

Analogy for Difference between Morality and Ethics

People must keep their cars on the roads.

Society: Town

Morality: Roads

1-*

1-*

Why Study Ethics?

• Ethics: a way to decide the best thing to do
• New problems accompany new technologies
• “Common wisdom” may not exist for novel situations brought about by new technologies

1-*

1-*

Scenario 1 (Page 81)

• Did Alexis do anything wrong?
• Who benefited from Alexis’s course of action?
• Who was hurt by Alexis’s course of action?
• Did Alexis have an unfair advantage over her high school classmates?
• Would any of your answers change if it turns out Alexis did not win a college scholarship after all?
• Are there better ways Alexis could have achieved her objective?
• What additional information, if any, would help you answer the previous questions?

Scenario 2 (page 82)

• Did the antispam organization do anything wrong?
• Did the ISPs that refused to accept email from the blacklisted ISPs do anything wrong?
• Who benefited from the organization’s action?
• Who was hurt by the organization’s action?
• Could the organization have achieved its goals through a better course of action?
• What additional information, if any, would help you answer the previous questions?

1-*

1-*

Scenario 3 (Page 82)

• Did the East Dakota State Police do anything wrong?
• Who benefited from the actions of the EDSP?
• Who was harmed by the actions of the EDSP?
• What other courses of action could the EDSP have taken to achieve its objectives?
• What additional information, if any, would help you answer the previous questions?

Scenario 4 (Page 83)

• Should you recommend release of the product next week?
• Who will benefit if the company follows your recommendation?
• Who will be harmed if the company follows your recommendation?
• Do you have an obligation to any group of people that may be affected by your decision?
• What additional information, if any, would help you answer the previous questions?
• Sample answers for the 4 scenarios

1-*

1-*

More on Ethics

• Ethics: is the rational, systematic analysis of conduct that can cause benefit or harm to other people.

“Doing ethics” means explaining people conclusions

Best explanations based on facts, shared values, logic

• Ethics focuses on people’s voluntary, moral choices. If you do an accident because you have chosen the wrong action, which is due to someone mistake? Or because of being drunk?
• Workable ethical theory: produces explanations that might be persuasive to a skeptical, yet open-minded audience

A Good Ethical Theory Supports Persuasive, Logical Arguments

1-*

1-*

What Is Relativism?

• Relativism

No universal norms of right and wrong

One person can say “X is right,” another can say “X is wrong,” and both can be right

• Subjective relativism

Each person decides right and wrong for himself or herself

“What’s right for you may not be right for me”

2.2 Subjective Relativism

Case for Subjective Relativism

• Well-meaning and intelligent people can disagree on moral issues: Abortion in USA
• Ethical debates are disagreeable and pointless: Both sides are right regard Abortion in USA

In the following sections we consider nine ethical theories—nine frameworks for

moral decision making.

1-*

1-*

Case Against Subjective Relativism - SR

• Blurs line between doing what you think is right and doing what you want to do
• Makes no moral distinction between the actions of different people
• SR and tolerance are two different things. For example, "People must be tolerant“ is against SR, because SR is about no universal moral norms.
• Decisions may not be based on reason
• Not a workable ethical theory

1-*

1-*

Cultural Relativism in a Nutshell

• What is “right” and “wrong” depends upon a society’s actual moral guidelines
• These guidelines vary from place to place and from time to time
• A particular action may be right in one society at one time and wrong in other society or at another time

2.3 Cultural Relativism

Case for Cultural Relativism

• Different social contexts demand different moral guidelines
• It is arrogant for one society to judge another

1-*

1-*

Case Against Cultural Relativism

• Because two societies do have different moral views doesn’t mean they ought to have different views
• It doesn’t explain how moral guidelines are determined
• What if there are no cultural norms?
• It doesn’t account for evolution of moral guidelines.
• It provides no way out for cultures in conflict
• Existence of many acceptable practices does not imply all practices are acceptable (many/any misconception)
• Societies do, in fact, share certain core values
• Only indirectly based on reason
• Not a workable ethical theory

1-*

1-*

Overview of Divine Command Theory

• Good actions: those aligned with God’s will
• Bad actions: those contrary to God’s will
• Holy books reveal God’s will
• We should use holy books as moral decision-making guides

2.4 Divine Command Theory

Divine Command Theory in Action

السرقة من الكبائر

1-*

1-*

Case for Divine Command Theory

• We owe obedience to our Creator
• God is all-good and all-knowing
• God is the ultimate authority

Case Against Divine Command Theory

• Different holy books disagree on certain teachings
• Society is multicultural, secular
• Some modern moral problems not directly addressed in scripture
• “The good” ≠ “God” (equivalence misconception)
• Based on obedience, not reason
• Not a workable ethical theory for our purposes

