EECS 690 April 19

Approaches to incorporating ethics into software Deontic Logic Analogical Reasoning Casuistry Disobedience Conditions

Deontic Logic This is a kind of logic whose rules of operation instantiate the rules of a duty- based ethical system. These systems are capable of constructing proofs in deontic logic. This is not an autonomous application, and is entirely top-down, but it could be a very effective kind of decision support tool, and could be a good place to start.

Limitations Deontic logic, more than any other type of logic, is dependent on the content represented by its symbols. Proofs in deontic logic look much like proofs in any other modal logic, but arguments in deontic logic look peculiarly unuseful. This is probably not a prospect for making a genuine moral system, but it may be a necessary skill for any top-down implementation.

Analogical Reasoning This is and has always been a powerful tool in the philosopher’s arsenal. The idea is that by constructing or identifying a case that people are clear about and in agreement about, and comparing its relevant similarities to cases we are undecided about, we can make up our minds about the undecided or difficult cases. (There are many examples of this reasoning everywhere.)

Casuistry Casuistry is the rigorous application of case studies to tease out general commonalities in the way that certain cases are treated. This approach has been interesting to see develop in practical ethics curricula. Case studies are a very important way of teaching ethical practices. As a DST, this approach looks very promising indeed.

The Ross Model Duties stemming from one's own previous actions: 1. fidelity - duty to fulfill (explicit and implicit) promises/agreements into which one has entered 2. reparation - duty to make up for wrongful acts previously done to others Duties stemming from the previous actions of others: 3. gratitude - duty to repay others for past favors done for oneself Duties stemming from the (possibility of) a mismatch between persons' pleasure or happiness and their "merit": 4. justice - duty to prevent or correct such a mismatch Duties stemming from the possibility of improving the conditions of others with respect to virtue, intelligence, or pleasure: 5. beneficence - duty to improve the conditions of others in these respects Duties stemming from the possibility of improving one's own condition with respect to virtue or intelligence: 6. self-improvement - duty to improve one's own condition in these respects Special duty to be distinguished from the duty of beneficence: 7. nonmaleficence - duty not to injure others

Casuistry and value pluralism This kind o approach does a great job in making formal statements about what conditions seem to warrant the preference of one value over another. Conflicts between legitimate values represent the heart of many of our most difficult ethical disputes.

Limitations of Casuistry/Analogical Reasoning We have yet to build a system which parses “relevant similarity” in a sufficiently humanlike way. DST’s which are largely dependent on these methods by necessity have no autonomy, but this requires that the persons using the DST have a fair level of ethical training themselves.

Disobedience Conditions To have a moral machine is in some ways to have a machine that will disobey under suitable conditions. To go further, and provide cues to the user of when the machine needs to prioritize its goals is a really nice step toward incorporating machines into legitimate moral communication. (See example pp )