Midterm Flashcards Preview

Ethics > Midterm > Flashcards

Flashcards in Midterm Deck (53)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

Explain what is means to say that computer and information technology creates new possibilities for human behaviour. Give examples:

A

Went to moon, advanced in medical knowledge, Global connections for business and communication.

2
Q

How does computer and information technology create policy vacuums? Give examples:

A

Examples is free speech – is it different for internet and how about protection of children while allowing adult expression.

3
Q

What is the central task of computer ethics according to J. Moor?

A

It is to determine what we should do and what our policies should be. This includes consideration of both personal and social policies.

4
Q

Why are the policy vacuums arising from computer and information technology sometimes difficult to fill?

A

We find ourselves confronted with complex issues. We find conceptual muddles that make it difficult to figure out which way to go. And, as we begin to sort out the conceptual muddles, often we find a moral landscape that is fluid and sometimes politically controversial. So, figuring out what norms or laws apply or should apply is not a simple matter.

5
Q

What is the traditionalist account? Explain it as a descriptive account of how computer ethics is done and as a normative account of how computer ethic should be done.

A

On one account –call this the traditionalist account – all that is necessary is to take traditional moral norms and the principles on which they are based, and apply them to the new situations created by computer and information technology.
The traditionalist account is important both as a descriptive and as a normative account. That is, it describes both how policy vacuums are often filled and recommends how policy vacuums ought to be filled.
Descriptively the account captures what people often do when they are 1st introduced to computer and information technology.
The traditionalist account is also normative in that it recommends how we should proceed in filling in policy vacuums. It recommends that we make use of past experiences.

6
Q

What are the limitations of the traditionalist account as a descriptive account and as a normative account?

A

The traditionalist account has 2 serious problems. It oversimplifies the task of computer ethics insofar as it suggests that extending old norms to new situations is a somewhat mechanical or routine process. This hides the fact that the process is fluid and synthetic. When it comes to resolving the ethical issues surrounding computer and information technology, often the technology is not a fixed and determinate entity.
The traditionalist account is a good starting place for understanding how the ethical issues surrounding computer and information technology are and should be resolved and how policy vacuums are and should be filled, but it has serious limitations.
As a descriptive account, it does not capture all that is involved. Filling policy vacuums is not only a matter of mechanically applying traditional norms and principles. Conceptual muddles have to be cleared up, often a synthetic process in which normative decisions are invisibly made.
As a normative account, the traditionalist position runs the risk of not taking advantage of the new features of, and new opportunities created by, computer and information technology. Hence, we need to move beyond the traditionalist account.

7
Q

Why is the social context in which computer and information technology is used so important to computer ethics?

A

All of the places (business, home, commercial justice system, education institutes, medicine, science, government, so on) have an influence on how a new technology is understood and how policy vacuums are filled. Social context shapes the very character and direction of technological development.

8
Q

Why isn’t law sufficient to fill all the policy vacuums?

A

It is quite possible that some vacuums are better left to personal choices, institutional policies, or social conventions rather than to the imposition of law.

9
Q

What aspects of computing and computer support the claim that computer ethical issues are unique?

A

Most of the arguments in favour of uniqueness seem to be focused on the uniqueness of computer and information technology. They suggest that since the technology is unique, the ethical issues must be unique:

(1) New Entities (programs, software, microchips, Web sites, video games, and so on)
(2) Changed in Scale of many activities, arrangements, and operations(scale of data collection, scale of calculations, scale of communications, new kinds of knowledge)
(3) Inherent unreliability of computer and information technology.
(4) Power and pervasiveness of the technology.

10
Q

Why isn’t Maner’s example of a unique ethical issue successful at illustrating uniqueness?

A

Was really the same argument of helping those in need of help.

11
Q

Explain the author’s claim that computer ethical issues are new species of generic moral issues.

A

Some are the same issues but with a new twist, a new feature, a new possibility. The presence of this new feature or new possibility makes it difficult to draw on traditional moral concepts without some interpretation, modification, or qualification.

12
Q

What is analogical reasoning? What are the benefits and the dangers of using analogical reasoning in computer ethics?

A

Reasoning by analogy involves looking for familiar situations comparable to the one involving computer and information technology, and then either accepting the equivalent of certain actions, or identifying the significant differences between the cases.
Some good things about Analogies: They help us to understand the human relationships and action types that are at issue. They help us to classify and connect behavior in computerized environments to familiar ethical notions and principles.
Some dangers of Analogies: That we may be so taken with the similarities of the cases that we fail to recognize important differences.

