Applying Ethics to Computing and my Beliefs
16 Jul 2022
Introduction
Computers in the modern day pose major ethical questions, as some boundaries that we have in real life are broken down when separated by a screen. This creates a murky ethicality around what is right and wrong when one is online. In this essay, I would like to take Kantianism, Act Utilitarianism, and Social Contract Theory, which are three prominent ethical theories, and evaluate them in a digital space. I would also like to provide examples of each and my own personal opinions on how they hold up in the modern world.
The Three Theories
The first of these theories is Kantianism. This theory was created by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kantianism attempts to justify moral actions with one’s own rules, duties and principles. It does not take into account the consequences of these actions, but only the morality of the actions themselves. Those who adhere to Kantianism would act in a way that they would be comfortable with everyone else acting. They treat humanity always as an end in itself, and never as a means to an end. Lastly, they believe that moral actions are done from a sense of duty, and no other reason.
The second theory is Act Utilitarianism. This theory states that a person is morally right if they intend for their actions to produce the best possible outcome in their specific situation. According to Act Utilitarianism, there are no inherently right or wrong actions, these are defined by the consequences that they create. This means that morality is defined by the situation, and the morality of each action for each given situation changes. The most moral decision that can be made would consequently do the most good or inflict the least harm.
The last theory is Social Contract Theory. This attempts to explain why societal structures and governments are effective and work the way they do. This theory states that individuals in a society will voluntarily give up some of their freedoms in exchange for protection of their own rights and self. They will abide by the rules they are given, and so are given safety and stability. It operates on the belief that humans are naturally opposed to chaos, and in order to escape it, we are willing to follow rules given to us by our society and government.
These theories have been around for a long time, all having roots back to the 18th century. This was way before modern technology developed and posed new ethical dilemmas for humanity. This is why I would like to pose a question in the modern day that challenges these ethical frameworks. One of these is this: If everyone agreed to take an ethical point of view on respecting others and their core values online and in-person, would there be any need for a rigorous study of ethics?
Ethics and Technology
I personally believe that there would still definitely need to be a rigorous study of ethics. Even if everyone decided to take ethical approaches and respect each other’s values, that does not mean that difficult situations that challenge those values would stop occurring. An example of this could be a single mother working a full-time job who needs to write one more essay for a class so she can graduate. However, she is required to put in lengthy overtime hours at the place she works. She does not have the time to write this essay, and finds an online company to research and finish her paper for her. From the Kantian point of view, her actions were morally wrong as she treated her professor as a means to an end, and should have informed them of her circumstances. However, if we were to assume that the professor’s class syllabus explicitly stated that there would be no assignment extensions, we could not fault the professor if they denied her extension request, as he would just be enforcing the rules of his class. In situations like these, which decisions are ethical and which are not becomes murky territory. Either she or her professor would have to spin a lie to satisfy both parties.
Artificial Intelligence and Ethicality
A specific technology/software solution which has created an ethical dilemma nowadays is the rise of Artificial Intelligence, primarily targeting the art industry. AI nowadays has evolved to a point where it can reliably create beautiful works of art, on par or even surpassing human ability. Unfortunately, this has a side effect of taking jobs and commissions from talented digital artists. Let’s imagine that a digital artist was offered a digital art commission from another talented online artist who she really enjoys the work of. Instead of paying off the commission, she uses artificial intelligence to create what she wants in the style of that artist. From the viewpoint of Kantianism, this is morally wrong because it treats the artist as a means to an end. From the viewpoint of Act Utilitarianism, this is ethically questionable. It is hard to weigh the net happiness of the scenario because nobody is being actively harmed. I think that while using artificial intelligence is the most practical way to get what she wants, just paying for the art commission would make both parties happy as opposed to only satisfying oneself. In my opinion, from the viewpoint of Act Utilitarianism, using AI is morally murky but slightly more immoral than not using it. From the viewpoint of Social Contract Theory, this is definitely immoral. Social Contract Theory operates under the viewpoint that selfish behavior is often a rational way to act, and that everyone should agree to treat each other in a way that is mutually beneficial to each other. Using AI to create the commission herself would be completely self-serving and cut the artist out of the equation entirely. Since this is completely selfish, it is completely immoral under the Social Contract Theory. I think that under all of the moral arguments, using AI to do the commission instead of the artist is immoral. All of these theories seem to imply that this is an immoral, or at least morally questionable action, which I agree with.
My Personal Ethical View
I think that Act Utilitarianism most closely aligns with my personal ethical framework. This is because it focuses on happiness as a primary measure for moral behavior. To me, using happiness to evaluate situations is one of the most consistent ways to make both parties satisfied. Also, I feel that using net happiness as a criteria is a very simple way for me to judge if an action is moral or not. For example, a technology/computing based experience I evaluated with Act Utilitarianism was doing an online survey to help with a friend’s school project. Even though I usually never take surveys, helping my friend by participating in his survey was a good decision because I believe it made both parties happy. I think that Kantianism does not suit my personal ethical framework because with Kantianism, there is sometimes no clear way to resolve a conflict, even if both parties are acting ethically towards each other. It also has an issue with more complex issues. Some of these would be things like victimless crimes, or doing things for the greater good. In my opinion, the social contract also aligns with my ethical framework, but less so because I know that not all other people are inclined to follow it. I feel like something like the Social Contract would work in a perfect world where everyone would completely respect each other’s beliefs, but not everyone is like that, and it is impossible to convince/make everyone act in a morally correct way. I don’t believe that Act Utilitarianism is perfect, as it has a couple of big pitfalls as a moral framework. Something like AI use would create a lot of ethical questions when posed with Act Utilitarianism, because if both parties are happy from a morally wrong decision from the Kantian view, a true ethically correct decision may not be found. Also, Act Utilitarianism operates on the assumption that we can predict the consequences of every decision we make, which is not true. It does not take into account things we cannot predict.
Conclusion
Although Act Utilitarianism most closely aligns with my own personal moral framework, I would consider all three theories when operating online. Each one tackles different problems differently, and what ethical problems fall apart in some theories may be resolved in others. Since each one of these theories have been around since the 18th century, they all have merit and have stood the test of time. New technology and rapid globalization should not make them obsolete. Overall, I would encourage people online to not forget their own ethical foundations, and always remember that the person on the other side of the screen is a human as well.