45

C t Ethi

DEBORAH G JOHNSON

C t t h l h i d i t f i t t t h i l d ti I l i b i d d b f th f t t h l ?W h t t f t t h l h l d b d? Wh i ll iblf i ft h th ft i l t h t i d i i d l h

f l l d t d it d h th l d t t t h i f f t ? Will thuse of encryption technology make crime detection impossible? Will virtual realitytechnology lead to a populace of individuals addicted to fantasy worlds? Can democ

k th l b l l f th I t t ? Th ti l d l t i t l t d l ti b t h t i d f h b i h t i k tht k i t hi h t b f t h t b l l i b t d lit d

A t h i i t d ith th i i d b t t h lti h b t i l l t t i A th t h i l i di

t t h l i ? S l i t h t th i d i f f t f thethical issues that a "new ethics" is required Others claim that the ethical issuesaround computer technology are implicitly and at their core issues that havearisen before and can for the most part at least be addressed with familiar moral

t d t h iTh i i i i t t i d ith l th i t t d i t t

ti W h t i it b t t t h l d t b i l t t d l i h t b l b t h t t t h i l i ? I fild f t d ith itd i d d t dd th t h i l i di t t h l

? I i l t h d l i d f l i t t h i l i ? Whilth i i t t i d th i i i t l If ld i d t i fsomething unique about the issues surrounding computer technology it mightexplain why computer technology unlike many other technologies gives rise toethical issues; it might provide the justification for the creation of a special field oft d d it i h t i l l i t th ti b t t h d l

I h t f l l I i t f iti t h t f l l b t th l it h t t t h i l i i d th l i t h t t t h i l i

t i M t i d d i t t h i l i i h t I ill t h tt t h l id th instrumentation f h ti d t h b

k it ibl f h b i t d h t th ld t d b f d d i

608

COMPUTER ETHICS

h t th ld d b f Wh flhd t thi t l puter ethical issues to be new species of familiar ethical issues. The new species haveproperties that ultimately change the meaning of ethical concepts and theories butnot so much as to justify the claim that entirely new ethical concepts or systemsh b t d

Th d ti id th b k d f t k i th ti f h t ht t h i l i i I th fit ti f i t h l i l I t l h i t b t i ith t h

l t j t t t h l I b t ti I f l i lt t h l

Technology Ethics and the Instrumentation of Human Action

It ill b h l f l t b i b ki b t th ti b t t h l d thi H t h l b f i i f i t t h i ? Th i l t t F i t t h l ft k it ibl f h b i t d h t th

ld t d i t h t it t h i k f l b b t h t b l i t t th h race spaceships that take human beings to the moon and cloning Technology cancreate new possibilities for collective and institutional arrangements as well as forindividual action Individually we can do what we could not do before traveling

t d i t i i l i lib t i l f h i if t l t t i A ll i t i d ti

l d t h l i l l d d t h i lith f l d bl t d k i d f d t

I dditi t ki it ibl f h b i t d h t th ld t d i t h t it t h l ll h b i t d h t th ld d b f b t i

new ways We can engage in roughly the same activities traveling workingkeeping records being entertained communicating making war and performroughly the same actiontypes buying something writing words supervising em

l ki l l t i t d i t l h H h i th t i i t i d t i t ith t h l i th t i i t i d

t i t h d i f f t ti ti t h t h th h t f tht i i t t i t C i d th t f iti ith i t h l i Wh

I it ith d il th il h I it i t i t l d h I it i t l t i

l h fiti i i h i S th h i l t t h t t k l when I write are very different when I use different technologies