13
Q

What are the activities involved in doing philosophical ethics?

A

Ethical analysis the reasons for moral beliefs are articulated, then critically evaluated. The reasons you give for holding an ethical belief or taking a position on an ethical issue can be thought of as and argument for a claim. The argument has to be “put on the table,” and once there, it can be evaluated in terms of its plausibility, coherence, and consistency. Once stated, we can ascertain whether the argument does, indeed, support the claim being made or the position being taken.

14
Q

How do descriptive (empirical) claims and prescriptive (normative) claims differ?

A

Descriptive statements are statements that describe a state of affairs in the world.
These statements describe what human beings think and do. They are empirical claims in the sense that they are statements that can be verified or proven false by examining the state of affairs described.
All of these social scientific studies are descriptive studies of morality; they examine morality as an empirical phenomenon.
In contrast, philosophical ethics is normative. The task of philosophical ethics is to explore what human beings ought to do, or more accurately, to evaluate the arguments, reasons, and theories that are proffered to justify accounts of morality. Ethical theories are prescriptive. They try to provide an account of why certain types of behavior are good or bad, right or wrong.Descriptive statements may come into play in the dialectic about philosophical ethics, but normative issues cannot be resolved just by pointing to the facts about what people do or say or believe.

15
Q

What is ethical relativism? What is its positive claim? What is its negative claim?

A

Sometimes ethical relativists seem to be asserting that right and wrong are relative to the individual, and sometimes they seem to assert that right and wrong are relative to the society in which one lives.
The positive claim of relativism is that right and wrong are relative to our society.
The negative claim of relativism appears to be: “ There are no universal moral norms.”

16
Q

What are three types of evidence often used to support ethical relativism?

A

First: they point to the fact that cultures vary a good deal in what they consider to be right and wrong. Second: Moral norms of a given society change over time so that what was considered wrong at one time, in a given society, may be considered right at another time. Third: What we consider to be right or wrong is determined by our upbringing.

17
Q
  1. Does this evidence support ethical relativism?
A

IF we understand “ethics is relative” to be a normative claim, a claim asserting the negative and/or positive parts of ethical relativism, then it is not redundant, and the facts do not support the claims. For one, the arguments go form a set of ‘is’ claims to and “ought” claim and the ought-claim just doesn’t fallow form the is-claims.

18
Q
  1. What are the 3 problems with ethical relativism?
A

(1) The evidence that is used to support it, does not support it.
(2) Proponents cannot assert both the negative and the positive claims of relativism without inconsistency. By claiming that everyone is bound by the rules of his or her society, the ethical relativist makes a universal claim and yet the relativist claims there are no universal rights and wrongs.
(3) The theory does not seem to help in making moral decisions. Relativism does not help us figure out what to do in tough situations. It recommends that we adhere to the standards in our society and yet it doesn’t help us figure out what these standards are.

19
Q
  1. What is utilitarianism?
A

Ethical theory claiming that what makes behavior right or wrong depends wholly on the consequences. Actions, rules, or policies are good because of the usefulness in bringing about happiness.
Basic principle: Everyone ought to act so as to bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.

20
Q

What is the difference between an instrumental good and an intrinsic good?

A

Among all the things in the world that are valued, we can distinguish things that are valued because they lead to something else. The else is the intrinsic, the something that leads is the instrumental good. Intrinsic is the final goal… like happiness. Instrumental is what you need to get happiness.

21
Q

Why do utilitarians believe that happiness is the ultimate basis for morality?

A

They claim that happiness is the ultimate intrinsic good, because it is valuable for its own sake. Happiness cannot be understood as simply a means to something else.

22
Q

What is the difference between act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism?

A

Rule-utilitarians argue that we ought to adopt rules that , if fallowed by everyone, would, in the long run, maximize happiness. According to rule utilitarianism. If the rule can be justified in terms of the consequences that are brought about from people fallowing it, then individuals ought to fallow the rule. They take rules to be strict.
Act-utilitarians put the emphasis on individual actions rather than rules. They believe that even thought it may be difficult for us to anticipate the consequences of our actions, that is what we should be trying to do. Act-utilitarians treat rules simply as “rules of thumb,” to be thrown aside if for greater good.

23
Q

What is the traditional criticism of utilitarianism?

A

When it is applied to certain cases, it seems to go against some of our most strongly held moral intuitions. In particular, it seems to justify imposing enormous burdens on some individuals for the sake of others. According to utilitarianism, each person is to be counted equally. No one person’s unhappiness or happiness is more important than another’s. However, since utilitarians are concerned with the total amount of happiness, we can imagine situations where great overall happiness might result from sacrificing the happiness of a few.

