2250 words in 8 hours
Karl11111
T12018MIS741Week03Topic03.pptxMIS741 Topic 3 – Ethical decision-making framework
Slides developed originally by Dr Darryl Coulthard, and adapted by Dr Craig Parker, Prof Doug Grant and Dr Emilia Bellucci
1
Learning objectives
At the end of this topic you will be able to:
Describe each element of an ethical decision-making framework, and their link to professional codes of practice
Apply the framework to analyse ethical dilemmas.
2
Minimum readings
See the Reading List under the Resources tab, then Unit Outline Planner for details of the following topic readings:
Textbook Chapter 1, section 1.4
Various Pdf and webpages listed in Readings
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
3
Moral Agency and Ethics
Morality refers to guidelines that you can use to determine what you ought to do in a particular situation. Morality also allows you to figure out whether a particular decision or action is right or wrong.
“ Ethics is the rational, systematic analysis of conduct that can cause benefit or harm to other people “ (p82)
The “ethical point of view” means respecting not only your own goals and aspirations, but taking into consideration the goals and aspirations of other people as well.
Morality is focused on solving particular problems. Ethics is broader than morality in that it includes the higher-level activities evaluating moral systems and the creation of new ways of evaluating moral problems.
Morals are culturally and religiously based distinctions of right/wrong. The sphere of morality does overlap the sphere of ethics which makes distinctions between the two difficult.
4
The Ethicist’s Goal
A guide to establishing a fair and just society, enabling everyone to prosper - “the Good Life” (!)
A guide to decision-making when confronted by dilemmas – those awful situations where “good” for one or some is at the same time “bad” for another, or others.
In OUR context – reflecting especially on issues brought into play by the development of technology, and issues faced directly by professionals working in IS
Examples in our context include use of cameras on smartphones
Sending out a bug in a piece of software
CCTV usage for privacy
Use of email (professional vs phishing)
5
A Framework for Ethical Decision-Making
We need the following:
Choice of ethical theory / theories to inform decision-making
A process to follow when confronted with an issue
6
So no enlightenment?
6
Three General Approaches We Might Take
7
The book talks about subjective/cultural relativism. There is no universal moral norms of right and wrong. Two people can have completely opposite views of a moral problem and both can be. Cultural relativism refers to cultural differences.
7
We can base our ethical compass on religions, customs, families and friends – Tradition
We can apply rules and precepts, developed according to reason – The Enlightenment
We can reject the “rule-based” approach, but try to develop our moral character such that we are better equipped to resolve ethical dilemmas -Virtue Ethics – both ancient and modern!
What do you think?
Which is the best route to the “good life” and resolving dilemmas (see Slide 6)?
Tradition: Yes, we can obey the precepts of our religions, customs, families and friends that tell us what is right - What we have always done
Enlightenment: Yes, we can think through ethical dilemmas and apply rules and precepts we develop to come up with a solution - Use your reason (Kant)
Postmodern: yes, we can try to develop our moral character such that we are better equipped to come up with a solution – Develop better character (Virtue ethics).
8
Tradition ethical decision-making framework
Divine Command Theory
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
9
1: Divine Command Theory
Ethical Framework derived from Religion : “good actions are aligned with the will of God”
Divine Command Theory
Arguments for (by those who “believe”):
We owe our allegiance to our creator
“God” is all good and all-knowing
“God” is the ultimate authority
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” – the “golden rule” – is a common feature of the major religions, and is essentially accepted universally as a first principle of ethical behaviour.
We must obey our Creator and God’s laws
God knows how to be happy and the best for us
Most people are religious and hence most people adhere to these rules which are our moral code.
11
Divine Command Theory
Arguments against:
There are many holy books and they sometimes disagree
Interpretation of scripture not straightforward and some moral problems are not addressed in scripture
Appeals to God in a secular society have little effect
Equivalence fallacy (Do not equate “God” with “good” as good can come from other places as well)
Based on faith and obedience not reason
12
For example catholic bible has 6 extra books to the Protestant book.
