Ethics Ethics Ethics – U probably want to skip this one :-)

Due to circumstances beyond my control I have been made to ponder over ‘Information Ethics’, ‘Computer Ethics’ and ‘Ethical Computers’. I will do a stack here. Ethical Computers??? What crap??? Hung over on science fiction movies with way too much free time Mr. Richard Lucas has lots to say on this. He goes on to say that very little work has been done in this area. ( At this point I would like to do a Dr. Cox and go “reaheaheaheaheaheahallllyyyyyy”) I mean this is toally a question of academic importance. He discusses Asimov’s three laws and HAAL. I mean for crying out loud… spare me thy not so droll musings.

Now we come to Computer Ethics. Moor [2,3] defines this as being an analysis of the nature and impact of computer technology on society and environment and then the formulation and justification of policies so as to ensure ethical use of the same. His primary concern seems to be regarding policy vacuum on computer ethics. Not only is there a policy vacuum but there is also a conceptual vacuum as in we have very little idea as to how we should go about formulating these policies. Now this problem is more tangible and more meaningful than the one dealt by Lucas [4]. While computers with ability to choose or refuse to choose are the stuff of science fiction, the increasing use of computers and related technology in our daily lives is not. The term Logical Malleability is an important contribution of this paper. It means that computers are sort of a universal tool and can be molded to fit any task. They can be used anywhere where information needs to be processed and since information is processed in more or less every process, they can be used everywhere. Then we observe as how computers go from being of ancillary importance to being the focal point of any process. This while improves efficiency, might lead to unforeseen situations. The example of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant should be an eye opener. We really need to define the boundaries for our acceptance of a computer’s judgment. With movies like Dr. Strangelove, we also need to consider the sanity of having automated retaliation or even deterrents in place. We need to ensure that such critical systems have no ‘invisible faults’. The concept of invisibility factors (abuse, programming values: intentional and unintentional, complex calculations) gives an interesting insight into the issues we are dealing with. Then he discusses how to go about filling the policy and conceptual void with regards to Computer Ethics. Two traditional approaches are discussed. The first one assumes that Computer Ethics is like anything else and we can just use traditional ideas and apply them to Computers. As Moor [2,3] rightly states, this approach doesn’t work. There would be many instances where there are no established precedents in the Computer-less world. In which case the second approach is proposed which is that everyone decides its own policies according to their culture, society etc. This does not work for the obvious reasons. While in the tangible world it is easy, you are governed by the laws of the nation you are present in, in the computer world that is not possible, because information, software etc. are constantly in motion, they are transient, they have no national, social or cultural boundaries. In this case what laws is the information to be governed by, by the laws of the originating node, the receiving node, or the carriers in between? I think that both the cultural and routine approaches are more or less the same. They both trivialize the notion of computer ethics. They both try to use preexisting information to apply it to computer related situations. They differ a little in practice yes but in theory they are equivalent, and thus equally unsatisfactory. Moors [2,3] then proposes the possibility of deciding the issues by figuring out the what is common between cultures, between, nations, what is common by virtue of us being humans. He proposes we use these common denominators to guide us. I am not sure I am too impressed by this observation. For one it is pretty obvious, it is pretty much the natural order of evolution for ethical theories. The bigger disappointment is the fact that he gives no solution to disparities that might occur despite of the common denominators. I think he shies away from the question itself. I for one am inclined to believe that his approach provides no answers, other than a hit and trial regime of hopefulness. His view is too narrow. His terminology confines itself to computers, and refuses to take a look at the larger picture. It looks at the subject but totally ignores the object (environment, not to be confused with nature) on which it acts.

This is where Floridi [1] steps in. Of all the three writers he has the best understands the magnitude of the situation we are dealing with. He does not restrain his view or his terminology to computers but takes it to information – Information Ethics, which should have been the focal point all along. The whole idea of computers changing everything is because they are information crunchers of enormous capacities. They make access, transmission, analysis, gathering and processing of information easier and cheaper. So what we have at hands is not a Computer revolution but an Information revolution. Moor’s analysis lacks this depth. Admittedly Moors model seems easier and practical when compared to Floridi’s. But then it is simplicity and practicality at the cost of usefulness. A spoon is easier to handle than a shovel, but one cannot use a spoon to plough land. The need to identify the right tools for the job is paramount, yes they are cumbersome (too abstract) to begin with, but they can be refined to make them more manageable (tangible).
Floridi starts by explaining the traditional way looking at Information ethics. The micro ethical RPT model is described and then criticized. Rightly so, as that too like Moor’s model excludes a lot of possibilities. The macro ethical model proposed later in the paper makes more sense. Because any entity in the Infosphere can at the same time be the producer, consumer and transmitter of information. He takes the theory to a higher abstraction by going from epistemological to ontological analysis. But then he has the sense to provide with tools like LoA to make the understanding and application of the theory much easier. The most important contribution of his paper however I think is the establishment of the notion that there can be moral agency without moral responsibility. He defines his moral agent as Interactive, autonomous, adaptable transition system that can perform morally qualifiable actions. This basically implies that the whole deal about intentionality and rationality and the likes is not needed which means a policymaker now takes into account more than just intelligent humans or anthropomorphic agents. If we look at Lucas, we will realize that Lucas was doing the exact opposite. Instead of trying to make a model to fit the equation, he was imagining equations to fit his model. Floridi however ensures that he sees things as they are and thus ends up resurrecting the ghosts of ethical computers and computer ethics. Finally he speaks of the intrinsic value of an informational object. Then the rules to define what is ethically correct are defined. This is the only chink in his abstraction and probably requires either further thought on the part of the author or deeper understanding on the part of the reader. Because the way he defines his entropy rules, they challenge the commonplace ethics of daily lives (which also come under Information Ethics, Floridi’s model is all embracing). For example awarding a student for merit might lead to increase in entropy by increasing jealousy amongst peers. I think we need to dig deeper to find a better definition of entropy itself. The feeble definition of the same by Floridi I believe is the root of this dilemma. Under the current definitions it just seems that Floridi is just advocating inaction. The interesting observation is that inaction itself would be a sort of action under certain conditions.

References
[1] Floridi, L. (2006) “Information Ethics, Its nature and Scope”, In SIGCAS Computers and Society Volume 36, No. 3.
[2] Moor, J. (1985) “What is Computer Ethics?”, In Metaphilosophy Volume 16, No. 4.
[3] Moor, J. (1998) “Reason, Relativity and Responsibility in Computer Ethics”, In Computers and Society.
[4] Lucas, R. (2000) “Why Bother? Ethical Computers – That’s Why!” In the proceedings of the 2nd Australian Institute of Computer Ethics Conference, Volume 1.
[5] Brown, J. and Duguid, P. “The social life of information