Confucian Ethics

“If you try to guide the common people with coercive regulations and keep them in line with punishments, the common people will become evasive and will have no sense of shame. If, however, you guide them with Virtue, and keep them in line by means of ritual, the people will have a sense of shame and will rectify themselves.”

― Confucius, The Analects

Confucian Ethics

Purpose

Confucian Ethics emphasize a focus on the relationships between human beings. It is an ethics of virtue that believes in the importance defining virtues and principles in relation to one another. Through Confucian Ethics, it is believed that one achieves the fullest personhood by marking their relationships with mutual care and respect. In summary, Confucianism is based entirely on kindness, mutual respect, and an appreciation for character virtues. It is founded on the belief that a society can only find success when people learn to interact positively with one another. Based on this short summary, an action would be considered ethical through the lens of Confucian Ethics if it focused on positively impacting the relationship between individuals involved with both parties acting with kindness and a mutual respect for one another. For example, if an employee were to make a mistake while working on a project the response for their boss would not be one of anger resulting in punishment. In order to align with Confucian Ethics, the boss would help their employee understand the problem and how to fix it without the need for punishment, as this would have a negative impact on their established relationship.

Are ethics necessary?

The social philosophy of Confucianism is based in acting with ren, or compassion in relation to others. This in and of itself shows the predisposition to act ethically, specifically in relation to other human beings, as the very basis of their belief system. This is further represented by the Golden Rule of Confucianism: “What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others”. Confucius argues that humans are responsible for their own actions and especially for their treatment of others. In addition to this, one of the core concepts of Confucianism is that of the relationship between junzi and dao. Junzi represents someone who is of “ethical nobility” or the ideal virtuous and ethical person. A way in which a person can attain this ethical nobility is to follow the dao, or the way human beings should live their lives.
In conclusion, those who follow Confucianism are predisposed to act ethically for two main reasons: they understand the importance of relationships with others and social order so Confucianists will act ethically in relation to other humans in order to keep this social order in balance. Additionally, the core concept of the relationship between junzi and dao give Confucianists a more direct way of leading an ethical life in order to become a person of ethical nobility. “The junzi is the ethical exemplar with the virtues making it possible to follow the dao.” (from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-chinese/#VirEthDaoJunRen)

Human Computer Interaction & AI

A large focus of Confucian ethics is on human relationships and using virtue as a guide in these. In response to this, this ethical framework would likely focus largely on the various aspects of computer technology that affect how humans interact and form relationships, both in good and bad ways. This can appear in various ways, from the ease of global communication, to the ability to act anonymously, and further to the idea how virtue can connect with artificial intelligence. One impact that would likely be a polarizing topic is simply how humans are able to communicate with one another. Computer technology has allowed people to stay in touch with friends and family all over the globe. We are able to see and share in happy and sad moments from across the country, which allows relationships to foster mutual care and respect, even when not in close proximity. On the other hand, computer technology has changed how humans interact and form relationships in regular life. It can act as a distraction and prevent a caring relationship from being formed, and while it may not directly cause one to act without virtue, it may inhibit them from living out their life to the degree they should, as the concept of dao states. In a more direct opposition, the anonymity of the internet has led to people acting with no compassion for others, and created a platform for expression that directly opposes Confucian beliefs. On a different note, another concept that Confucian ethics would likely consider would be the advancement of artificial intelligence, and how virtue and relationships are changed or implemented when a non-human thing is present. While it is likely that the approach would remain largely unchanged, questions would be raised over whether artificial intelligence can participate in mutual care and compassion with a human.

Confucian Ethics & IEEE

Similarities

Both the IEEE code of ethics and the Confucian Ethics appear to be a collection of values which are held to be aspirational rather than consequences of a single unifying principle. Furthermore, both the IEEE code of ethics and the Confucian Ethics are very concerned with an individual’s relationships with those around them; the IEEE code of ethics has parts about how to act in relation to colleagues, customers, and the public at large that are all slightly different. Lastly, both the IEEE code of ethics and the Confucian Ethics are flexible with regard to people all being slightly different and having different needs and abilities. The IEEE code of ethics point 6 specifically acknowledges that one should act essentially to the best of their ability and the Confucian Ethics has different suggestions for different people such as whether or not to confront your elders when they are apparently wrong.