1-*

Definition of Ethical Egoism

• Each person should focus exclusively on his or her self-interest
• Morally right action: that action that provides self with maximum long-term benefit
• Ayn Rand, author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, espoused a theory similar to ethical egoism. Rand’s moral philosophy “holds man’s life as the standard of value—and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man”

1-*

2.5 Ethical Egoism

Case for Ethical Egoism

• It is practical since we are already inclined to do what’s best for ourselves
• It is better to let other people take care of themselves
• The community can benefit when individuals put their well-being first
• Other moral principles are rooted in the principle of self-interest

1-*

Case Against Ethical Egoism

• An easy moral philosophy may not be the best moral philosophy
• We know a lot about what is good for someone else. The question is, how are we going to respond to that person’s need in this theory?
• Self-interest can lead to deliberately immoral behavior
• Other moral principles are superior to principle of self-interest
• People who take the good of others into account lead happier lives
• By definition, does not respect the ethical point of view
• Not a workable ethical theory

1-*

1-*

1-*

Critical Importance of Good Will

• Good will: the desire to do the right thing
• Immanuel Kant: believed that people’s actions must be guided by moral laws, and that these moral laws were universal. Only thing in the world that is good without qualification is a good will
• Many Kant Moral laws can be found in the Quran and the Bible, Kant’s methodology allows these laws to be derived through a reasoning process.
• Reason should cultivate desire to do right thing

2.6 Kantianism

1-*

1-*

Categorical Imperative (1st Formulation)

Kant formulated a supreme rational principle that tells us precisely whether a specific action is right or wrong. He called this principle the categorical imperative: Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time will to be universal moral laws.

Illustration of 1st Formulation

• Question: Can a person in a difficult situation make a promise with the intention of breaking it later?
• Proposed rule: “I may make promises with the intention of later breaking them.”
• The person in trouble wants his promise to be believed so he can get what he needs.
• Universalize rule: Everyone may make & break promises
• Everyone breaking promises would make promises unbelievable, contradicting desire to have promise believed
• The rule is flawed. The answer is “No.”

1-*

A Quick Check

• When evaluating a proposed action, reverse roles
• What would you think if that person did the same thing to you?
• Negative reaction evidence that your will to do that action violates the Categorical Imperative

1-*

1-*

1-*

Categorical Imperative (2nd Formulation)

Act so that you treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves and never only as a means to an end.

This is usually an easier formulation to work with than the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative.

Kant: Wrong to Use Another Person Solely as a Means to an End

1-*

1-*

Plagiarism Scenario (Page 99)

• Carla

Single mother

Works full time

Takes two evening courses/semester

• History class

Requires more work than normal

Carla earning an “A” on all work so far

Carla doesn’t have time to write final report

• Carla purchases report; submits it as her own work

1-*

1-*

Kantian Evaluation (1st Formulation)

• Carla wants credit for plagiarized report
• Rule: “You may claim credit for work performed by someone else”
• If rule universalized, reports would no longer be credible indicator’s of student’s knowledge, and professors would not give credit for reports
• Proposal moral rule is self-defeating
• It is wrong for Carla to turn in a purchased report

Kantian Evaluation (2nd Formulation)

• Carla submitted another person’s work as her own
• She attempted to deceive professor
• She treated professor as a means to an end

End: passing the course

Means: manipulate professor

• What Carla did was wrong

1-*

1-*

Case for Kantianism

• Aligns with common moral concern: “What if everyone acted that way?”
• Produces universal moral guidelines
• Treats all persons as moral equals

Perfect and Imperfect Duties

• Perfect duty: duty obliged to fulfill without exception

Example: Telling the truth

• Imperfect duty: duty obliged to fulfill in general but not in every instance

Example: Helping others

1-*

1-*

Case Against Kantianism

• Sometimes no rule adequately characterizes an action
• Sometimes there is no way to resolve a conflict between rules

In a conflict between a perfect duty and an imperfect duty, perfect duty prevails

In a conflict between two perfect duties, no solution

• Kantianism allows no exceptions to perfect duties
• Despite weaknesses, a workable ethical theory

1-*

1-*

Principle of Utility

• Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill developed a theory that is in contrast to Kantianism
• An action is good if its benefits exceeds its harms
• An action is bad if its harms exceed its benefits
• Utility: tendency of an object to produce happiness or prevent unhappiness for an individual or a community
• Happiness = advantage = benefit = good = pleasure
• Unhappiness = disadvantage = cost = evil = pain

2.7 Act Utilitarianism

1-*

1-*

Principle of Utility (Greatest Happiness Principle)

An action is right (or wrong) to the extent that it increases

(or decreases) the total happiness of the affected parties.