2 people can interpret the same book differently
We live in a multicultural society, we do not all believe in God
Equivalence fallacy (Do not equate “God” with “good” – although “God is good” is a common tenet in religions, which also tend to believe that “good” all comes from “God”)
5) Based on faith and obedience, not reason (even when reason is used to confirm belief in God, faith is generally always required to believe certain major tenets)
12
Enlightenment theories
13
Period of Enlightenment from 1650s to the 1780s in which cultural and intellectual forces in Western Europe emphasized reason, analysis, and individualism rather than traditional lines of authority.
Started at the end of Europe's 30 year religious war and ended with the French Revolution.
At same time there was the industrial revolution, a revolution in physics (Newtonian kinematics) and wider availability of reading material such as encyclopaedias.
First image shows German poets gathered in a courtyard
13
Why theories of ethics?
With the Enlightenment critique and subsequent loss of custom and tradition, the Enlightenment thinkers argued we need a reasoned and reasonable method from which to determine how to act
The Age of Reason - Sapere Aude - Dare to know!
Explicit belief in human capacity – simply accepting scriptural instruction from “God”, or following tradition, is not good enough – humans can deduce what is right / best using reason based on first principles.
14
Enlightenment Theories
15
15
Deontological theory
Social contract theory
Utilitarianism (Act and Rule)
Deontological ethics
16
Kant: German Philosopher. Guided by the Bible, Kant’s methodology allows laws to be derived through a reasoning process.
16
Kant
Asked “what is always good without qualification?”
Intelligence is good but can be used for evil. However, our will (motive or intention) to be good is good without qualification!
Our focus should always be on our will to be good - what we ought to do - not what we want to do.
What we ought to do is informed by the categorical imperatives
17
Categorical imperative I
Provides the moral compass for action
“Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time will to be universal moral laws.”
If an action is not right for everyone to do, in all situations, then it is not a right action.
This immediately takes us into considering RULES for morality, because we leave no room for considering context.
To evaluate a moral rule we universalise it.
18
Test the rule by universalising it. Is it ok for everyone to do the same? If not, then it is wrong.
For example, consider making a promise with the intent of breaking it later on. This is always wrong by Kant because if everyone did this, then people wouldn’t believe in promises anymore. No concern for the context at all.
18
Categorical imperative II
Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, never a means to an end.
It is wrong to use others. Humanity is an end in itself.
Kant draws explicitly on the Judeo-Christian tradition of the Golden Rule
“Do unto others what you would have them do unto you”
19
Say for example you are a manager in a factory which you know will close in a year. The people you need right now will have to move from interstate and uproot their families. But do you tell them? Yes, because this information will influence their decision to take the job.
19
Kant
Argument for:
Rational (reasoned)
Produces universal moral guidelines
Treats all people as moral equals (no discrimination)
Argument against:
Sometimes a rule doesn’t characterise an action (e.g. stealing to feed someone starving – is this stealing or is this caring for another)
No exceptions – it is too rigid
20
Utilitarianism
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
An action is good if it benefits, bad if it harms
A Consequentialist theory – the consequences of the action are paramount
21
“Measuring good”
21
Consequentialist ethics
Consequentialist approaches to ethics focus on the outcomes of decision-making
The idea is that one chooses an action based on the likely / intended consequences of the action, with little regard for the side-effects of the action itself (although, generally, the totality of all consequential outcomes has to be evaluated – including the side effects)
Identical in principle to Cost-Benefit Analysis
The motive behind the action is irrelevant
Rule vs Act Utilitarianism
Rule utilitarianism applies the principles of utility to moral rules
A benevolent worm is released, exploiting the same security holes as the Blaster worm (2003), which caused windows to reboot every few minutes.
Appropriate rule for universal application is ‘if I can write and release a helpful worm that improves the security of the computers it infects, I should do it”. If everyone does this, there will be extra network traffic, making computers unusable & good worms may contain bugs & extra work on administrators. So, action of the person is wrong.
