The Book of Contemporary Moral Problems and The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics /
Book By: /
Margaret N. Lee
Section:
O0A
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines License.
Preface
This book is a compilation of my learning in Contemporary Moral Problems and The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics. In this book you will read my reflections, my personal ideas and my learning towards the articles we read from the different authors. I would recommend this book for those students specifically the students who are taking up Bachelor of Science Major in Information Systems to read each and every book of our batch as we will show them that ethics is really important in BS-IS course.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank first of all God, for giving me the strength to finish this book with whole heartedly and passionate insights. Second, I would like to thank my professor, Mr. Paul Pajo for giving us the chance to read those articles or texts as we learned different things about ethical manners. Third, I would like to thank my friends and classmates for giving me strength to finish my review about the articles and lastly, my parents for enrolling me in such a worthy college institution.
MNL
Contents
Preface
Acknowledgement
Contemporary Moral Problems
Egoism and Moral Scepticism
Religion, Morality and Conscience
Master- and Slave- Morality
Trying out one’s new sword
Utilitarianism
The Debate over Utilitarianism
The Categorical Imperative
Happiness and Virtue
Then Nature and Value of Rights
Taking Rights Seriously
A Theory of Justice
The Need for More than Justice
The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics
Chapter 1: Foundations of Information Ethics
Chapter 2: Milestones in the History of Information and Computer Ethics
Chapter 3: Moral Methodology and Information Technology
Chapter 4: Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems
Chapter 5: Personality-Based, Rule-Utilitarian and Lockean Justifications of Intellectual Property
Chapter 6: Informational Privacy: Concepts, Theories and Controversies
Chapter 7: Online Anonymity
Chapter 8: Ethical Issues Involving Computer Security: Hacking, Hacktivism and Counterhacking
Chapter 9: Information Ethics and the Library Profession
Chapter 10: Ethical Interest in Free and Open Source Software
Chapter 11: Internet Research Ethics: The Field and Its Critical Issues
Chapter 12: Health Information Technology: Challenges in Ethics, Science, and Uncertainty
Chapter 13: Ethical Issues of Information and Business
Chapter 14: Responsibilities for Information on the Internet
Chapter 15: Virtual Reality and Computer Simulation
Chapter 16: Genetic Information: Epistemological and Ethical Issues
Chapter 17: The Ethics of Cyber Conflict
Chapter 18: A Practical Mechanism for Ethical Risk Assessment- A SoDIS Inspection
Chapter 19: Regulation and Governance of the Internet
Chapter 20: Information Overload
Chapter 21: Email Spam
Chapter 22: The Matter of Plagiarism: What, Why and If
Chapter 23: Intellectual Property: Legal or Moral Challenges of Online File Sharing
Chapter 24: Censorship and Access to Expression
Chapter 25: The Gender Agenda in Computer Ethics
Chapter 26: The Digital Divide: A Perspective for the future
Chapter 27: Intercultural Information Ethics
Contemporary Moral Problems
Egoism and Moral Scepticism
By James Rachels
Review Questions:
- Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by story?
The legend of Gyges is about a ring that was found by a shepherd when an earthquake happened. The ring can make a person invisible and make that person go anywhere. Gyges seduced the Queen, murdered the King and took control in the Palace by means of the power of the ring. Until Glaucon decided that the man of virtue and rogue will choose between two rings. The rogue did use the ring with no limitations and used the ring for the wealth and power he want to have while, the virtue man did worst things than the rogue do. Based on the story, it asked there why not a man does what know is right for him.
- Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.
The psychological egoism pertains to the attitude of men for being selfish in everything they do but it only imply to them when their self- interest have been motivated. While, ethical egoism, men acts it as normal like they express their obligation. Their only obligation is to do whatever interest they have. They do their interests regardless of someone or everybody will be affected.
- Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments and how does he reply to them?
The first argument is regarding selfishness and unselfishness. Rachels showed the different sides of the situation on how you can say that Smith is unselfish on what he decided to do. The second argument is regarding how Smith’s unselfishness would be in the state of consciousness. What did Smith do was only classified as unselfish because of the presentation of the situation that Smith helped his friend instead of going to the country.
- What three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism?