Consider now the differences in the actiontype "purchasing an item from a store" when the purchase is made by paying cash as compared with paying by

dit d N t l th h i l t t h t d i f f t b t th ti h d i f f t ti Wh I ith dit d d i t t i l l

t d d t h t b d i t d ith th d Of d ld h b t d h I id ith h b t t il Th h i th

h i l f t f th t i t f i l i t t d t i i t f th t i t B f dit d h h h th th

609

DEBORAH G JOHNSON

l ld i d i d could t d f thtransaction by writingup a paper receipt keeping one copy and giving anotherto the buyer The buyer's name and address might or might not appear on thereceipt With creditcard technology while the buyer may or may not get a

i t th i ibilit f d t b i t d R dt t i l l d f f t l l d d d t h t t i d t th b ' i d t i td il l t d ith th t t i b th h A d i t t d l i th d f h t t i th l l could h k d

f th d dd f h t Th t could h k dl t t h h l d d i d t i f th b i tt f i d i i d l

customers or figure out patterns with regard to where their customers resided andhow often and when they purchased what items However the amount of laborinvolved was a disincentive to this (so much so that the idea probably never occurredt t t ) T d d t i i t l k thi t i i t ibl d

t h t it i t t i l i d i t d h Th i t i t h t t h lh t i i t i d t i t t h t i t f th t i t

f i l i t t d d t i dTh d i t i t i I ki h i i i l t th d i t i t i t h t ti t h i t

make between acttypes and acttokens An acttype is a kind of action for examplereading a book walking and an acttoken is a particular instance of the acttypeAn acttoken is an instance of the acttype performed by a particular person at a

t i l ti d l f l S i t h d A Tale of Two Cities hil ittii th d h i i hi h t d M i t i t h t h t h l i i l d i th f f t t t f t t k b ibl It i

ibl f l t " l h " hil itti i f t f t l d i t t I t d f ll i t h d i i l i

k k b d l i k " " O ' tit i tht b h b i S h h b i f

acttype with technology a new set of tokens (of an acttype) becomes possible andthese acttokens have properties that are distinct from other tokens of the same acttype Later I will argue that our understanding of an acttype may change as a t h l b d l

Th f i t t th i d t d i th ti b t t h l d thi i t k l d th ti b t t h l d h ti

T h l t ibiliti f i d i i d l d l l t i h ti d it h th ti f t t k Th h i ti f i l it t d/ t i i t f t i t d lt h beings make different choices

To avoid misunderstanding it should be noted that this relationship betweentechnology and human action is seamless Technology provides the instrumentation f h ti It i t h t t h t t h l " i t " h

ti h b i i it h ( i i th th d i t i ) t t h th b i " t k " t h l T h l id th

t f h ti h lik b d i d H b i t b i t h ib d i i t i d t h l ll t d d d i f f t thif th t h t d ith b d i l It i i l l i t i t t h i k h

610

COMPUTER ETHICS

b t th d i b l d Th b d i f th ll " d i b l d " i t t dthat differ from those who we call "ablebodied" The disabled often use technologyto get their bodies to do what the ablebodied can do without it for example tomove around produce audible sounds make marks on paper

T h l h th i t t t i f h ti t t f th dib l d b t f th b l b d i d ll I d d t t h l t t

h ti i t h t t i l t i t f l tiC i d h d l iibl f t k b d Wh th k b d i

t d t t d th t i t d t th I t t d h th i l f t t d l h t i th i lfinger movements can wreak havoc in the lives of thousands (even millions) ofpeople The technology has instrumented an action not possible without it To besure individuals could wreak havoc on the lives of others before computer technol

b t t i thi d h t it ilR i i th i t i t ti b t t h l d h ti

i i t t f t i th d f l t i f h ibilit i t h li t t d t i i t i i l l h thi H th h k

t id ibilit f l h i i d t h t h i l d his fingers while sitting in his home study Technology does nothing independent ofhuman initiative though of course sometimes human beings cannot foresee whatit is they are doing with technology This intimate connection between technology

d h ti i l i t t f d t d i th i i t thi b t t h t ill b l l t

S th fit t i d t d i th ti b t t h l d thii t d t d th i t i t ti b t t h l d h tiTh t t t t f h ti t thi Thi t t

b i t b th f ti i thi i b t h ti N t h lth ti i th ki b t i thi d th f t t h t t h linstruments human action have any moral significance? Does the instrumentationof human action affect the character of ethical issues or the nature of ethicaldecisionmaking?