Act utilitarianism applies the principles of utility to individual moral actions
Building a new highway – is this a good action? Need to consider the ‘cost’ of lost habitat, climate change from increased traffic, re-location of people losing their homes, $cost in materials etc
Rule Utilitarians apply the principles of utility to moral rules, while an Act utilitarian applies principles of utility to individual moral actions.
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
23
Utilitarianism
Arguments in favour:
Appeals to a wide cross section of society
It is all right to do anything as long as no one gets hurt
It’s the actual consequences that count, not some silly rules
Arguments against:
Forces a single measure to evaluate all different kinds of consequences (intangibles?)
Ignores the problem of unjust distribution of good consequences
24
24
Social Contract Theory
“Morality consists in the set of rules, governing how people in a society 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” (p110)
Everyone living in a civilised society has implicitly agreed to (“the social contract”):
1) the establishment of a set of moral rules to govern relations among citizens
2) a Government capable of enforcing these rules.
Essentially the contract specifies rights and duties (or responsibilities) for the individual.
John Rawls extended the theory of contracts to include justice as fairness. An action is not ethical if it advantages the least advantaged.
The aim is to have a civil society and requires agreement to cooperation
The contract is not just about what the rules shall be, but also how the society should be governed in order to maintain order.
25
Social contract theory
Rights and Duties
All morally significant beings have certain rights: Life, liberty, property, privacy. For example, “if you have the right to life, then others have the duty or obligation not to kill you”. (p111)
“Rights can be classified according to the duties they put on others. A negative right is a right that another can guarantee by leaving you alone to exercise your right, ie the right to free expression. A positive right is a right that obligates others to do something on your behalf, ie free education as the rest of society must allocate resources so that you may attend school”. (p111)
26
26
Social Contract Theory
Arguments for:
Framed in language of rights (we have been raised believing in individual rights)
Explains why people act in self interest in absence of common agreement (ie, “rights seeking”)
Provides clear ethical analysis of important moral issues
Law used to enforce ethical (or not!) behaviour, as well as allows for civil disobedience against an unethical law (segregation laws in USA)
Also good because it uses the law to justify ethics.
27
Social Contract Theory
Arguments against
Some actions may be characterised differently from different perspectives
There can be a conflict of rights problem – how is this to be resolved?
Unjust for people who cannot uphold their side of the contract
28
Virtue ethics
The ethical theories up to this point are products of the Enlightenment – they attempt to identify the reasonable solution.
Aristotle’s ethics of virtue of moral conduct precedes these theories
Major difference is, in Virtue Ethics we focus on the character, or virtues of the person, not the action, ie : who we are, not what we do
29
Virtue Ethics
Happiness results from living a life of virtue
Person with many moral virtues has a strong character
Person with strong character will do the right thing because it is consistent with their character
An action is right if and only if it is what an agent with a virtuous character would do when faced with a moral problem.
Ethics as a developmental process
Aristotle – deriving pleasure from a virtuous act is a sign that you have acquired the virtue.
30
Virtues
What makes a person virtuous? They exhibit the characteristics of: Productivity, Bravery, Courage, Honesty. Moderation, Generosity, Loyalty, Tolerance, Fairness, Friendliness…
And how do you cultivate these? Ie, can we acquire the virtue of honesty?
Aristotle taught that virtue is to be cultivated by making deliberate choices to engage in virtuous acts, and after a time, the virtue underlying these acts becomes part of one’s character
Aristotle said that deriving pleasure from a virtuous act is a sign that you have acquired the virtue. Once virtue has been developed, good decision-making in difficult situations becomes instinctive, based on possessing virtue.
31
Strengths of Virtue Ethics
Makes more sense to focus on virtues rather than obligations, rights and consequences. We should be motivated for good behaviour
Reduces the problem of impartiality - Allows us to be partial towards certain people like our children and family.
Reflects moral development and moral decision making develops over time
There are no irresolvable moral dilemmas (unlike Kantianism where there can be conflict between the perfect duties)
Virtue ethics recognise the important role that emotions play in living a moral life. Virtuous people do the right thing at the right time for the right reasons, they feel satisfied doing good and feel upset when faced with difficult decisions.