Differences

First, the IEEE code of ethics and the Confucian Ethics differ in how they inform one’s actions. Whereas, the Confucian Ethics consists of values that are aspirational and leaves it to the individual to decide how to act such that they have those values, the IEEE code of ethics explicitly describes what one should do. For example, the IEEE code of ethics explicitly says to reject bribery whereas the Confucian Ethics would suggest that to be honest is aspirational and leave it to the individual that, that includes rejecting bribery. Additionally, the IEEE code of ethics and the Confucian Ethics differ slightly in how the recommendations that they make about interacting with different people. The IEEE code of ethics states that one should not discriminate based on a host of attributes (point 8), which is to say that one should not change how one behaves with other people based on those attributes. It does not appear that the Confucian Ethics would agree with this approach since a core part of it is that one should have different values based on the person that they are interacting with. That is not to say that Confucian Ethics would necessarily result in one treating others worse based on those attributes but perhaps differently which the IEEE code of ethics condemns.

Lessons

The Confucian Ethics would add to the IEEE code of ethics by introducing at the least a reason for behaving in the way that it describes. That is the IEEE code of ethics provides no underlying reason for behaving in the way that it describes (perhaps because it is believed to be self evident) and that is something that the aspiriational values in the Confucian Ethics could provide.

Confucian Ethics & ACM

Similarities

Both the ACM code of ethics and Confucian Ethics share a central theme of setting guidelines towards being virtuous person, both in personal life and daily work. The first code of ACM members is that they will “contribute to society and human well-being” and in Confucian Ethics the ideal of junzi embodies ethical nobility. With junzi comes respect for social forms of conduct and the ability to discern what is right in any situation. This same belief is consistent through the ACM code of ethics through codes such as, “be honest and trustworthy”, “honor confidentiality”, and “respect existing laws pertaining to professional work”.

Differences

The ACM is much more structured than Confucian Ethics. In Confucian Ethics correct behavior is defined through virtue. The virtue itself comes from Confucius’s teachings on the ideals of junzi, dao, ren, and li, saying that when one strives to embody these virtues they reach a full state of ren, or “personal ethicalness”. The ACM structures itself in two ways, one by separating teachings between “code” and “guidelines” and two by separating the code of ethics into four sections with importance placed on specific members depending on the section. The “code” are statements intended to be followed by all members and embody the general beliefs of the ACM, as it’s not designed to frequently change. In ACM, these codes are present as much more direct statements of what to follow than the ideals of virtue presented in Confucian Ethics. The ACM also sets a framework for termination of membership when its principles are not upheld.

Lessons

Confucian Ethics could greatly add to the guidelines in the ACM code of ethics by introducing the notion of virtue as a reason for acting in an ethical way. For example, code 2.5 states to get full analysis, including risk, of your system to the public. The guideline goes on to give reasons such as “you’re in a position of public trust”. If there were emphasized through concepts like Dao then each code would have one overarching theme of virtue as guidance as well.

Confucian Ethics & ICCP

Similarities

A major aspect of Confucian Ethics is the idea of having a life full relationships built on mutual care and respect. There are a few subsections in the ICCP Code of Ethics that directly relate to this. For example, the ICCP code stresses both accepting and providing reviews of your work and others work (2.4) and the creation of opportunities for people around you to learn and grow as professionals (3.5). Both of these tenets of ICCP would promote learning opportunities that allow the workers to better themselves and their skills, which is the same method that Confucian Ethics would take to address problems and build relationships. In addition, the ICCP ethics mention the importance of being honest and trustworthy (1.3) and being fair and not discriminating (1.4). Both of these are virtuous actions that would strengthen your relationships due to the respect it would show.

Differences

The ICCP code of ethics seem to put a strong emphasis on performing public good. In fact, the very first tenet it mentions (1.1) is “Contribute to society and human well-being.” It also mentions “foster public awareness” (2.7), and “ensure that public good is the central concern” (3.1). While Confucian Ethics do have a major emphasis on acting virtuous, it doesn’t explicitly specify that it has to be for the public as opposed to how you carry yourself and your interactions with others.

Lessons

ICCP’s code makes references to the workplace, such as providing and receiving reviews and being a team member, but it doesn’t really talk about maintaining social order. Confucian ethics make mention of respecting the position of those around you and maintaining social order, so by adding a tenet into the ICCP code, then one could specify the importance of working in a team and respecting those around you, which fits in with the respect and trustworthiness already mentioned in 1.3.