G l l l h i l h h not liitl f d th i t t t if h ti Th t h d b l b d i d h d h i l

ld ith f i d t F th t t l h i l h h t t h h tf t h l i ll i i f t (Th f ti t thi

b t h h i t i l l d tl F l H J [1984] i d thti b t t h l d h ti d t f t t h t

the powers of technology change human action to such an extent that a change inethics is called for) Yet airplanes guns bombs computers and a wide variety ofmedical devices to mention some of the most powerful inventions have all changed

h t h b i d ith t f t h i b d i d i t i l h h d h t h b i d t d ith th I t l i i

t h t th l f t l f h i h h d l t h t t h l h h d th iti f h b i t t

Th i t t t i f h ti h l i i f i f l F i t th ibiliti f h ti t d b t h l t h i l

611

DEBORAH G JOHNSON

ti t h t h h f d b f S h l d d l l weapons and risk a nuclear war? Should I give my organs for transplantation? Is itwrong to make a copy of software? Is there anything wrong with placing a cookieon a computer when the computer is used to visit a web site? (A cookie is a

h i t h t ll b it t k t k f h i i th itTh h i b d i t h t th k l d t f th i i t )S h l d ll i t l l i t h i h t b b i l t? ( I t l l i t h i h h i h

t h t d h t b i l t d l h f t th t bil d thi i f t i b t d t th f th t b i l )

S d h t h l h th ti f t i t k th l character of the actiontype may change Thus computerized environments callupon us to rethink and reevaluate our moral understanding of various activitiesand actiontypes Yes generally it is morally acceptable for employers to keep trackf th k f l b t i it ll t b l f l t ft t h t ll th l t d d l k t k

l k d t i l ' il b b i ? Wh I k td i t l fili b i t I h d t d t i thi t t t th f i d t i

lit f th d Wh I i t h t t i d t I h t consider what is required to ensure the same level of confidentiality While telephone surveys might have been morally neutral before they may not be now givenhow easy it is to correlate the information obtained with other information abouti d i i d l

F i l l th f i l i t t i d t i i f t f t h l i t t dt i i t i d t i t t h t i d i i d l d i t i k diff

t h i f th th d b f Th f f t f th h d t b l t d ll F l th I t t f i l i t t l b l i t i f th ld

Thi h th l l t i lli d b l i t i t h t i d i i d lt h l h i I th h f th d d it d i i i h h

wellbeing? Can democratic institutions exist on the scale made possible by theInternet especially when they are less dependent on geographical space?

So technology and ethics are connected in so far as technology instrumentsh ti d th i t t t i t t h i l ti t h t h d

t i b f T h l l h th ti f t i i t i d tit i t h t i l i d t i f th t i i t i d

t i t With thi d t d i f th ti b t t h ld thi dd th ti t h t h b t t i

t t h i i t th t h i l i di t t h l i ?

The GenusSpecies Account

Th t t h t I h j t i f th ti b t t h l d thiffi t h t t t h l t h i l ti b t it i t lith d t th i f t t h i l i New d unique

d i f f t G l l th h d th i f t t h i l i d t d th at a certain level f l i f t t h i l i

612

COMPUTER ETHICS

Th h d i k th b d i l l l b tputer ethical issues and other ethical issues i e ethical issues prior to or independent of computers Issues of privacy property accountability and access have beenaround they argue for centuries Familiar concepts and principles seem to be at the

f t t h i l i M t t h l i t th i tt h l t h l l t h i l ti T h i k f h i t i l b t i

i d b th b l i t i f h t h i i t i hiddd tl ti t t i S th f t t h t t t h l

t i i t l t h h f t t hl i i i i S t h i i i l b id b t

intellectual property issues Think of all the technologies that historically havechallenged Western notions of property for example electromagnetism audio andvideo recording Consider also the complex issues of accountability that have arisen

d h d b i t h l i f l i t l llti d th f f t f t l i i hild S th t i t th i

f t t h i l i h i t h t f i l i l t d t i t d t d th d t h t th t h l i h h l l d

l ti i th t h t t t h l d (Thi thposition I took in my early work on computer ethics see Johnson 1985)

