EECS 690 Moral Issues in Computing Technology

The MACIT (The Myth of Amoral Computing and Information Technology) The MACIT has many distinguishing features, which are as follows:

Abnegation of Responsibility “It’s the computer’s fault” “The computer won’t let me…” The belief that computer error releases anyone and everyone from responsibility for its consequences.

Category Mistake People assume that the application of moral language and moral principles to computers is a category mistake. This confuses a principle that is true with a principle that is false. –It is true that computers themselves do not behave morally or immorally. –It is false that what people do with computers, and how people design, develop, use, and deal with the consequences of computers is amoral.

Assuming computing tasks are merely technical Even computing professionals are not immune to the propagation of this myth. Many computing professionals see their tasks as merely technical, and do not consider that the choices they make may have widespread impacts upon other persons and thus ethical dimensions.

Policy vacuums are filled inadequately Most policy vacuums are filled by means of lobbying, limited legislative hearings, and are passed by those who do not fully understand the issues because those people are under the impression that these are merely technical issues.

Three factors add to the prevalence of the MACIT in the general populace: The Ignorance Syndrome: Most computer users know nothing of the internal workings of the machine, and so they cannot identify a fault when one occurs, and tend to regard failure simply as the price of using the technology.

The Complexity Syndrome Users have no way of knowing who is responsible for certain failures because many programmers are usually responsible for each program, many engineers responsible for each piece of hardware, still more responsible for the operating system(s), and nobody in charge of making sure all of that stuff works together.

The Virtual Reality Syndrome Computer users are proximally and temporally isolated from those persons who are impacted by their decisions. This leads to a tendency not to consider those persons.

“Doing” Ethics The purpose of ethical reasoning is to make the best decision possible. Avoid becoming paralyzed by over- analysis, and avoid being intimidated by the wide variety of ethical perspectives we will explore. Remember, doing nothing, or deciding not to make use of these methods IS a decision.

Ethical Relativism The FACT: –Different societies in the past and present have held a wide variety of ethical beliefs. –This is a Descriptive claim. –This is probably true. The ethical THEORY: –What is actually right and wrong is determined by the society that you live in. –This is a Normative claim. –This is almost certainly false.

Problems with the Theory: Allows no moral comparison Allows no moral progress or those who advocate it Is contrary to how we tend to use moral language. Is internally contradictory: –Stipulates that there are no universally binding moral norms –“Act as your society demands” is itself a universally binding moral norm

Lessons to be learned from the Fact: Intercultural dialogs about morality are likely to be very difficult. It might be YOUR culture that is wrong. Behaving as those around you behave is no assurance of behaving morally.