###H-1B Visa System

In Favor Of

One of the most common arguments in favor of the H-1B system is that it brings the needed skill sets to America. It’s the idea that, if someone overseas is qualified and could really contribute to a project or team, then America should gladly bring them over to help better the product, team composition, etc. It’s written that “the program brings needed skills into the labor market, which helps firms remain innovative, productive, and competitive” (HBR). There’s also the fact that the technical fields are booming - “The number of young Americans graduating with qualifications in IT subjects is rising, but nowhere near fast enough to satisfy the burgeoning demand for their skills” (HBR). This implies that due to the shortage in the field, it’s in our best interest to seek out the talent we need, and if that comes from outside the USA, then to sponsor them so that we can get these talented individuals working on our products. Furthermore, bringing in people from foreign countries expands the viewpoints present on the team and in the workforce. They can bring all sorts of unique perspectives to problems and the workplace as they come from all sorts of ethic, cultural, socioeconomic, etc backgrounds compared to the current more white and male dominated tech workforce.

In Opposition Of

IEEE-USA posted an article explaining that the main reason they’re opposed to the H-1B visa system isn’t because they don’t want to bring talented people in, but because there are many companies (specifically outsourcing ones) that abuse the system to bring in talented workers and then not compensate them properly. They write, “It is a tool used by companies to avoid hiring American workers, and avoid paying American wages” (IEEE). They argue that the green card program is the one that’s fairer and should be expanded. It’s also a hard process for companies to obtain these visas (hard enough that “members of the tech industry have lobbied Congress to raise the cap on H-1B visas to help meet demand,” including Bill Gates in 2008 (HBR)). Meanwhile, about a third of the 85,000 visas went to 13 outsourcing companies. There have also been numerous studies done that show that the H-1B program has negative effects on American workers in general, including but not limited to displacement and lower earnings. It’s argued that this system brings cheaper foreign labor into America, and in doing so, “hurts American workers’ employment and income prospects” (HBR). Building off of those, Trump and his administration have placed further scrutiny on the program, signing an executive order titled “Buy American and Hire American” which, as you can guess, places an emphasis on prioritizing American products and workers. Source for all quotes except the first one: https://hbr.org/2017/05/the-h-1b-visa-debate-explained

In response to the controversy

Confucian Ethics frames itself around the three concepts: junzi, dao, and ren. Junzi refers to striving for ethical nobility through traits of virtue. Dao refers to the life path people should follow when they embody junzi. Ren then is the fulfilment of these concepts and describes that ethical excellence comes from living according to your personal dao by following junzi. An important caveat is that ren comes from the individual, rather than others, and that although dao is the guidelines for how humans should live, it also acknowledges that individuals have unique life paths. Junzi promotes harmony so it would largely be in favor of the service that H-1B provides. Confucian Ethics would empower employers to hire from outside their culture in order to encourage diverse ideas, promoting the growth of the company, and empower foreign workers to accept the best opportunity they can obtain in order to do what is best for their own life path. Confucian Ethics focus largely on improving the individual so any initiative that provides economic opportunity to individuals who wouldn’t have it otherwise would be seen as virtuous. However Confucian Ethics would also discourage the actions of outsourcing companies for how their choice to underpay their workers doesn’t follow junzi. Employers should treat their employees with the same respect as family because of how connected each worker’s dao is connected to one another, solely based on the amount of time humans spend working if nothing else. When H-1B works it empowers individuals to act in a way that betters their life. Companies gain diverse and developed skill sets, promoting the growth and well being of the company allowing it to have the means to provide the best service it can. Workers are given the means to provide for their families and drastically change their life situation. Even in the case of outsourcing companies who abuse this system, Confucian Ethics would still support the actions of the workers who accept these jobs because they do so to follow their own dao. The problem arises when these outsourcing companies place their workers in a position where they don’t have the means to meet a standard of living. While Confucianism embodies concern for oneself, it also claims this should be centered around a concern for everyone. When these outsourcing companies try to acquire as much cheap labor as possible in order to gain their own economic advantage they aren’t following junzi. Worse than hurting their own workers, they also steal opportunity from other workers applying for the H-1B visa that would otherwise be able to follow their dao. For this reason Confucian Ethics would support the IEEE’s stance to improve the green card process because it promotes the growth of junzi and dao that the H-1B visa provides by extending it to a wider group of people. Confucian Ethics doesn’t discriminate who can reach ren and better a society based on skill so providing opportunity to even the less-educated public would be an action of junzi.