On the other hand those who believe that computer ethical issues are uniquehave pointed to distinctive features of computer technology Computer technologyh b h t b t th ti f entities t h t i t d b f ft i hi th I t t ki i t l lit id C t t h i l i

i if f th th t h t th d l ith titi t h t h b d l t ith b f

M f th titi d ibl b f th l f i f t ii if j t th l i f titi th i t

b d i t f l Th l f i t i d t l l t i l ltions and statistical analysis made possible by computer technology is unprecedented The increased scale of informationprocessing and statistical analysis has alsomade possible new kinds of knowledge. We have been able to acquire information

b t th l t d th l b l t h t ld h b ibli t h t t t h l S i i l l t t i t d i f t i t

ibl b f Y t th t f th i f t t h lh h i d th t h l ' l l b i l i t it i h t libilit d t

d i ( J h 2001)Th t h id f thi i t i h th O th

hand those who argue against the uniqueness of computer ethical issues focus onwhat makes an issue an ethiccd issue; they focus on understanding and classifyingissues in moral terms On the other hand those who argue for uniqueness seem tof f t f t technobgy. Th i t t thi i l b t

t t h l d th t h t i th t h l i i tht h i l i t b i N t i t h t h t id l i d t tl

t d i t h t th th id l iI h d l h ( J h 1994 2001) t h t th t b k l

f t t h i l i b t h id f thi i d I h d d t d i

613

DEBORAH G JOHNSON

f t t h i l i t h t t h i th t id I t h t t ethical issues should be understood as new species of familiar (generic) ethicalissues While this account captures something claimed on each side of the issue t gives priority to the ethical character of computer ethical issues

I d l d thi t b t i i h t h h t h i i t t dith i t t i i l i t t h l I d t d t i h t h th

i t h i l i d h t it i t t t i d t t th t i t t iith f i l i i t t i d ith f l i l t i i l Thi ft

i l i b l F l h f t d ith f t h k b k i i t t t k h t h th b h i i th

ical Here we may make an analogy with breaking into someone's home and sincebreaking into someone's home is unethical it seems that breaking into a computersystem is also unethical Of course this is just a starting place We may still want tok h t h th l i i t d h tl b k i i t t

t i t h i l W ti b l i t th l f t h d l i f ith b h i i f i l i l t Lik b k i i t h b k i t

t t i l i l t i f t d i S d t d b k ii t t t t h i l tt b ti th b h i t f i l imoral concepts and principles This helps us understand the ethical nature of the act

Similarly in trying to understand whether the use of cookies to identify who hasvisited a web site is morally problematic we may reason by analogy in order toi d t i f th l t l t d i i l Th f ki i h tlik th f hidd ill i b i ld i k Y b i d d b t th / k i i i i b l d t k b h i i b i b d d d d Wh b it t l l t h t th

ki t h i i l t ill i t h if l kd th Of d h i l i d t i t

i t h t ki d t The process here involves using what we know about a familiar situation to

understand another less familiar situation and we do this by connecting the newsituation to a familiar moral concept or principle It seems that human beings

ld t b bl t i i t t i h i t h i l i l i t i l th i t t i t d i th t h t l d d t d t b t h i l tt I i t f t d d l i Thl k h t i i l t h b i Th lk d t l k lik b ti hil th b h i t th t t h i f t h i