The first confusion is the confusion of selfishness with interest. Second, is the assumption that every action is done from self- interest or from other- regarding motives. Lastly, is the common concern for the welfare of others? These three confusion statements that I got from the article of Rachels show how he can see or detect the issues on every situation that was given.
- State the argument for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachels accept this argument?
“A person is under no obligation to do anything except what is in his own interests.” Rachels did not accept the argument because for him if people do not know or have his obligation there would be problems that each one of us would encounter.
- According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can the egoist reply?
According to Rachels, we should not hurt others because they will be hurt. We should help others because they can get something good on that help which they can benefit with. Based on the article the egoist’s line is “no doubt, will not be happy with this.”
Discussion Questions:
- Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, “Why be Moral?” If so, what exactly is his answer?
Yes because Rachels explained in the article why we should not hurt others and why we should help others. “Why shouldn’t you do actions that will harm others because doing those actions would harm others?”
- Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most of people care about others, even people they don’t know?
According to Rachels, genuine egoists are not merely rare because people do things to help others.
- Suppose we define ethical altruism as the view that one should always act for the benefit of others and never in one’s own self- interest. Is such a view immoral or not.
For me, it is not immoral. Because for me if what you are doing is for the others to benefit, go and do it. Do not think of others or your self- interest.
Religion, Morality and Conscience
By John Arthur
Review Questions:
- According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different?
Morality is the attitude of an individual regarding the different behavior which is mostly shown by rules, rights and obligations. While, religion, it is the culture of prayer, worship and beliefs towards supernatural, institutional forms and authoritative texts.
- Why isn’t religion necessary for moral motivation?
Religion and motivation has its big differences. Religion has no rules but religion have beliefs which connects with morality. Because when you use religion to morality there is an instance that you will succeed on what you do because religion do not dictate on the things that you need to do and not to do.
- Why isn’t religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge?
According to Arthur, religion does not necessary see moral knowledge to focus on rather they see guidance as what must be focus on in religion.
- What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory?
Divine command theory is about the ten commandments of God. Arthur rejected the theory because for him if God would change His mind everything will follow especially His commandments.
- According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?
Based on what Arthur said, morality and religion is connected because there is God and if God did not exist there will be no morality.
- Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur?
As what is stated in the book, “Morality is therefore inherently social, in a variety of ways. It depends on socially learned language, is learned from interactions with others in society.” As what Arthur said, morality can only be social if people says that it is social and it also depends on what language that was learned.
Discussion Questions:
- Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended?
Arthur did not really refute the divine command theory because for him divine command theory is not related to morality.
- If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to non human animals? (Arthur mentions this problem and some possible solutions to it in footnote 6).
In the Ten Commandments that God has made and gave us I do remember one of its command which is “Thou shall not kill.”
- What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as moral education?
Ethics class does not count a moral education because a person can only be immoral if you are not aware of what you act and you do not care to other people if they will be hurt.
Master- and Slave- Morality
By Friedrich Nietzsche
Review Questions:
- How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?
According to Nietzsche, a good and healthy society is by allowing an individual to have his power.
- What is Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence and exploitation?
According to Nietzsche, he is against because he does not want anyone be hurt.
- Distinguish between master- morality and slave- morality.
Master- morality is good and bad that master creates the value while slave- morality needs to learn values.
- Explain the Will to Power.
According to Nietzsche, will to power is will to life. Because if there will be no society it will not develop and people will be more weak.
Discussion Questions:
- Some people view Nietzsche’s writings as harmful and even dangerous. For example some have charged Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. Are these charges justified or not? Why or why not?
The charges are not clearly justified because based on what I read from Nietzsche’s article he is only expressing his ideas and thoughts about the topics which I think is not harmful and dangerous.
- What does it mean to be “a creator of values”?
Creator of value is one of the characteristics of Master- Morality it is something that a person does which he does not have any approval from someone.
Trying out one’s new sword
By Mary Midgley
Review Questions:
- What is “moral isolationism”?
Moral Isolationism means that we cannot comment on or discriminate any culture that is new to us.
- Explain the Japanese custom of tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask about this custom?
Tsujigiri means crossroads- cut in which a samurai is used in order to be tired because it must work properly as it used to be. If the samurai did not work well this could injure his honors, offend his ancestors and even let down his emperor. Midgley asked “Does isolating barrier equally both ways?” and “Are people in other culture equally unable to criticize us?”
