Information Technology Ethics
Competency 2:
Basic
Ethical
Theories & Principles
Presentation
Author,
2006
Where we’re at…
• Understand that various ethical issues have
emerged as technology evolves
• But there is debate over whether these are
uniquely due to the technology itself
• One aspect of new technology that creates
unique ethical issues is the tendency to create
“policy vacuums” and “conceptual muddles”
• So, how do ethical theories help us deal with all
this…
2
Morality
• Much of our discussions about ethics and IT
related to issues of morality…
• Morality: system of rules for guiding human
conduct
– Rules and principles
– Deciding right from wrong
• But how do we derive our moral rules?
– Is it ok to break into a store to steal food and
feed your hungry family?
– Is it ok to torture a suspect in order to find the
location of a bomb hidden in a crowded city?
3
Religious-based Rules
• Consider the following rationale for why stealing
is morally wrong:
– “Stealing is wrong because the Qur'an or Bible
says not to”
• From the point of view of institutionalized
religion, stealing is wrong because of it offends
God or because it violates the commands of a
supreme authority.
• But what about religious differences or atheists?
How to create a universal moral system?
4
Legal-based Rules
• An alternative rationale would be:
– Stealing is wrong because it violates the law.
• If stealing violates a law in a particular nation or
jurisdiction, then the act of stealing can be
declared to be wrong independent of any
religious beliefs that one may or may not happen
to have.
• Dueling jurisdictions? Different cultural norms?
Unjust laws?
5
Ethically-based Rules
• A third way of approaching the question is:
– Stealing is wrong because it is, simply, wrong
• On this view, the moral "rightness" or
"wrongness" of stealing is not grounded in some
external authority, either theological or legal
• Stealing is deemed morally wrong by criteria that
reason alone is sufficient to determine
– reason can inform us that there is something
either in the act of stealing itself, or in the
consequences that result from this kind of act,
that makes stealing morally wrong.
6
The Usefulness of Ethical Theories
• Ethical theories can guide us in our analysis of
moral issues involving technology.
• The purpose of ethical theory, like scientific
theory, is to provide us with a framework for
analyzing moral issues.
– Understand the logic and reasoning behind what
makes particular actions right & wrong
– Provide a framework for determining the morally
correct course of action
7
Some Basic Question(s) of Ethical Theories
• “How aught I act?”
– Act-based ethical theories, where the outcome of
my actions determine what is the ethical thing to
do
• “What kind of person should I be?”
– Character-based ethical theories, where the
results of act isn’t important as who my personal
character might be enhanced
Ethical Theories
Act-Ethics
Character-Ethics
What sort of actions
should we perform?
Consequentialism
The right action produces the
most “good” in the outcome
Egoism
Maximize MY
happiness
What sort of people
should we be?
Deontology
The right action is based
on “duty”, not the outcome
Utilitarianism
Maximize society’s
happiness
Virtue Ethics
Be a virtuous
person
9
Ethical Theories
Act-Ethics
Character-Ethics
What sort of actions
should we perform?
Consequentialism
The right action produces the
most “good” in the outcome
Egoism
Maximize MY
happiness
What sort of people
should we be?
Deontology
The right action is based
on “duty”, not the outcome
Utilitarianism
Maximize society’s
happiness
Virtue Ethics
Be a virtuous
person
10
Consequentialism / Utilitarianism
• Ethical norms are determined by the
consequences of our actions
• Right and wrong are determined according to
that course of action that produces the greatest
benefit for the greatest number of people
– Will this maximize happiness for everyone?
• Applied:
– It is morally permissible to break into a store to
feed your hungry family
– It is morally permissible to torture a single person
11
if it will save the lives of thousands
Rule Based / Deontology
• Fazeena is an expert in disaster relief. She has,
however, taken time off work because her family
needs her. She is a widow, her elderly father has
Alzheimer’s , and one of her children is seriously ill.
• But when a devastating earthquake strikes, her
employer implores her to help out. “We need you,”
he says. “Thousands of lives are at risk, and without
your experience, we will be less effective”
• Fazeena thinks for a short while, but replies, “I’m
sorry, I have to put my family first. It is to them I am
duty-bound”
12
Rule Based / Deontology
• Ethical norms are based on adherence to rules
and principles, not measuring consequences
– No matter how much good might be
accomplished, you have a duty to follow certain
rules/principles"
• How do we know which rules we have a duty to
follow? How do we determine the correct
principles?