32
Weakness of virtue ethics
Different people may have quite different conceptions of the virtues that help ‘human flourishing’. As a society we cannot agree on which character traits are virtuous, and hence cannot agree on what a virtuous person would do in a particular situation.
Virtue ethics cannot be used to guide government policy since it focuses on the agent, rather the motives or consequence or the action itself.
Virtue ethics undermines attempts to hold people responsible for their bad actions. We are not born virtuous, moral and intellectual virtues develop over time and as a result of our upbringing, education and community. How can we hold an agent responsible if they acquire vices rather than virtues?
Other ethical decision-making frameworks
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
34
Other frameworks? (see eReadings)
Ethical decision-making frameworks – e.g.:
ACS Professional Code of Conduct
Brown University’s synthesis of ethical frameworks
RESOLVEDD method (Pfeiffer & Forsberg)
12 Questions (Nash)
Davis’ framework
Seven Step Method (Hamilton, based on others’ work)
Joint Ethics Regulation (US Dept. of Defense)
Ethical Deliberation for Professionals / PLUS (Kovach)
Project Management Institute Ethical D.M. Framework
So no enlightenment?
35
Contemporary frameworks? (Eg)
Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats
Used for short-term and quick decisions, increasing productivity, during meetings, etc
Does encourage deeper thinking about decisions compared to normal corporate decisions based purely on profit/money/share values
While it could be useful, it is mainly a marketing campaign for de Bono! (You have to be certified, buy the books, etc!)
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
36
Contemporary frameworks? (Eg)
Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats
White Hat: “calls for information known or needed”
Red Hat: “signifies feelings, hunches and intuition”
Black Hat: “judgment – the devil's advocate or why something may not work”
Yellow Hat: “explore the positives and probe for value and benefit”
Green Hat: “focuses on creativity: the possibilities, alternatives and new ideas”
Blue Hat: “used to manage the thinking process”
http://www.debonogroup.com/six_thinking_hats.php
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
37
Ethical decision-making framework
All decision-making frameworks involve:
Understand the ethical issue / required decision
Identify and analyse solutions / options / alternatives from various perspectives
Evaluate and then justify the selection
Some include:
Reflecting on the decision (after action)
So no enlightenment?
38
How to understand the ethical issue?
| Framework | Be ethically aware | Describe the issue | Collect/review facts |
| ACS Code | Essential | Gives lots of examples | Competence, self-development |
| Brown Uni. | Important | State specific ethical aspects | Get all relevant information |
| RESOLVEDD | Important | What is the issue/at stake? | History, details of the issue? |
| 12 Questions | Not mentioned | Defined issue accurately? How did situation occur? | Not mentioned |
| Davis | Conflict of interest? | Yes | Get facts. Issue still remain? |
| Hamilton | Not mentioned | Level? Org., indiv., systemic? | Relevant facts? Still an issue? |
| US DoDef | Not mentioned | List ethical issues at stake, state problem and decision | Laws/regs, check assumptions, ask questions, demand proof |
| Kovach | Not mentioned | Define the problem | Laws/regs, prof. obligations, org. policies/proced./values, own values. Identify unwarranted assumptions. |
| PMI | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Laws/regs, org./client codes/values, prof. codes, own values |
| de Bono | Only general method | Not mentioned | White Hat |
People who are not ethically aware (see later slides on Virtue Ethics regarding individual virtues) will not bother to look for ethical dilemmas as part of the decision-making they undertake. Such people would not be considered moral.
Describing the issue, and collecting/reviewing relevant facts, can be done at the start, but will need to be repeated and developed further as the latter parts of the ethical decision-making framework are completed (see next slides). The framework stages are not linear and can be repeated or done in different order.
Not all decisions will necessarily have ethical implications. Some decisions may be more trivial than others.