24
Q

Why can’t happiness be the highest good for humans according to deontologists?

A

Deontologist point out that happiness cannot be the highest good for humans. The fact that we are rational beings, capable of reasoning about what we want to do and then deciding and acting, suggests that our end (our highest good) is something other than happiness. Humans differ from all other things in the world insofar as we have the capacity for rationality.

25
Q

What is the categorical imperative?

A

Kant put forth what he called the categorical imperative, which goes like this: Never treat another human being merely as a means but always as and end.

26
Q

How can rights be based on deontological theory? How can rights be based on utility theory?

A

Deontologist: The idea that each individual must be respected as valuable in himself/herself implies that we each have rights not to be interfered with in certain ways, for example, not to be killed or enslaved, to be given freedom to make decisions about our own lives, and so on. Utility: Causes greater happiness for the greatest amount of people.

27
Q

What are the 2 principles of justice according to John Rawls?

A

(1) Each person should have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.
(2) Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.

28
Q

How does virtue ethics differ in focus from other theories discussed in this chapter?

A

It addresses the question of moral character, while the other theories focused primarily on action and decision-making.

29
Q

What is the difference between macro and micro level issues?

A

Micro level questions focus on individuals (in the presence or absence of law or policy).
Macro level problems/issues arise when groups of people, a community, a state, a country. At this level of analysis, what is sought is a solution in the form of a law or policy that specifies how people in that group or society ought to behave, what the rules of that group ought to be.

30
Q

What are the three categories of problematic behavior on the Internet according to the author? Give examples of each.

A

Hacking: Gaining unauthorized access to computer systems, releasing viruses, taking control of Web sites, and making denial of service attacks on Web sites. This type of behavior undermines the reliability and security of the Internet.
Any form of crime you can imagine (new versions of familiar crimes) including slander, fraud, harassment, terrorism, illegal forms of gambling, solicitation of minors, and so on, for they all can be done using the Internet.
Netiquette: A set of informal social conventions specifying how to behave when interacting on the Internet.

31
Q

What are the morally significant characteristics of communication on the Internet?

A

Global, interactive scope: Multidirectional and interactive. Internet is communication from many to many. The Internet puts this power in the hands of many, creating the possibility of interactive communication with speed and ease, on a global scale.

Anonymity: The person’s physical appearance and the sound of their voice are not available.

Reproducibility: Because of reproducibility, every action, transaction, or event that takes place in the Internet can be recorded and this leads to a wide range of privacy and surveillance issues.

32
Q
  1. How was the term hacker originally used? How is it generally used now?
A

Hackers originally referred to a computer enthusiasts and hacking referred to the feats such enthusiasts were able to accomplish. Hackers were individuals who loved computers and would spend hour and hours figuring out how to do clever things on them.

Hackers began to be used to refer to those who used computers for illegal actions; especially gaining unauthorized access to computer systems, and stealing (and then sharing) proprietary software.
Hacker and hacking are now routinely used to refer to those who gain unauthorized access and accomplish other disruptive feats.

33
Q

What are the four arguments that can be given in defence of hacking?

A

All information should be free.
Break-ins illustrate security problems to those who can do something about them.
Breaking into a computer system does no harm as long as the hacker changes nothing. And, if the hacker learns something about how computers systems operate, then, something is gained at no loss to anyone.
Hackers use to argue that they would keep Big Brother at bay. The thrust of the argument is that computers and information technology are being used to collect information about individuals and to do things to individuals that they don’t want done.

34
Q

What are the counters to each of these arguments?

A

My Answer: It causes harm;
it violates legitimate privacy and property rights;
it often deprived uses of access to their own computer systems and to the Internet;
and it compels investment in security when the invested resources might have been used for other activities.
The arguments in defense of hacking are not convincing. Hacking is unethical and has rightly been made illegal.

35
Q

Is there a morally significant difference between those crimes committed on the Internet that can also be committed without the Internet?

A

No, it does not exactly thrust us into entirely unfamiliar moral territory; rather the new instrumentation allow us to do things in a new ways and calls on us to think about what the new capabilities means for our moral ideas, our moral values, and principles.

36
Q

What is Netiquette?

A

It can be defined as “the dos and don’ts of online communications” or as “informal rules of the road” or “common courtesy online.” Violations of netiquette may be considered unethical but they are not illegal.
If Internet users fallow the netiquette rules, there will be less reason for legislation.