13
Rule Based / Deontology
• Kant’s “categorical imperative”
– Act only in such a way that can be universally
binding, without exception, to all people in all
cases
– Act only in such a way that ensures that all
individuals are not treated as a means to an end
• Applied:
– It is not morally permissible to break into a store, since
the world would be worse if everyone always broke into
anything to get what they needed
– It is not morally permissible to torture since it uses a
person as a means to an end
14
Character-oriented Approaches
• Ethical norms determined according to acting
in certain ways considered to be virtuous
– The goal is to be a virtuous person; so you behave
in a way to reach that end
• Emphasizes strengths of character necessary
for human flourishing & reach our full potential
– Example: wisdom, courage, temperance, justice
• Applied:
– It is not morally permissible to break into a store,
or to torture, as these are not characteristics of
virtuous people, and reflect poorly on one’s moral
15
character
Ethical Theories
Act-Ethics
Character-Ethics
What sort of actions
should we perform?
Consequentialism
The right action produces the
most “good” in the outcome
Egoism
Maximize MY
happiness
What sort of people
should we be?
Deontology
The right action is based
on “duty”, not the outcome
Utilitarianism
Maximize society’s
happiness
Virtue Ethics
Be a virtuous
person
16
Case of Adam Zapple
• Adam Zapple is feeling peckish.
• On his way home, he notices an elderly woman
biting into an appetizing apple
• Although only 10 minutes away form his wellstocked fridge, Adam considers mugging Granny
to steal her juicy apple.
• Should he do so?
17
Case 1
• A trolley is running out of control down a track. In
its path are five people who have been tied to
the track by a mad philosopher.
• Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will
lead the trolley down a different track to safety.
Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to
that track.
• Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
18
Case 2
• You find yourself at a Nazi rally in 1942
Germany, and you are in reach of Hitler, and you
know of all of Hitler’s acts of atrocity.
• You have a clear chance to steal Hitler’s wallet,
which contains 250 DM. Your chance of being
caught is less than 2%.
• Would you be ethically justified in stealing
Hitler’s wallet? (Or, killing him?)
19
Case 3
• You are doing very well in class, but a friend is
struggling. An exam is tomorrow, worth 40% of
the grade.
• You promised your friend you would help him
study this evening, as he needs a good grade in
this class to keep his scholarship.
• On you way to his place, another friend invites
you join your buddies for pizza and beer, and
you owe them a round of drinks from the last
time you were out.
• What do you do?
20
Case 4
• A billionaire has a warehouse full of vintage and
expensive cars, but doesn’t drive them.
• You have always wanted one of the cars in his
collection. If you steal it, the billionaire would not
notice, nor miss, the vehicle. You, however,
would drive and enjoy it daily.
• Would you steal the car?
21
Limitations of Utilitarianism
• Focuses only upon consequences – disregards
the “act” that is done
• Thus, any action can be called good as long as
there are more good consequences than bad
• This allows some people to be hurt and used for
the “greater good”
– Slavery
– Child labor
22
Limitations of Utilitarianism
• How do we measure “good” or “happiness”
– Different visions of was is “good”
– How do we measure “good”
– Long term vs. short term
• Consequences for whom?
– Just me (egoism)
– My family? My country?
– All humanity? Just the nice people?
• We can’t analyze every single decision
– Need to rely on urges, principles, guiding values
in day-to-day decisions
23
Limitations of
Duty Ethics / Deontology
• How does one decide what to do when there are
conflicting duties?
– Family vs. job
– Duty to follow orders vs. religion
• Kant provides some help, but can we expect
everyone to follow the “categorical imperative”
in their daily decisions?
• Shouldn’t happiness/utility have some role in
our decision?
24
Limitations of Virtue Ethics
• Virtues vary from culture to culture, sub-culture
to sub-culture
• What is virtuous might change
– How do you determine when something has
become socially acceptable…or unacceptable?
25
Table 2-3: Types of Ethical Theories
Advantages
Disadvantages
Consequence-
Stresses promotion of
Ignores concerns of justice
based
(Utilitarian)
happiness and utility
for the minority population;
hard to measure
Duty-based
Stresses the role of duty
Underestimates the
(Deontology)
and respect for persons
importance of happiness;
conflicting duties
Character-based
Stresses personal moral
Depends on homogeneous
(Virtue)
development and moral
community standards for
education
morality
26
Applying Ethics…
• We now have a basic understanding of core
ethical theories, and an appreciation of the
complexities and limitations among them
• So, how do we apply these in the realm of
information technology?