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
39
Which perspectives to consider?
| Framework | Public interest | Vulnerable | Company | Individual | Colleagues | Clients | Industry |
| ACS Code | Primary focus | Explicit | Explicit | Explicit | Explicit | Explicit | Explicit |
| Brown Uni. | Community, direct and indirect impact | Justice approach | Unclear | Explicit | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
| RESOLVEDD | Yes + non-humans, environ., future gens. | Unclear | Explicit | Explicit | Unclear | Unclear | Explicit |
| 12 Questions | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
| Davis | Unclear | Unclear | Explicit | Unclear | Explicit | Unclear | Explicit |
| Hamilton | Society, community | Unclear | Explicit | Explicit | Explicit | Explicit | Explicit |
| US DoDef | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
| Kovach | Unclear | Unclear | Explicit | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
| PMI | Environment, future gens., other groups | Unclear | Explicit | Unclear | Explicit | Explicit | Unclear |
| de Bono | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
These are the main categories of stakeholder perspectives to consider, but there are others. For e.g. within a company context there could be sub-groups such as employees, shareholders, etc. We can expand on these stakeholders to ensure we cover all perspectives. The important thing from a business perspective is not to limit perspectives just to customers and shareholders. The goal here is to identify stakeholders who may be directly AND indirectly affected by a decision.
The way in which they might be affected is covered in the next slide.
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
40
Ethical issues alternatives?
| Framework | Outcomes/consequences | Values/rights | Justice | Reputation |
| ACS Code | Do not cause harm to others | Respect others’ rights | Non-discrim. | Do not tarnish industry |
| Brown Uni. | Which do most good/least harm? | Which respect rights? | Which options give equality? | Which options serves society as a whole? |
| RESOLVE-DD | Who will, likely, maybe benefit / be harmed (how) by options? | Whose are upheld/ harmed each option? | N/A | N/A |
| 12 Questions | Who decision will injure, harm? | N/A | N/A | What boss/CEO, board, family, society will think? |
| Davis | Which do least harm and/or are reversible? | N/A | N/A | What profession, public, company, colleagues, peers/parents will think? |
| Hamilton | Which do most good/least harm? | Which respect rights? | Which options give equality? | N/A |
| US DoDef | Stakeholder loss/gain, focus on long-term gain options | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Kovach | Likely risks/benefits for whom? | Profess. obligations | N/A | Issues raised by whom? |
| PMI | Which do most good/least harm? | Which respect rights? | Fair to all? | Good choice in future? |
| de Bono | Yellow, Black, and Green Hats | Red Hat | N/A | Red Hat |
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
41
An overall ethical framework
| Reputation | Outcomes/consequences | Values/rights | Justice |
| Public interest | Focus: actions (including the side effects) bringing most happiness to all affected parties (motive is irrelevant). Evaluated like a cost-benefit analysis. Act Utilitarianism: follows the above by looking at each action separately on its merit. Rule Utilitarianism: follows the above but universalises the action. If everyone did the action, would it result in the greatest happiness to all? | Focus: identifying values/ rights for individuals (public, not companies); our motives (not outcome/consequences). Categorical Imperative 1: Hypothesise if a particular action became a rule for everyone (universalised). If the rule is contradictory, it is an invalid rule and immoral. Categorical Imperative 2: Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. Don’t use others as a means to an end. | Social contract theory: rules on how people treat each other which people in society accept for mutual benefit so long as others follow. Rawl’s principles of justice: 1. Each person has basic rights, and cannot remove others’ claims to these rights. 2. Social/economic equalities: 2a. Everyone has fair and equal to right to opportunities 2b. Favour those who are least-advantaged in society. |
| Vulnerable | |||
| Company | |||
| Individual | |||
| Colleagues | |||
| Clients | |||
| Industry | |||
| Positive rights (e.g. life, liberty, property), negative rights to be left alone (e.g. privacy). Others have a duty to respect and assure others of their rights, just as they want for themselves. |
RU & CI 1 overlap but utilitarians consider outcomes only, while Kantians only motives & people not being means to an outcome.
CONSIDER IMPLICATIONS IN MEDIUM AND LONG-TERM
The different approaches in each column are the accepted ways, based on current ethical understandings, of working out the outcomes/consequences, values/rights and justice which need to be considered holistically when making decisions which are ethical.
