What Is Ethics?

“The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and
recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.” Normative ethics is a subfield
that seeks to develop a set of morals or guiding principles to influence the
conduct of individuals and groups within a population (such as a profession,
religion, or society at large). Three main strategies for arriving at these moral
standards have emerged over time:

• Consequentialism espouses that the “end justifies the means.” For example, a
consequentialist argument regarding torture would evaluate the benefits of the
information gained in relation to the loss of an individual’s rights.

• Deontology, or duty-based ethics, looks at the rightness or wrongness of the acts
themselves and the duty to follow rules. For example, a deontological argument might
state that it’s never acceptable to torture anyone, for any reason.

• Virtue ethics considers the character of the person making the choice, rather than
the act or its consequences. For example, you would consider an individual’s strong
moral foundation and history of acting in virtuous ways when evaluating his or her
decision to use torture.

The definition of computer ethics has various interpretations in line with these
broader definitions. One of the most oft-cited definitions is from James Moor:
“A typical problem in computer ethics arises because there is a policy vacuum about
how computer technology should be used. Computers provide us with new capabilities and
these in turn give us new choices for action. Often, either no policies for conduct
in these situations exist or existing policies seem inadequate. A central task of
computer ethics is to determine what we should do in such cases—that is, to formulate
policies to guide our actions.”

Unfortunately, although the rich field of ethics offers us a way to consistently and
coherently reason about specific ethical issues, the gap between these approaches
and a practical ethical framework is tremendous. In this work we seek to be neither
proscriptive nor prescriptive, as we believe it presumptuous to propose such a
framework in an area that lacks consensus and shows little active debate. Instead, our
goal here is to raise the issue of community involvement.

Effect of Ethical Rules and Education of Ethics

A mini survey was conducted for a preliminary feel of the effect of ethics in
the workplace and the role of education. The participants were part-time final
year students for an undergraduate award in computing at Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, ages ranging from early 20s to early 40s, in regular full-time
positions in the computer industry, with titles ranging from help desk
consultant to manager of installation. The survey was carried out at the
beginning and at the end of a compulsory course that includes topics of ethics
and professionalism. The same questionnaire was used in two consecutive
academic years: 2006/07 (71 students) and 2007/08 (90 students). The responses
by students are fairly consistent between the 2006/07 cohort and the 2007/08
cohort. Figure 1 summarizes the data obtained.

Analysis of the data obtained indicates that:

1. Before attending the course, the absolute majority of students claimed that they
had never heard or were never aware of computer ethics, and less than 10 percent
of these students claimed that they had heard or were aware of computer ethics.

2. After attending the course, more than 90 percent of students claimed that they
understood computer ethics. This clearly shows that there is an increase in
students’ awareness of computer ethics after attending the course, and supports the
argument that education can play an effective role.

The data indicate that before attending the course, of the students who had never
heard or were aware of computer ethics, more than 60 percent claimed that they were
not sure if they carried out their work ethically and, conversely, about 30 percent
claimed that they thought they carried out their work ethically. This appears to
support the argument that proper introduction is necessary, thus confirming that
teaching ethics is necessary. The response, by about 30 percent of students, a
relatively significant number, reflects exactly a common phenomenon; when people are
asked to explain why they think certain behavior or policy is wrong, they have
difficulty articulating their reasons. When they express moral opinions, sometimes
they are simply reacting as they think most people in their society react. Many who
have strong moral beliefs have only a vague sense why the behavior is unfair or
harmful. That is, people cannot give good reasons for believing what they do. This
is why we need ethical analysis, and in turn, ethical theories.

The data also indicate that after attending the course, of the students who claimed
that they understood computer ethics, 70 percent claimed to carry out their work
according to ethical rules but 20 percent ignored ethical principles in conducting
their work. This supports the argument that ethical rules are necessary, but not sufficient.

Responsibility, Resolution, and Residue of Computer Ethics

There are many levels of relativity in value judgments. Some of our values
are relative to our being human. If we were angels or creatures from another
dimension, our core values might be different. And then, of course, different
cultures articulate the core human values differently. And different individuals
within a culture may differ in their assessments of values. Indeed, some
values of one individual may change over time. I have been arguing that
such relativity is compatible with rational discussion of ethical issues and
resolution of at least some ethical disputes. We are, after all, human beings,
not angels or creatures from another dimension. We share core values. This
provides us with a set of standards with which to assess policies even in
situations in which no previous policies exist and with which to assess other
value frameworks when disagreements occur.

Ethical responsibility begins by taking the ethical point of view. We must
respect others and their core values. If we can avoid policies that result in
significant harm to others, that would be a good beginning toward responsible
ethical conduct. Some policies are so obviously harmful that they are
readily rejected by our core-value standards. Selling computer software
which is known to malfunction in a way which is likely to result in death is
an obvious example. Other policies easily meet our standards. Building computer
interfaces which facilitate use by the disabled is a clear example. And
of course, some policies for managing computer technology will be disputed.
However, as I have been emphasizing, some of the ethical policies under
dispute may be subject to further rational discussion and resolution. The
major resolution technique, which I have been emphasizing, is the empirical
investigation of the actual consequences of proposed policies.For instance,
some people might propose a limitation on free speech on the Internet on
the grounds that such freedom would lead to an unstable society or to severe
psychological damage of some citizens. Advocates of free speech might
appeal to its usefulness in transmitting knowledge and its effectiveness
in calling attention to the flaws of government. To some extent these are
empirical claims that can be confirmed or disconfirmed, which in turn
may suggest compromises and modifications of policies.

Another resolution technique is to assume an impartial position when
evaluating policies. Imagine yourself as an outsider not being benefited or
harmed by a policy. Is it a fair policy? Is it a policy which you would advocate
if you were suddenly placed in a position in which you were affected by the
policy? It may be tempting to be the seller of defective software, but nobody
wants to be a buyer of defective software. And finally, analogies are sometimes
useful in resolving disagreements. If a computing professional would
not approve of her stockbroker’s with holding information from her about
the volatility of stock she is considering buying, it would seem by analogy
she should share information with a client about the instability of a computer
program which the client is considering purchasing.

All of these techniques for resolution can help form a consensus about
acceptable policies. But when the resolution techniques have gone as far as
they can, some residue of disagreement may remain. Even in these situations
alternative policies may be available which all parties can accept. But,
a residue of ethical difference is not to be feared. Disputes occur in every
human endeavor and yet progress is made. Computer ethics is no different
in this regard. The chief threat to computer ethics is not the possibility that
a residue of disagreements about which policies are best will remain after
debates on the issues are completed, but a failure to debate the ethical issues
of computing technology at all. If we naively regard the issues of computer
ethics as routine or, even worse, as unsolvable, then we are in the greatest
danger of being harmed by computer technology. Responsibility requires
us to adopt the ethical point of view and to engage in ongoing conceptual
analysis and policy formulation and justification with regard to this ever
evolving technology. Because the computer revolution now engulfs the
entire world, it is crucial that the issues of computer ethics be addressed on
a global level. The global village needs to conduct a global conversation
about the social and ethical impact of computing and what should be
done about it. Fortunately, computing may help us to conduct exactly that
conversation.