37
Q

What is flaming?

A

A flame in an inflammatory or insulting message sent via e-mail or in other forms of on line communication such as chartrooms.

38
Q

What is spamming?

A

Spam is unsolicited bulk e-mail.
It is the e-mail equivalent of junk mail.
Spam is considered by many Internet users to be so annoying and disruptive that efforts are being made to make spam illegal.
The U.S. Congress has tried to pass several pieces of legislation banning spam, but, as of this moment, all the attempts have been unsuccessful.

39
Q

What is James Moor’s position

A

Suggested that we think of the ethical questions surrounding computer and information technology as policy vacuums. Computer and information technology creates innumerable opportunities. This means that we are confronted with choices about whether and how to pursue these opportunities, and we find a vacuum of policies on how to make these choices. The central task of computer ethics, Moor argues, is to determine what we should do and how our policies should be. This includes consideration of both personal and social policies.

40
Q

What is Hobbes’ position

A

Argues that there is no justice or injustice in a state of nature; humans are at war with one another and each individual must de what they must to preserve themselves.

41
Q

What is Locke’s position

A

Specifies a natural form of justice in the state of nature. Human beings have rights in the state of nature and others can treat individuals unjustly. Government is necessary to insure that natural justice in implemented properly because without government, there is no certainty that punishments will be distributed justly.

42
Q

Identify and describe the four different meanings of responsibility.

A

(1) Role Responsibility: Here responsibility is interchangeable with duty and refers to what individuals are expected to do in virtue of being an employee, a parent, a citizen, a friend, a member of an occupation – lawyer, doctor, police officer, and so on.
(2) Causal Responsibility: Sometime when we say that an individual is responsible for an untoward event, we mean that the individual did something (or fail to do something) that caused the untoward event. The person is responsible here simply in the sense of being the cause.
(3) Blameworthiness: Blameworthiness is generally connected to doing something wrong or being at fault. That is, the attribution of responsibility is made on the basis of a judgment that a person did something wrong and his or her wrong-doing led to an untoward event or circumstance. Individuals are often considered blameworthy when they fail to fulfill a role-responsibility. The person is responsible here simply in the sense of being the cause.
(4) Liability: Liability is most often used to refer to the way certain situations are treated legally. To be legally liable is to be the person who, according to law, must pay damages or compensate when certain events occur.

43
Q

Does the categorical imperative prohibit the selling of software? Explain.

A

No. There is nothing inherently wrong with selling computer software, or anything else for that matter. It all depends on how it is done. A salesperson has a duty both to be honest and not to coerce.
The categorical imperative entreats us never to treat a person merely as a means but always as an end in him- or herself. The categorical imperative does not exactly prohibit us from using others as means to our ends; rather, it specifies that we never treat a person merely as a means. The merely means that we are constrained in how we use others. We must always recognize the others as an end- a being with needs, desires, their own plans, and the ability to make their own decisions.

44
Q

Give examples (hypothetical or real) of dishonesty in selling software.

A

Misrepresenting what the software does.

45
Q
  1. Give examples (hypothetical or real) of coercive practices in selling software.
A

Holding a gun to customers head, forcing them to buy the software.

46
Q

Explain Prince’s argument for treating mass-market software as a product and the sale of customized software as provision of service.

A
A customer can go to a computer store and buy a mass-marketed software package. The software is not supposed to be modified. It may be designed to give the user options, but the user is not expected or allowed to change the underlying code making the software do what it does.
A person (or company) can hire a person (or company) to design and produce a computer system specifically for his or her use. The system will be designed and made to do precisely what the customer specifies, to meet the customer's special needs.
A person ( or company) can buy a software system and hire someone (or a company) to modify it to fit his or her special needs and circumstances.
Prince suggested that we treat mass-marketed software as we do products, and treat customized software as we do provision of a service. The mixed case should be treated as mixed. If there is a defect in the mass-marketed part, product law should be brought to bear; if an error is made in the process of modification, law dealing with services should be brought to bear.
If software is treated as a product, then strict liability can be imposed, and that means liability without fault. In other words, software producers can be sued for errors or malfunctions in software even when they had no reasonable way of know about them or being able to prevent them. Prince argued that strict liability makes sense for canned software but not for customized software.
47
Q

How is the user of strict liability ever justified?