1-*

1-*

Act Utilitarianism

• Utilitarianism

Morality of an action has nothing to do with intent

Focuses on the consequences

A consequentialist theory

• Act utilitarianism

Add up change in happiness of all affected beings

Sum > 0, action is good

Sum < 0, action is bad

Right action to take: one that maximizes the sum

• Intensity
• Duration
• Certainty
• Propinquity
• Fecundity
• Purity
• Extent

Bentham: Weighing Pleasure/Pain

1-*

1-*

Highway Routing Scenario

• State may replace a curvy stretch of highway
• New highway segment 1 mile shorter
• 150 houses would have to be removed
• Some wildlife habitat would be destroyed

Evaluation

• Costs

$20 million to compensate homeowners

$10 million to construct new highway

Lost wildlife habitat worth $1 million

• Benefits

$39 million savings in automobile driving costs

• Conclusion

Benefits exceed costs

Building highway a good action

1-*

1-*

Case for Act Utilitarianism

• Focuses on happiness
• Down-to-earth (practical)
• Comprehensive

Case Against Act Utilitarianism

• Unclear whom to include in calculations and how far out into the future to consider
• Too much work
• Ignores our innate sense of duty
• We cannot predict consequences with certainty
• Susceptible to the problem of moral luck
• Overall, a workable ethical theory

1-*

1-*

Applying Principle of Utility to Rules

• We ought to adopt moral rules which, if followed by everyone, will lead to the greatest increase in total happiness
• Act utilitarianism applies Principle of Utility to individual actions
• Rule utilitarianism applies Principle of Utility to moral rules

2.8 Rule Utilitarianism

Anti-Worm Scenario

• August 2003: Blaster worm infected thousands of Windows computers
• Soon after, Nachi worm appeared

Took control of vulnerable computer

Located and destroyed copies of Blaster

Downloaded software patch to fix security problem

Used computer as launching pad to try to “infect” other vulnerable PCs

1-*

1-*

Evaluation using Rule Utilitarianism

• Proposed rule: If I can write a helpful worm that removes a harmful worm from infected computers and shields them from future attacks, I should do so
• Who would benefit

People who do not keep their systems updated

• Who would be harmed

People who use networks

People who’s computers are invaded by buggy anti-worms

System administrators

• Conclusion: Harm outweighs benefits. Releasing anti-worm is wrong.

1-*

1-*

Case for Rule Utilitarianism

• Not every moral decision requires performing utilitarian calculus
• Moral rules survive exceptional situations
• Avoids the problem of moral luck
• Reduces the problem of bias
• Appeals to a wide cross-section of society

1-*

1-*

Case Against Utilitarianism in General

• All consequences must be measured on a single scale.

All units must be the same in order to do the sum

In certain circumstances utilitarians must quantify the value of a human life

• Utilitarianism ignores the problem of an unjust distribution of good consequences.

Utilitarianism does not mean “the greatest good of the greatest number”

That requires a principle of justice

What happens when a conflict arises between the Principle of Utility and a principle of justice?

• Despite weaknesses, both act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism are workable ethical theories

1-*

1-*

Basis of Social Contract Theory

• Thomas Hobbes

In a “state of nature” our lives would be “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short”

We implicitly accept a social contract

Establishment of moral rules to govern relations among citizens

Government capable of enforcing these rules

• Jean-Jacques Rousseau

In ideal society, no one above rules

That prevents society from enacting bad rules

2.9 Social Contract Theory

1-*

1-*

James Rachels’s Definition

“Morality consists in the set of rules,

governing how people are to

treat one another, that rational

people will agree to accept, for their

mutual benefit, on the condition that

others follow those rules as well.”

Kinds of Rights

• Negative right: A right that another can guarantee by leaving you alone
• Positive right: A right obligating others to do something on your behalf
• Absolute right: A right guaranteed without exception
• Limited right: A right that may be restricted based on the circumstances

Correlation between Types of Rights

• Positive rights tend to be more limited
• Negative rights tends to be more absolute

1-*

1-*

John Rawls’s Principles of Justice

• Each person may claim a “fully adequate” number of basic rights and liberties, so long as these claims are consistent with everyone else having a claim to the same rights and liberties
• Any social and economic inequalities must

Be associated with positions that everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to achieve

Be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle)

1-*

Rawls’s First Principle of Justice

1-*

1-*

Rawls’s Difference Principle

1-*

1-*

1-*

DVD Rental Scenario

• Bill owns chain of DVD rental stores
• Collects information about rentals from customers
• Constructs profiles of customers
• Sells profiles to direct marketing firms
• Some customers happy to receive more mail order catalogs; others unhappy at increase in “junk mail”

Evaluation (Social Contract Theory)

• Consider rights of Bill, customers, and mail order companies.
• Does customer have right to expect name, address to be kept confidential?
• If customer rents DVD from bill, who owns information about transaction?
• If Bill and customer have equal rights to information, Bill did nothing wrong to sell information.
• If customers have right to expect name and address or transaction to be confidential without giving permission, then Bill was wrong to sell information without asking for permission.