• We can take various examples of contemporary
IT, and analyze them ethically
– What is unique about the technology
– Apply various ethical frameworks
– Address conceptual muddles and policy
vacuums
27
The case of Adam Zapple
Getting to grips with the main features of the different
ethical theories can be daunting. Daniel K Sokol and
Gillian Bergson make it a bit simpler
Adam Zapple is feeling peckish. On his way home, he
notices an elderly woman biting into an appetising apple.
Although only 10 minutes away from his well stocked
fridge, Adam considers mugging Granny to steal her juicy
looking apple. Should he do so? Over to our expert panel.
Y
Colin, the consequentialist—Well, this is an easy one. It’s
obvious that, on balance, mugging Granny will cause more
harm than good. Sure, Adam will enjoy the apple, but
Granny’s misery will far outweigh his enjoyment. And let’s
not forget any bystanders who may get upset by the
mugging. In fact, Adam himself might feel guilty afterwards
and get depressed. But if Adam were about to starve,
however…
Dan, the deontologist—It’d still be wrong, Colin, you spawn
of the devil. It’s just wrong to beat up innocent people,
whether it’s to steal an apple or save your own life. There
are some things people just shouldn’t do.
Colin—Oh, so you’d rather die of hunger than steal an old
lady’s apple?
Dan—Definitely, stealing is wrong. Simple as that. What if
everyone stole things whenever it suited them? No, I would
kindly ask the lady…
Colin—To give you a new brain? No, seriously, why are some
things “just wrong?”
Dan—Too complicated for you, I’m afraid. Wait. Let
me work out the consequences… [Dan
mockingly takes out a calculator and presses
on the keys.]
Colin—Go on. I’ll try my best.
Dan—All right. One answer is that we
should do—or not do—certain things
because God said so in the Bible.
“Thou shalt not steal” is an example.
Colin—I don’t believe in God, sorry.
Dan—Fine. Have you ever heard of
Kant?
Colin—Sure: I love football.
Dan—No, the 18th century
German deontologist philosopher.
Colin—Oh. What’s a deontologist?
Dan—Someone who believes that
we should do things because we
have duties or moral obligations to
do them. We have a duty not to beat
up innocent people or steal their
property, for example, which is why
Adam Zapple should not mug
Granny.
Colin—Even if he’s about to die of starvation, and Granny is sitting on a barrel full
of fresh apples?
Dan—Yes: stealing is wrong. Full stop.
Colin—Weirdo.
Dan—Well, the World Medical Association has
some deontological rules for doctors.
Colin—Like what? “Avoid deontology at all costs.”
Dan—No. “The doctor shall not participate in the
practice of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or
degrading procedures, whatever the offence of which the
victim of such procedures is suspected, accused or
guilty, and whatever the victim’s beliefs or motives,
DS
ou may already have heard a little about some
of the ethical theories that are used to guide
and justify ethical decisions. The four principles approach to ethical decisions comprises
consequentialism, deontology (duty based
ethics), virtue ethics, and principlism.
To provide an insight into each of the main approaches,
we have invited representatives of each ethical theory to
comment on the case of Adam Zapple, a naive young man
who is tempted.
LP
WO
O
education
Ethics made easy
404
STUDENTBMJ | VOLUME 14 | NOVEMBER 2006
studentbmj.com
maleficence prevents us from causing
net harm and here, clearly, Adam is
causing more harm than good.
Colin—Ah, I like this consequentialist
thinking.
Paula—The principle of respect for
autonomy, which tells us to respect
people’s freedom to make choices,
also prevents him from mugging the
old woman because she hasn’t
consented to this.
Dan—Sounds quite deontological to
me. It reminds me of the formula of
humanity: always treat people as an
end and never only as a means.
Paula—Yes, it’s a mixture really. It takes
into account both consequences and
moral rules, but it’s not as black and
white as Colin or Dan’s theories. It
depends on the situation.
Do I need to know that
much about ethical theory?
theories are wrong. Mugging Granny
for an apple is wrong not because of
consequences or deontological rules,
but because it’s unkind and
disrespectful. No virtuous person
would do such an awful thing.
Dan—Sure. But what’s a virtue?
Veronica—Good question. It’s a
character trait that’s necessary for
living well or that promotes human
flourishing, such as courage, honesty,
friendship, compassion, kindness, and
so on.
Colin—Sounds a bit vague to me. This
case is easy, but how do I know what a
virtuous person would do in a really
difficult ethical dilemma? What
happens if two virtues clash with each
other? If kindness requires me to be
dishonest, for example? How do I
decide which one trumps the other?
Paula, the principlist—Mmm, interesting. But let me try to break down
Adam’s case using the four principles.
Colin—Oh gosh, here we go again.