A

There are three factors that justify the imposition of strict liability. Each has to do with the role or position of a product. First, to fall within the scope of strict liability under the UCC, a thing must be placed in the stream of commerce. This leads to a justification of strict liability on several counts.
First, since the producer has placed the thing in the stream of commerce in order to earn profit, he or she should be the one that bears the risk of loss or injury. Since the producer has placed the thing in the stream of commerce, the producer has invited the public to use the product and implicit in the invitation must be an assurance that the product is safe.
Second, the producer is in a better position that anyone else to anticipate and control the risks in the product. Because the producer is in the best position to control the risks, the imposition of strict liability can have a position effect. Holding producers strictly liable gives them a powerful incentive to be careful about what they put into the stream of commerce. If their products are not reasonable safe, they will be held liable.
Finally, the producer is in the best position to spread the cost of injury over all buyers by building it into the cost of the product. If some products have inherent risks, then the cost of the risk can be distributed among those who benefit from having the product on the market. In other words, we make the producer pay for injuries from use of the product, knowing that he or she will recover this cost in the price of the product. Instead of the burden being born by those who are injured, it is spread to all those who buy the product. When you pay for a product, you implicitly pay for some insurance. If you incur damages from using the product, you can sue the producer and, if you win the suit, the producer will be able to compensate you, using profits from the price of the product.
These 3 considerations demonstrate the strict liability makes good sense when it imposes liability on those who make products and put them in the stream of commerce. It makes sense because it imposes liability on those who are in the best position to minimize the risk and distribute costs.

48
Q

What is negligence? Why is it difficult to show that a software producer has been negligent?

A

In general, negligence can be understood to be a failure to do something that a reasonable and prudent person would have done. In common law, it is assumed that individuals who engage in certain activities owe a duty of care; negligence is a failure to fulfill that duty.
Negligence presumes a standard of behavior that can reasonably be expected of an individual engaged in a particular activity. Negligence is often used to describe the blameworthy behavior of members of professional groups. This is so because members of professional groups are understood to have role-responsibilities (duties) and members who fail to adequately perform one of those duties are considered derelict. Thus, software engineers, for example, have a responsibility to design software that doesn’t crash under routing conditions of use.
What counts as adequate testing of customized software is, for example, a function of what is technically feasible, what is reasonable to demand or expect, what the costs will be of achieving a certain level of reliability, and so on. This means that it is often not a small matter to determine when a software engineer has been negligent.

49
Q

How did time come into play in responsibility for the Y2K problem?

A

The time factor comes into play because the original inventors of computers don’t seem to have done anything worthy of blame. At the time, they had no idea of the extent to which computers would come to be used. They were concerned with conserving space and their initial calculation seems reasonable. In other words, it would be hard to show that they were negligent in the decisions they made.
On the other hand, fault and blame seem to lie with computer professionals who saw that problem but did nothing until it was getting quite late. Year after year, as space in computers became larger and larger, as cost became less and less of a factor, and as the use of computers became more and more prevalent, why wasn’t a change made in the date field? The change was eventually made, but why did it take so long? If we say that computer professional had a duty to speak out, at least, to pressure computer manufacturers to change the design of computers long before they did, then an interesting and difficult issue arises. On the one hand, we are saying that many computer professionals – those that were aware of the problem- were derelict in their duty; they were negligent. On the other hand, it is difficult to specify when they became derelict. When exactly did the situation switch from being one of reasonable calculations (and reasonable acceptance of the calculation) to one of dereliction of duty?

50
Q

What is the Myth of Amoral Computer Programming and Information Processing?

A

This is a tendency to blame computers for problems that arise –”it’s the computer’s fault,” “It’s a computer error” – and, then, since computers don’t or can’t bear moral responsibility, to dismiss the problem. De George is quick to point out that computer don’t make mistakes; the errors are the results of human mistakes in the writing of the programs or entering the data.

51
Q

How do computers diffuse accountability?

A

(1) The scale and complexity of some computer systems,
(2) The “many hands” involved in developing, distribution, and using them, and
(3) The way in which computer systems sometimes mediate human decision making.

52
Q
  1. What is the legal liability of an ISP according to recent court decisions?
A

Section 230 specifies that “No provider of user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This policy has become known as the “Good Samaritan” immunity for ISPs.
ISPs are encouraged to monitor or filer, but they are not liable for the content of electronic forums within the service domain. ISPs are encouraged to monitor or filer, but they are not liable for the content of electronic forums within the service domain.

53
Q
  1. What did Bungle do wrong (is Scenario 7.1) according to the author?
A

(1) He exposed participants to pornography and violence without giving them a chance to avoid it, and
(2) He violated an implicit rule of the game.