1-*

1-*

Case for Social Contract Theory

• Framed in language of rights
• Explains why people act in self-interest in absence of common agreement
• Provides clear analysis of certain citizen/government problems

Why okay for government to deprive criminals of certain rights

Why civil obedience can be morally right action

• Workable ethical theory

Case Against Social Contract Theory

• No one signed social contract
• Some actions have multiple characterizations
• Conflicting rights problem
• May unjustly treat people incapable of upholding contract
• Despite weaknesses, a workable theory

1-*

Critique of Enlightenment Theories

• Kantianism, utilitarianism, social contract theory ignore important moral considerations

moral education

moral wisdom

family and social relationships

role of emotions

• Virtue ethics

arete, virtue, excellence: reaching highest potential

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (4th century BC)

1-*

2.10 Virtue Ethics

1-*

Virtues and Vices

• Two types of virtue

intellectual virtues: virtues associated with reasoning and truth

moral virtues: virtues of character (e.g., honesty)

• Moral virtues

developed by habitually performing right action

deep-seated character traits

disposition to act in a certain way and feel in a certain way

1-*

Aristotle: Happiness derives from living a life of virtue.

1-*

Summary of Virtue Ethics

1-*

A right action is an action that a virtuous person, acting in character, would do in the same circumstances.

A virtuous person is a person who possesses and lives out the virtues.

The virtues are those character traits human beings needs in order to flourish and be truly happy.

Vices

• Vices are opposite of virtues
• Vice: a character trait that prevents a human being from flourishing or being truly happy
• Often, a virtue situated between two vices

Courage between cowardliness and rashness

Generosity between stinginess and prodigality

1-*

Case for Virtue Ethics

• It often makes more sense to focus on virtues than obligations, rights, or consequences
• Personal relationships can be morally relevant to decision making
• Our moral decision-making skills develop over time
• With this theory there are no irresolvable moral dilemmas
• Emotions play an important role in living a moral life

1-*

Case Against Virtue Ethics

• Reasonable people may disagree on character traits needed for human flourishing
• Cannot use virtue ethics to guide government policy
• Virtue ethics undermines attempts to hold people responsible for their bad actions
• Despite weaknesses, virtue ethics a workable theory

1-*

1-*

Objectivism vs. Relativism

• Objectivism: Morality has an existence outside the human mind
• Relativism: Morality is a human invention
• Divine command theory, ethical egoism, Kantianism, utilitarianism, social contract theory, and virtue ethics examples of objectivism

2.11 Comparing Workable Ethical Theories

Workable Ethical Theories

• We seek theories with these characteristics:

Based on the ethical point of view

Objective moral principles developed using logical reasoning based on facts and commonly held values

• Workable ethical theories

Kantianism

Act and rule utilitarianism

Social contract theory

Virtue ethics

1-*

1-*

Comparing Workable Ethical Theories

1-*

Social Contract Theory Perspective

• Everyone in society bears certain burdens in order to receive certain benefits
• Legal system supposed to guarantee people’s rights are protected
• Everything else being equal, we should be law-abiding
• Should only break law if compelled to follow a higher-order moral obligation

1-*

2.12 Morality of Breaking the Law

Social Contract: A Prima Facie Obligation to Obey the Law

1-*

Kantian Perspective

• Everyone wants to be treated justly
• Imagine rule: “I may break a law I believe to be unjust”
• If everyone acted according to this rule, then laws would be subverted
• Contradiction: Cannot both wish to be treated justly and allow laws to be subverted

1-*

Rule Utilitarian Perspective

• What would be consequences of people ignoring laws they felt to be unjust?
• Beneficial consequence: Happiness of people who are doing what they please
• Harmful consequences: Harm to people directly affected by lawless actions, general loss of respect for laws, increased burden on criminal justice system
• Harms greater than benefits

1-*

Act Utilitarian Perspective

• Possible to conceive of situations where benefits of breaking law exceed harms
• Suppose give penniless, bedridden friend copy of CD
• Friend benefits by $15 (value of CD)
• I benefit by $10 (satisfaction of helping friend)
• Harms of $0 (no lost sale, no police involvement)
• With $25 of benefit and $0 of harm, action is determined to be good

1-*

1-*

Summary
Insights Offered by Various Theories

• Kantianism: Every person is equally valuable, and when you interact with other people you should always respect them as rational beings.
• Utilitarianism: You should consider the consequences of an action before deciding whether it’s right or wrong.
• Social contract theory: We should collectively promote human rights, such as the rights to life, liberty, and property.
• Virtue ethics: You can count on a good person to do the right thing at the right time in the right way.

1-*

It’s Up to You

• You can consider duties and rights and consequences and virtues when making moral decisions
• Ultimately, you have to decide:

What kind of person do I want to be?

What kind of world do I want to live in?