- What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley?
According Midgley, Moral Isolationism is not true because now a day we are already studying about the different cultures that are why we have ideas about it.
- What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures?
Based on what I read from the article we must first learn and understand our own culture before we criticize others culture.
Discussion Questions:
- Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche? Why or why not?
For me, Nietzsche is not an immoralist he just explains his knowledge and shares it.
- Do you agree with Midgley’s claim that the idea od separate and unmixed cultures is unreal? Explain your answer.
I do not agree because we really have different cultures and we have separate cultures. The separate and unmixed culture is possible especially to our own country.
Utilitarianism
By John Stuart Mill
Review Questions:
- State and explain the Principle of Utility. Show how it could be used to justify actions that are conventionally viewed as wrong, such as lying and stealing.
Principle of Utility is the actions that is right and give happiness. It can be used to justify the actions that are seen to be wrong like lying and stealing that could cause that person unhappy.
- How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of swine?
According to Mill, the objection of Epicureanism is a doctrine that is worthy if swine is disregarded because a pleasure does not satisfy a person’s happiness.
- How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures?
Higher pleasure is the one that most of us have experienced like deciding on our own, disrespect the any moral obligation. While lower pleasure, it is the competency of every person which physically satisfied on everything we have and done.
- According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered?
For me, based on what I read from the article of Mill, those people who are greater with numerous materials in their life are those considered to be happy.
- Carefully reconstruct Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility.
Based on the concept of utilitarian, there is no unique desire of every person or the motivation. It keeps favorable pleasure and it protects the pain. The association that was formed it showed a perfect desire with a great impact with different kinds of satisfaction.
Discussion Questions:
- Is happiness nothing more than pleasure, and the absence of pain? What do you think?
I do not agree because happiness is more important in every individual. Happiness is one of the best things that a person can show to others as it can also show who really you are.
- Does Mill convince you that the so-called higher pleasures are better than the lower ones? What about the person of experience who prefers the lower pleasures over the higher ones?
Yes because in higher pleasures you can be above all everything. The lower pleasures can also show how a person can be as a whole.
- Mill says, “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete sprit of the ethics of utility.” Is this true or not?
I agree because you must do anything for the benefit of many and not only for yourself. It is better to give someone a better value.
- Many commentators have thought that Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility is defective. Do you agree? If so, then what mistake or mistakes does he make? Is there any way to reformulate the proof so that it is not defective?
For me, Mill’s Principle of Utility is not defective because he showed the proofs with full of ideas and explanations.
The Debate over Utilitarianism
By James Rachels
Review Questions:
- Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three proportions. What are they?
According to the article of Rachels, the theory was defended by Bentham and Mill. The three propositions are as follows: First, actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences. Second, in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused and third, in calculating the happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else’s.
- Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this problem?
Hedonism is a popular theory way back in the ancient Greek. It is a belief that happiness can only be called happiness if something is good but the meaning of happiness is being misunderstood because happiness is not being recognized as good. Defenders suggest that in order to change Hedonism they must utilize the resources and other good things to be happy.
- What are the objections about justice, rights and promises?
Fair judgment is the objection for justice, the objection for right is not valued in a community of racists and last, the objection for promises is that promises are to be broken and rights are valued.
- Distinguish between rule- and act- utilitarianism. How does rule- utilitarianism reply to the objections?
Rule Utilitarianism is the new version of theory and it contrast with the original version theory which is Act Utilitarianism. Rule Utilitarianism is the actions that lead to greater good. While, Act Utilitarianism theory acknowledges that right actions is the one that gives happiness to a person. Rule Utilitarianism’s rules were established for reference to the principles and acts will be judged right or wrong which refers to the rules.
- What is the third line of defense?
According to the article of Rachels, the third line of defense is a small group of contemporary utilitarian has had a very different response to the anti- utilitarian arguments.
Discussion Questions:
- Smart’s defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when they conflict with utilitarianism. Is this acceptable to you or not? Explain your answer.
For me, it is not acceptable because for me I will not take over utilitarianism over moral beliefs because I am not a utilitarian. It is not right to reject what you know more than what you see will not create any conflicts.