CS050 Reading Journal
03/09/2008 09:16:00
←Computer Ethics Deborah Johnson
• How is action through a human instrument different than human
action? Is there a fundamental difference?
• How should the “goodness” of technology be evaluated and are
there some negatives that should completely override ANY
positives?
o I think information is the data we collect and the meaning we
impose on that data. The data can remain stagnant, but the
meaning can be reinvented indefinitely, so the uses of
information can be constantly changed.
o Just because something is allowed to happen, should it
happen?
• Filing the vacuum of policy
o How we fill the void depends on how we define space. Is the
information space defined by its meaning, its purpose, or its
potential uses? Because the field of information technology is
so new, it allows us to really evaluate past situations and
definitions and implement new policy that may best serve our
society
• “Ethical issues are about human beings and what they do to one
another.” (17)
o Computer ethics surrounds what technology may allow us to
accomplish—or rather the potential to perform an action.
←
←
←
←Other Thoughts
What does it mean to have ownership of something?
• Throughout history there have been some things that were not
meant to be owned—how do we determine what is appropriate to
be owned, and what does ownership entail?
o Things that are not meant to be owned:
 People…
o When I think of ownership, I think of:
 Responsibility, respect, a desire for growth
•
•
When a producer releases something out, are they fundamentally
relinquishing ownership?
o I think of someone releasing something—what if you owned a
slave and released your slave—and someone captured that
slave and used them for their own gain, when you intended
the slave to be free?
Another thought: Since God is the creator of everything, do we
really own anything? Are we confusing ownership with stewardship,
in which case we would be responsible for ensuring that everything
is well managed. That we release our gifts (creations) responsibly
and thoughtfully and protect others in times of vulnerability.
CS050 Reading Journal
03/09/2008 09:16:00
←“The Tragedy of the Commons,” Garrett Hardin (1968)
• When considering the size of population, do we seek the maximum
sustainable population or the maximum sustainable good?
o This is similar to the copyright issue in that it evaluates policy
from a utilitarian perspective as well as from a value ethics
perspective—do we want what benefits the author the most or
do we want what will benefit society and mankind the most?
o As I explore more questions that deal with individual right vs.
good of society, there appears to be a degree of fear to align
oneself with either stance. Instead of truly attacking the heart
of the matter, uncomfortable confrontation is sidestepped
with moot policy that only tangles issues more.
• A “free-for-all” principle, such as that proposed by Adam Smith may
be useful for reaching a positive individual outcome, but is faulty for
providing a positive societal outcome
o If someone “takes” a music file, it is positive for them (they
save money), but negative for society (another breach of the
policies that provide structure to online society)
• “The law, always behind the times, requires elaborate stitching and
fitting to adapt it to this newly perceived aspect of the commons.”
o This is such an apt description of the copyright problem
• “"Thou shalt not…" is the form of traditional ethical directives which
make no allowance for particular circumstances. The laws of our
society follow the pattern of ancient ethics, and therefore are poorly
suited to governing a complex, crowded, changeable world.”
o What would happen if policy were put forth using “positives?”
o “Thou shalt….” Instead of “Thou shalt not…”
• "Responsibility," says this philosopher, "is the product of definite
social arrangements."
o We also cannot take advantage of people’s consciences
because that would be “browbeating the free man to go
against his own interests.
• In the example of taxes, a solution does not need to make everyone
happy for it to be a useful and good solution—“COERCION”
←
←
←
←“The Ethics of Aristotle”
←
•
The concept of good character as an indispensable means to human
happiness, which is the ultimate human goal
o It seems that the only policy that would ideally work is one
that adopts some sort of policy regarding the good character
of man. Yet if good character (rather than not-bad character)
is enforced, it seems to lose the goodness that is inherent.
How do we overcome this paradox? What would encourage
men to act with goodness if that goodness seems to be
disadvantageous to them as individuals, at least immediately?
What would cause men to regard themselves as part of a
larger entity.
←
←
←
←
←
←
←Computer Ethics Deborah Johnson
←
• There is a major difference between what people do (and what
policies are in place) and what people should do (and which policies
should be in place)
• An important thing to consider when discussing ethics is that they
are normative rather than descriptive—and no amount of
descriptive proof can disprove a normative claim
o I think this is especially important because it helps me to see
how definite and concrete morals and ethics are—they are not
relative and they are not abstract
• Utilitarianism does not work because it is relative to the particular
situation. The ultimate goal is the greatest happiness.
o I wonder if the ultimate goal really is happiness