Outcomes/consequences – At a jetty where someone is drowning, through a branch and it hits them and causes them to drown. Motive is good but outcome is bad so according to AU it is immoral. Same situation but motive is to hit the person with the branch so they drown but you miss and it saves them. The motive is bad but AU would say it is moral because the outcome/consequence was good.
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
42
Ethical decision-making framework
| Framework | Public | Vulnerable | Company | Colleagues | Individual | Clients | Industry |
| Benefits of this action? | |||||||
| Harm caused by this action? | |||||||
| Benefits if action is universalised? | |||||||
| Harm if action is universalised? | |||||||
| Contradiction if universalised? | |||||||
| Used as means to end, violating their rights? | |||||||
| Violating rights, seen as unjust (to powerless), action-taker has more power? |
CONSIDER IMPLICATIONS IN MEDIUM AND LONG-TERM
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
43
What forms of ‘power’ exist?
What types of ‘power’ could an action-taker have over other stakeholders in the ethical decision-making framework?
Activity
So no enlightenment?
44
Being ethically aware
Requires business people/students to:
identify ethical issues in decisions
strive to improve their ethical virtues
Rules can still lead to unethical behaviour, rationale people can still do wrong
Blindly following any rules is not moral
Gave rise to Virtue Ethics
If a person is by nature “ethical”, then by habit they will make “ethical” choices when faced with dilemmas
A virtuous person exhibits the characteristics of: Productivity, Bravery, Courage, Honesty, Moderation, Generosity, Loyalty, Tolerance, Fairness, Friendliness…
So no enlightenment?
45
Being ethically aware
Virtue (ethics) is
an ethics of becoming
a guide to improvement
the development of character
the development of moral agency
Not an end product but a practice, an ongoing, never ending journey
Kohlberg ’ s Six stages of moral development
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
46
All are needed to make decisions
| Approach | Advantages | Disadvantages |
| Act Utilitarianism | Comprehensive, focus on happiness, “down-to-earth”, objective | Performing harm-benefit analysis is difficult and subjective, ignores duty and motives, some actions have unintended consequences |
| Rule Utilitarianism | Harm-benefit analysis easier and less subjective than A.U. | Does not distinguish between consequences (e.g. intangibles), results in immoral distribution of good consequences |
| Kantianism | Treats all people equally, produces universal moral guidelines, rational | Hard to characterise actions and resolve conflicts between universal rules, too rigid because there are no exceptions |
| Social Contract | Focus on individual rights, allows fights against immoral laws, shows people focus on self-interest when not considering individual rights | We don’t sign a contract, laws ≠ social contract, hard to resolve conflicts between rights, higher level of subjectivity and different perspectives |
| Virtue Ethics | Should be virtuous (not rights, duties and consequences focused), allows emotion/subjectivity, focuses on moral development, no conflicting rights | Many people are not virtuous and are immoral and not held to account, no societal agreement on virtuous traits, cannot be used to guide governments or companies |
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
47
Theories apply to today’s business?