###Google Internal Memo

Summary

The Google internal memo discusses the author’s reasoning for why there exists a gender bias/gap at Google and in the tech industry as a whole. It is known that a male employee wrote the memo and he states that women are not underrepresented in tech because of an underlying bias and discrimination against them but because of inherent psychological differences between men and women. Essentially, he is arguing that there is no discrimination against women in tech, they just do not have the biological makings to succeed in the industry. He follows this argument up by stating “we need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism”, echoing his belief that the industry is not discriminatory. He also discusses the idea of moral bias as a category of bias that is not acknowledged at Google, but that deeply impacts the work atmosphere. He splits the biases into left and right political biases that impact the culture at Google. He acknowledges that neither side is 100% correct in their beliefs but that the left bias creates a politically correct culture in which dissenters are shamed into silence. This left bias is the reason, he argues, that many Google employees do not speak up about the gender gap not being caused by sexism. He states that other fellow employees share his same viewpoint but do not have the courage to share their thoughts thus creating an ideological echo chamber, which is the title of the memo.

Validity

One of the main aspects in the memo which Confucianism would find valid is where the author states that some of the diversity programs and classes that are meant to be more inclusive actually increase discrimination because they are only meant for some genders and races. In this way, Confucianism would say that the people implementing these programs should only do so if they would want them to be that way for everyone, in all circumstances. People should only take a certain action if that action is what they would want for the general population, not just a subset. In a similar manner, the author discusses how those who lean right often feel like they cannot share their opinions openly because they will face hostility from the left as a result. In the manner of Confucianism, in cases where this would be true, those on the left should only be hostile toward those on the right for sharing their opinions if they would also be okay with those on the right being hostile back at them. Otherwise, those at any point on the political spectrum should be receptive to other ideas and willing to discuss them if that is also what they would want for themselves.

Invalidity

One main area where the memo would not be in line with Confucianism is where the author talks about men getting ahead in leadership roles more often than women because they are more dedicated to achieving status than women. This is a very individualistic approach to the topic, and regardless of its truth or lack thereof, Confucianism strongly emphasizes the family over the individual, and while this often refers to one’s actual blood-related family, it can also be interpreted to mean a company atmosphere and those who one works with in an industry. Following Confucianism, the focus would not be so much on increasing individual success alone, but to help others achieve similar success while achieving it individually at the same time.

###Gender Bias in Tech

Summary of Gender Issues

As was discussed in the article “Why is Silicon Valley So Awful to Women?”, of all of the computing and mathematical jobs in the US, only about a quarter of those positions are held by women. They cited a few different reasons for what has caused this. We will discuss a few below: Undermining: Women often cite experiences with men doubting their abilities, diminishing their accomplishments and experience in the field, or interrupting then during a meeting as examples of undermining they have experienced. This leads to a gradual chipping away of women’s confidence and willingness to put their voice out there or even lead to women leaving tech altogether. Hostility: Many women also discuss sexist experiences and the effect this has on their workplace environment and willingness to stay in tech. In a completely male-dominated field, these issues are more prevalent and women are told they should develop “thicker skin.” A hostile work environment is not productive for anyone involved. There are certainly more reasons for the disparity of men in tech versus women in tech (a lack of role models and superiors to look up to, for example) but this undermining and hostility are certainly two of the most cited examples for why women leave a career in tech or don’t even pursue a career in tech in the first place.

Response to Issues

As is described in the article, The Issue of Gender Equality in Confucian Culture1, Confucianism places a large focus on looking at people as their position in a relationship, rather than as an individual person. So a woman is seen as a mother or a wife, not as a unique person. In this role, she is expected to act how a mother should, and care for and educate the family. For this reason, Confucianism has been seen to prolong stereotypical gender roles, and actually acts in certain ways to support the issues mentioned above. In response to the idea of women being undermined in the tech industry, Confucianism likely promotes beliefs that are somewhat in line with this. Leadership roles tend to be seen as being for men, and thus women in these roles may not be taken seriously. With the idea of hostility towards women in tech, Confucian beliefs would most likely oppose these ideas. While they do believe that people should act in the role of their relationship, they also believe that one should act with virtue. So hostility towards women would likely not be supported, but may be unintentionally provoked through the expected gender roles. For the same reason, Confucian beliefs are likely in line with the reason why there are fewer role models for women in tech than men, as the expected Confucian roles for women in society are not in line with these positions.