h th k H ld t h i k b t thi b h i ? Ofresponse would be culturally shaped but the point is that we would not considerthe behavior unethical unless it had characteristics that connected to one of ourmoral notions Nose touching while speaking would probably not connectb t t h t th li b h d i t h t l t d i h t h b i

th b h d i t h t fit d f i i t i f l i th ldt h i k f th b h i t h i l S h j d t ld i ll th i f t h i l l t i i b t th i t f i t h H th t t

i t i t h t b h i d i t b i d h i l i i f il th t t l ti t h t l d h

614

COMPUTER ETHICS

The outer space case may seem far-fetched but it is related to computer ethics n the sense that computer technology gives human beings the capacity to do thingsthey could not do before What we can do today with computer technology is notfar from what human beings living a few centuries ago might have magined ofcreatures from other planets We have x-ray vision; that is we can see detailedimages of internal organs We can sit in our offices with the door closed and watchevery movement of our employees in other rooms We can play games (in real time)with people thousands of miles away Still whether the behavior of aliens or thebehavior of human beings behavior will not be recognized as ethical/unethicalunless it is connected to familiar moral concepts and principles - do no harm tellthe truth respect property and privacy

My claim is then that we cannot recognize an ethical issue as such unless we cansee something in the situation that connects to a familiar moral notion This is a meta-ethical claim The genus-species account makes a claim about how weidentify classify and understand An implication of this claim is that technologycannot suddenly thrust us into wholly unique moral territory though later I willdiscuss how moral concepts and categories may significantly change (over time) dueto technology - recognizing new species over time changes our understanding ofthe genus

Avoiding the Mistake of Unique Technology

I have already suggested the mistake made by those who emphasize the uniquenessof the technology and then presume that since the technology is unique the ethicalissues around it must be unique The uniqueness of the technology is not in disputeWhile computer technology has features in common with other technologies andwhile it may be thought of as an extension of earlier calculating machines nothingwith the capabilities of modern computers has ever existed before Moreover it s not in dispute that computer technology creates environments (for human action)with properties that never existed before Never before have human beings had theability to pay for purchases via credit card to launch computer viruses to experi-ence virtual reality and so on However the question of uniqueness of computerethical issues has to do with whether the ethical issues are unique not the technol-ogy To answer the question about the uniqueness of the ethical issues we have tolook at the nature of the ethical issues - not the technology

Maner (1996) seems to make this mistake of emphasizing the uniqueness of thetechnology While he provides a set of examples and while I believe all theexamples are flawed in the same way I will address only one example Manerargues that because of the nature of computer technology we have an obligationto provide computers for the disabled He claims that this is a unique ethical argu-ment because never before has there been a machine with such general applicabil-ity Hence never before could there have been an argument of this kind for makingcomputers available to the disabled According to Maner we have a unique obliga-tion to provide computers for the disabled He writes

615

DEBORAH G JOHNSON

COMPUTER ETHICS

d l i ith f i l i i f t h t d th " l " th t d principles to the new species the computer ethical issue At first glance this mayseem to fit what lawyers and judges have done in the case of computer softwareWhen first confronted with ownership issues around computer software they classifid ft t t i l f f i t l l t l t d th t i d t

t d i t i t i d i i l f i h t d t t l Th bl ith thi i t f h t t h i l i h l d b

d d d i i th ti f " l i t i " A l i t i t d t i dl t h i l ti W t k d t d i i l d l it t

( f i d d d t d ) Thi i t h h t h ithcomputer ethical issues The process of connecting moral concepts and principles tosituations involving computer technology is synthetic and indeterminate Often hemoral concepts and principles are ambiguous in their application to a new technol

d ft th t h l i till "i th k i " ( C k b d O d 1993)M (1985) d th f l id t f th i t t i l h h d

t h t h f th k f t thi i l l i th t lddl C t l ddl t i l l i t i f f i l i t d

i i l I d d th i t f l d j d l i d i t i t iand principles from copyright and patent law to software is somewhat misleadingThe picture hides the fact that the process is one of defining the technology In thevery early days of computing it was not clear what software was let alone whetherit th i Y th thi l l d t h t ld b

d i l ll h d b t it t l f l ll ti h t th J d d l ki

• I th i f i d ?• I f h i th i t l t t f t ?• Is a program a series of "mental steps" capable in principle of being thought

through by a human?