Religion uses theories/rules which have existed for millennia, but still used by businesses today
Do not kill (e.g. business practices leading to death), do not steal (e.g. IP), doing right by others
Most business theories are centuries old – e.g.:
Supply vs demand
How to make a profit
The ACS Professional Code of Ethics is derived from traditional ethical theories
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
48
ACS code vs ethical framework
| ACS professional code of conduct | Ethical framework |
| Primacy of public interest “… takes precedence over personal, private and sectional interests…” (p. 6) | Kantianism and Social Contract focus on identifying and preserving the public interest (medium/long-term) above personal, business, government, etc interests. |
| Enhance quality of life: ensure your work and ICT solutions have a minimal negative impact on society/way of life. | Act/Rule Utilitarianism weighs up positive vs negative impact. Kantianism and Social Contract help define what quality of life means (now & medium/long-term). |
| Honesty with clients and stakeholders about your skills, ownership of work, etc | Act/Rule Utilitarianism and Kantianism show why it is important (e.g. duty to uphold individual/client rights). |
| Competence and Professional development | Same as for Honesty |
| Professionalism of the ICT industry depends on high standards of people, otherwise the industry will lose its “right” to operate without society’s trust. | Social Contract explains businesses/governments must earn right/trust to operate. They do not have rights, only what people in society allow them to do. Accounts for medium/long-term decision implications. |
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
49
Six Thinking Hats vs framework
| Six Thinking Hats (de Bono) | Ethical framework |
| Red Hat: “signifies feelings, hunches and intuition” | Kantianism and Social Contract focus on rights, duties, etc which are largely based on feelings. Virtue Ethics is similar to hunches/intuition. |
| Yellow Hat: “explore the positives and probe for value and benefit” | Act/Rule Utilitarianism considers positive impact. |
| Black Hat: “judgement – the devil’s advocate or why something man not work” | Act/Rule Utilitarianism, Kantianism and Social Contract provide approaches for taking a “devil’s advocate” perspective. |
| White Hat: “calls for information known or needed” | Ethical analysis using the ethical framework offers the basis for obtaining the required information |
| Blue Hat: “use to manage the thinking process” | The overall framework provides a method for ethical decision-making |
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
50
Framework and ACS Code
Me/You
Improve ethical awareness & development over time
(Virtue Ethics)
ACS Code
Abide by the code, focus on Primacy of Public Interest
Organisations/Government
* Apply framework to make decisions
* Individuals ask if orgs/govt are ethical
* Consider impact of decisions over time
Primacy of Public Interest if framework answer is unclear
Code & framework are consistent
Framework
Apply framework when making decisions
CONSIDER IMPLICATIONS IN MEDIUM AND LONG-TERM
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
51
What if there is no clear answer?
The analysis using the framework gives a clear answer of “unethical” on such cheating
But what if there is no clear answer?
For e.g. the outcomes/consequence vs rights/justice are often at odds with each other
In an Information Systems context we would turn to the ACS Code, and particularly:
The Primacy of Public Interest
Rights/justice (bottom row of framework) most important when action/decision-makers have more power over ANY of the stakeholders affected
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
52
What can I do in my first job?
According to ACS Code you can (must):
Advise stakeholders of conflict of interest
Ensure your own actions are moral at all times
Protect confidentiality/privacy of stakeholders
Ensure you are competent to do your work
Be honest with clients/colleagues at all times, including suitability of products/services to them
Take action if others are not moral (e.g. report to managers, union, external regulators, etc)
Research morality of company before applying
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
53
What can I do in my first job?
But I need my job to support myself, family
Virtue Ethics recognises family commitments
But virtuous traits and ethical framework says he have a duty to protect the rights of others
What if my company does unethical things?
Look for a new job with a better company
Contact the ACS who can provide advice and help
Unethical behaviours may suggest illegal behaviour too
Talk informally (e.g. ACS, expert) about what to do
Gather evidence for regulators, the ACS, etc
Secure a new job before handing evidence over
The law, in Australia, protects whistle blowers
Alternatively give evidence anonymously
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
54
What is the framework’s value?
This unit is not just about helping you to increase your Virtue as a new graduate
Over time you will get into more senior roles
We want you to remember the framework and what it means to behave ethically in business
Maybe then more business managers will not do unethical behaviours (e.g. leading to the Global Financial Crisis, violating rights of customers, etc)
Some of you are already in senior roles and can have more influence on decisions
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
55
What is the framework’s value?
Current and future integrity of the IS industry relies on challenging the business principles focused only on value to shareholders (profit), customers and exec bonuses!
These principles contributed to the GFC!!!
Unethical decisions made using these principles
E.g. firing staff in the name of profit/efficiency
Marketing products with little tangible benefit to customers to make a profit for shareholders
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
56
What is the framework’s value?
Businesses/government use Act Utilitarianism:
“We can do what we like because we create jobs for people. This benefit outweighs any harm we cause.”
Focus on short/medium, not long-term (40-50 years?)