###Ethnicity Bias in Tech

Summary

As discussed in the articles that we read and most notably in “Addressing Ethnic Diversity in Computer Science” the primary issue with regard to race in ethnicity in computer science is that minorities are very underrepresented and this is due to two phenomenons: Stereotype: Typically harmful stereotypes in computer science prevent minorities from participating in computer science in two ways. First, stereotypes about who computer scientists are (such as that computer science is the realm of only men and only white and asian men at that) discourages people who do not meet that criteria from participating in computer science. That is, if someone does not see themselves in the stereotypical computer scientist then they will be less likely to pursue computer science and less likely to stick at it if the stereotype is proved to be true. Second, negative stereotypes about certain minority groups often lead people that belong to that group to believe that they are somehow especially unqualified or less qualified than their peers when it comes to computer science. This also leads to fewer people from minority groups pursuing computer science because it introduces self-doubt about one’s capability to pursue computer science. This aspect of stereotypes are also especially harmful in the sense that they are widely believed why among various minority groups there is a high rate of people who stop studying computer science. Isolation: This is related to stereotype and oftentimes works in tandem to dissuade people from minority groups from pursuing computer science but is slightly different. Isolation refers to the phenomenon that people from minority groups even if they earn a degree in computer science and find a job working in the field are often one of if not the only minority. This of course has the effect of creating the perception of hostility or lack of inclusiveness in their workplace or university which leads to fewer people from minority groups pursuing computer science.

Response to Issues

It is not immediately clear what Confucian ethics would say about the situation of a lack of diversity in computer science as the ethics does not say anything explicitly about this. However, there are two big things from the ethics that can be applied to this situation. First, Confucian ethics has a heavy emphasis on the relationships that people have with people around them so a Confucian would probably hold that individuals should make an attempt to make people from minority groups feel welcome in their workplace or university. Second, Confucian ethics also holds that often different advice should be given to different people based on their situation and in this vein a Confucian would probably hold that someone like a manager or someone who hires people holds a greater responsibility and requires different virtues to address this situation. For example, they may be required to be more diplomatic because they are expected by the nature of their position to resolve any conflicts that occur between the people that report to them.

Corporate Responsibility in Technology

One major issue in tech corporate ethical responsibility right now is taking stances on social and political issues. In today’s society, users of services, be it Twitter, Facebook, other social media and tech, retail, etc, want companies to take stands on issues - but they don’t want them to be disingenuous or hollow stands (an example being the backlash Twitter got when it ran an ad promoting women empowerment despite having a notoriously toxic community with harassment issues that it hasn’t fully figured out how to tackle). The intentions are there, but the actions aren’t. Likewise, many people see the stances being taken as merely being branding opportunities, and the argument over the true intentions behind the corporation’s stances becomes debated and can bring all sorts of good or bad press. Another major issue in corporate ethical responsibility right now is the collection and tracking of users and their data. Facebook is notorious for their recent scandal on data collection, but they’re just a drop in the bucket when it comes to this issue. Every major website and app tracks your usage not just on that service, but also in general, putting cookies on your computer and phone that track your browsing history, app usage, location, search history, and more. I’m sure we’ve all noticed times where we google something one time on our computer, and the next day it shows up as an ad on our Instagram feed - one small example of this. To some extent, it makes our lives easier, but the extreme invasion of privacy, which many of the users may be unaware of, is not something that these companies communicate well enough. Further, many companies sell this data to third parties, where it is further analyzed and stored for extended periods. This data is used to create a “persona” for everyone - but then the question arises as to whether it’s ethical to collect and sell our personal data. A third major issue being faced in tech now is over-curation or lack of intervention. By the over-curation, I mean changing the way content is delivered in a way to meet their own agenda rather than necessarily focusing on what users want. For example, Facebook is currently prioritizing videos over pictures and posts, and many of these videos are sponsored. Users may not care about this as much as their friend’s posts, but they’re still forced to see them. Twitter and Instagram caught flak for changing the way the feeds are organized (no longer chronologically, now sorted by some hidden algorithm), and Youtube has also gotten a lot of bad press for a similar issue. The second point (lack of intervention) is the more pressing one right now, and involves companies not stepping up and making statements or addressing problems. Some examples of that include Russia interfering with the 2016 Presidential Election (Twitter, Facebook) and no action being taken, major harassment on big platforms (Twitter, Facebook), the increase of fake news, and other similar detrimental content. This is spreading, and though the companies are aware of it, they haven’t done much to stop it yet.