Th i t f i h t d t t l t t t fit th k t th k Th ik i f thi " l i " i i l t i i l d ib th did t k h t "th "

F i l i t d i i l f l i h i t t i b t th t " l i d " F i l i t d i i l d t t d t d i f th i t t i / R b t h t th d t i d i h t t th ti f h t h t i f id t lsteps or design specifications for machines Lawyers judges and policymakerswere deciding what computer programs were to become The decisions about howto connect computer programs to copyright and patent law in a sense made com

t ft h t it i I d d h t it i h t it i d t d t b i tillb i t i t d i th t t d Th i t l d i b d

t i t i fit b t th t h l d l l d l i i l ( t h t i) th l i t i

S hil th i t f t t h i l i l d i t l f t i i t t h i l i i f l i d thi th t h l d t

617

DEBORAH G JOHNSON

b i t t d i thi Th f d i f i l i l t d principles to understand and address computer ethical issues is synthetic

One final caution must be made regarding the genusspecies account of computerethical issues The account emphasizes the process by which ethical issues arei d t i f d d l i f i d d i d t i f t i d l i f i t i t i i

O ti i d d d th i f h O d t d i f l t d i i l ti h th t d t d i t t i P i i d l h h t i t b i h h d d ti t h i t t h l i

d h t th k ibl Thi b f l i th ti f " i fmation privacy" a relatively new form of privacy tied to computer technologySomething similar could be said about property The notion of property haschanged over time with the invention of a variety of things A current exampleh i d i i t l i d i d h it i f i j d l d t h i i t t t h i k

f t i Thi t h t hil th i t d i t h t t t h i l

i f d t l l i it ll f f d t l h i thiti f d t l h i t d i i l Th t l i h such changes come about slowly and gradually Human beings cannot recognizesituations as ethical unless they connect in some way to familiar moral conceptsand principles

C l i

A th t h i l i di t t h l i ? C t t h i li i f i l bl E t h i l i l b thuman beings and human action Computer technology like other technologieschanges the instrumentation of human action and in so doing makes it possible forhuman beings to do what they could not do before as well as to do in new ways

h t th did b f Th h t h t h b i f t h i l tith f d b f b t th ti d t t k i t ttl i

l t i t W d t d th i t t i b d i f i l i l t d i i l W k th t h l d th t h i l i i t thi

d t d

A k l d t

This chapter was developed from chapter 1 "What is Computer Ethics?" of myComputer Ethics, 3rd edn (Upper Saddle River NJ: PrenticeHall 2001)

References

C k b C d O d S (1993) Gender and Technology in the Making. L d S J h D G (1985) Computer Ethics. U Sddl Ri NJ P t i H l l

618

COMPUTER ETHICS

(1994) Computer Ethics, 2nd edn Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice-Hall(2001) Computer Ethics, 3rd edn Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice-Hall

Jonas H (1984) The Imperative of Responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago PressManer W (1996) Unique ethical problems in information technology Science and Engineering

Ethics 2 (2): 137-54Moor J (1985) What is computer ethics? Metaphilosophy, 16 (4): 266-75

Further reading

Baird R M Ramsower R and Rosenbaum S E (eds) (2000) Cyberethics. Amherst NY:Prometheus

Hester D M and Ford P J (eds) (2001) Computers and Ethics in the Cyberage. Upper SaddleRiver NJ: Prentice-Hall

Johnson D G and Nissenbaum H (eds) (1995) Computers, Ethics, and Social Values. Engle-wood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall

Tavani H (1996) Bibliography: a computer ethics bibliography Computers and Society.

619