Good thing I always keep a pillow
handy. I can snooze a little.
Dan—What are the four principles?
Paula—In a nutshell, there are four
things you should and shouldn’t do as
an ethical person. Firstly, you should
respect the autonomy of other
people. A person should be allowed
to make his own choices because only
he knows what’s best for him… unless
he’s not fit to make those choices, of
course. Secondly, you shouldn’t harm
others, net harm that is, because
almost every action can potentially
cause harm. Thirdly, you should
produce net benefit to certain people.
And finally, you should be fair in
offering your help, treat people
equally, and not discriminate. There,
respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice.
Dan—Sounds pretty good to me.
Paula—Now, applying the principles to
the case at hand, the principle of non-
This dialogue briefly introduces some
of the main ethical theories, but is
there any need to know them? Most
non-philosophers will run a mile at
any talk about ethical theories. But a
basic understanding of the main
moral theories in medical ethics is
useful for several reasons.
Firstly, it gives an understanding of
the origin of key concepts such as
consent and confidentiality, which can
be derived from the principle of
respect for autonomy, and why they
are important. The theories in the
discussion have influenced many
“rules” of medical ethics.
Secondly, it allows flexibility. The
boundaries of medicine are constantly
shifting, and ethical positions may
need to be reconsidered in the light of
new developments. Take, for example,
the current debate on abortion.
Should we change the date limit for
social terminations to match the ever
decreasing age at which premature
babies can survive? Scientific progress
regularly presents new ethical
dilemmas. Knowledge of ethical
theory can provide tools to analyse
new problems.
And, finally, ethical theories can be
used to justify the ethical decisions that
you make, either as a practising doctor
or as a medical student sitting exams.
An awareness of the main counterarguments to your chosen solution can
make your reasoning even stronger.
Daniel K Sokol PhD student in medical ethics,
Medical Ethics Unit, Department of Primary
Health Care and General Practice, Imperial
College, London
daniel.sokol@talk21.com
Gillian Bergson foundation year 1 doctor,
Horton General Hospital, Banbury, Oxfordshire
This article is a modified extract from
Medical Ethics and Law: Surviving on the
Wards and Passing Exams by Daniel Sokol
and Gillian Bergson, published by
Trauma, London, 2005.
Competing interests: None declared.
405
education
and in all situations, including armed
conflict and civil strife.” That’s a
deontological statement.
Colin—Well it’s a fair point, but you
should get out more.
Dan—Now, back to Kant.
Colin—Oh good: I love football.
Dan—Colin. Kant was a Christian,
but he also believed that morality
could be justified without invoking
God. People, according to Kant,
should follow the categorical
imperative, which basically tells us
what we should do.
Colin—Wait. I know the answer:
maximise happiness and minimise
unhappiness.
Dan—Forget your consequentialist
rubbish for a second. To satisfy the
categorical imperative, Kant said we
should follow two main formulas. The
first is called the formula of universal
law. It tells us to “act only on that
maxim through which you can at the
same time will that it should become a
universal law.”
Colin—You’ve lost me.
Dan—Basically, before you do
something, ask yourself, “Could I
accept a world in which everyone did
that?”
Colin—I see. So Adam should ask
himself, “Could I accept a world in
which everyone who was feeling
peckish could beat up people to steal
their food?”
Dan—Exactly. If the answer is no, then
you shouldn’t do it. It basically
prevents people from being partial to
themselves. The second formula is the
formula of humanity. It tells us to
always treat people as ends and never
merely as a means.
Colin—Give me an example.
Dan—When you take a taxi, for
example, you’re using the taxi driver
as a means to your end—to get to your
destination, but you’re also paying
him for it, so you’re not using him
only as a means. If you have a slave,
however, then you are using him only
as a means to your end. He’s a tool
which you can use as you wish. He has
no choice in the matter.
Colin—So Adam should not mug
Granny because he would be using
her merely as a means of getting the
apple.
Dan—Precisely. But if he asked her and
she consented, then it would be all
right because he would be satisfying
her wish as well as getting the apple.
Colin—I understand. Deontology
sounds fine in parts. After all, we’re
told as children not to lie and not to
steal and stuff, but I don’t like the fact
that consequences don’t seem to
matter much. Surely if your life is at
stake, then it’s all right to lie?
Dan—Well, I don’t like the fact that
you’re
only
concerned
with
consequences. If you’re willing to
break a promise if you think the
consequences are better, for example,
then how can people trust you?
Veronica, the virtue theorist—Sorry, can
I speak now? I think both your pet
Purchase answer to see full
attachment