The framework highlights Act Utilitarianism alone does not result in ethical decisions
We must balance “outcomes” with preserving the rights of individuals, especially those without power
We must consider the long-term impact of decisions and not just the immediate (e.g. profit) outcomes
Organisations do not have rights per se
Can only operate so long as society lets them
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
57
What is the framework’s value?
Hence, ACS Code focuses on the primacy of public interest
Upholding society’s values is the most important
The Code states:
“In your work, you should safeguard the interests of your immediate stakeholders, provided that these interests do not conflict with the duty and loyalty you owe to the public.”
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
58
Let’s apply this framework
The scenario is a student who submits an assignment based on:
Copying material from websites
Using an online tool to translate the text so that all the words from the original are changed to synonyms
Fixing some of the phrasing
Checking that the “originality report” in Turnitin is very low
Is this a moral thing to do?
What rights do people have here? Can we expect a negative right or a positive right??
59
Ethical decision-making framework
| Framework | Public | Deakin/industry | Submitter | Staff | Other students | Employers |
| Benefits of this action? | Not affected by one case | No benefits | May pass, little effort | No benefits | No benefits | No benefits |
| Harm caused by this action? | Not affected by one case | Low reputation | Fail, get terminated | Waste time proving case | Devalues their effort | Hires poor employee |
| Benefits if action is universalised? | No benefits | No benefits | Little effort | No benefits | Little effort | No benefits |
| Harm if action is universalised? | No trust in degrees | Industry would have no purpose | Degree is pointless | Marking etc is pointless | Degree is pointless | Distrust in degrees |
| Contradiction if universalised? | No value in degrees | Marking is pointless | Marking is pointless | Marking is pointless | Marking is pointless | No value in degrees |
| Used as means to end, violating their rights? | Cheaters should be caught | Used as means to an end | Want others to cheat & pass? | Used as means to an end & violates honesty | Used as means to an end, & violates honesty | Used as means to an end |
| Violating their rights, unfair (to powerless), action-taker has more power? | Expect Uni degree integrity | Duty to uphold student rights & catch cheaters, Deakin’s power > students | Duty not to cheat | Duty to uphold student rights & catch cheaters. Staff power > students | Violate right to fairness, may be disadvantaged but do not cheat | Expect Unit degree integrity, student power > |
AU – focuses on the benefits and harm to all stakeholders in terms of outcomes/consequences if this PARTICULAR student does this PARTICULAR action.
RU – universalising would say “If everyone wrote assignments this way, what would be the benefits and harm to all stakeholders in terms of outcomes/consequences”. It is the universalising that separates AU and RU. RU says what if EVERY student does it, while AU says what if a PARTICULAR student does it.
CI 1 – this also universalises but is not concerned with outcomes/consequences. Instead it focuses on whether there would be a logical contradiction. So if everyone cheated in this way, would the whole idea of assessment, university education, etc become a contradiction? RU is not looking for logical contradictions, but is instead looking for all the benefits and harm for each stakeholder affected if everyone does it.
Justice – students in this scenario technically have more ‘information’ power than employers. Employers are faced with the problem of how to work out whether to believe the information/truth of what students provide as evidence of employability. This shows it is not as simple as saying employers have more power because they will hire or fire. They have more power, perhaps, once that student becomes an employee.
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
60
ACS code vs cheating?
| ACS professional code of conduct | Ethics of student cheating in assignments |
| Primacy of public interest “… takes precedence over personal, private and sectional interests…” (p. 6) | |
| Enhance quality of life: ensure your work and ICT solutions have a minimal negative impact on society/way of life. | |
| Honesty with clients and stakeholders about your skills, ownership of work, etc | |
| Competence and Professional development | |
| Professionalism of the ICT industry depends on high standards of people, otherwise the industry will lose its “right” to operate without society’s trust. |
Activity
[Add presentation title, presenter name here]
[Add Presenter contact details here]
61
Optional videos on Virtue Ethics
Heinz Dilemma:
Robots discussing virtue theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKTZSzMeMpE
Reinforcement : Prof McGowan videos on YouTube
62