Facebook’s Nontransparent Data Policy

Description

Facebook’s data collection has long been only subject to their own privacy standards, due to lack of any jurisdiction regarding data in the United States. In 2010, the Federal Trade Commision became concerned with how Facebook managed user personal data, especially when they found that it was shared with third-parties. They were largely concerned that Facebook had no oversight in how any developer may use the data provided by Facebook. This led to a consent order where Facebook agreed to identify risks to personal privacy and fix any issues found. However it appears that the desire for monetizing personal data and company growth overshadowed company resources to act on potential risks. Facebook claimed publicly that they had large teams working on privacy issues, but insiders such as Sandy Parakilas describe a setting where he led a very small privacy team and was ignored by top executives. The main fear was that open access to personal data makes people targets for manipulation, ranging from what they buy to their political views. Nations such as Egypt and Ukraine have seem movements where data from Facebook was used to fuel revolution and political resistance, including through the means of fake news. Facebook was aware of this, but also didn’t chose acknowledge it to the public. When confronted by Ukrainian representatives they claimed that Facebook is an open platform. So users are able to post what they like. This allowed them to avoid claiming responsibility for the fact that along with targeting specific groups, paid promotions within Facebook were promoting the spread of fake news. Facebook didn’t face any significant social outcry in the United States until 2018, when the influence of the misuse of data was attributed to the most recent presidential election. The New York Times broke a story that Cambridge Analytica collected 87 million profiles that were used to target users with “pro-Trump” advertising. Another New York Times report claimed that Facebook maintained a partnership with Apple, Amazon, BlackBerry, Microsoft, and Samsung allowing the products they create to obtain data about the Facebook friends of their users, even if those friends have requested not to share their data with third parties. Facebook responded by saying that it was necessary to meet demand and they planned to discontinue their APIs providing certain information. (Source 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T48KFiHwexM, Source 2: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/facebook-data-privacy-scandal-a-cheat-sheet/)

Confucian Interpretation

These actions by Facebook were unethical largely because they had no official oversight other than themselves. A core belief of Confucianism is that a person should only take an action if he or she would be okay with anyone else taking that same action. In this situation, the same principle applies to Facebook as a company. If they had no reason to hide any of their private data collection actions and if they would be okay with other companies doing the same thing to them (i.e. taking their data and selling it to third-parties), then they should have sought oversight from an official source. Since they acted on this practice without seeking permission or input from Facebook users, and since they only may or may not have been okay with other companies performing these actions on them in return, their actions were unethical according to this major tenet of Confucianism.

On a similar note, another main belief of Confucianism is that every action affects someone else. Facebook employees must have known that this use of users’ personal data had the potential to affect them all in one way or another, but did they really think about how badly a small piece of negative information could affect someone if it was leaked as a direct result of their data collection and selling? As the summary of the issue above states, some of the information collected and sold was politically oriented, which, in today’s heated and divided political climate, can have serious consequences if that information falls into the wrong hands. This is another reason these actions taken by Facebook were unethical: they knew that they would affect their users, but they did not take the necessary steps to prevent that from happening.

Confucian Course of Action

The framework of Confucian ethics is tailored to specific situations, so I would first like to note that this conclusion on how the corporation may have acted ethically in the situation is specific to Facebook. In our framework presentation, we discussed the fact that Confucius would sometimes offer conflicting advice to different students facing the same problem. This was because he understood that each student was a unique individual and took that into account when offering them advice and guidance. This is the same principle that guides our opinions for improvement when it comes to different corporations.

Now that the issues with Facebook’s privacy policy have come to light and are widely known by the public, the only thing that the company can do is to ensure that this does not happen again. One of the core values found within Confucian ethics is a distaste for punishment, as that is not believed to truly correct the issue. The course of action here, from the viewpoint of Confucian ethics, would be for someone to sit down the the top executives of Facebook (preferably someone neutral who is not involved with the company) that can help them understand why their actions were unethical and how they can take steps to improve in the future. This could become a corporation wide learning experience where all employees are required to attend a seminar (similar to what the executives had to do) in order to become more informed on the matter.

Due to the fact that the above suggestion is something that could be done after the unethical action has already taken place, it would have been more beneficial for Facebook to have already had a privacy expert on staff that could have been informing executives and employees on the potential conflicts within their privacy policy. This way, employees within the corporation would have been aware of any issues and could have attempted to correct them. It has been stated that a person should only take action if they would be okay with anyone else taking that same action so if we are truly trying to align with Confucian ethics an employee would say something if they believed the action did not align with this belief. It has also been state that one individual’s actions impact everyone else so if we are looking through this lens it would be in an employees best interest to report any unethical actions they may be aware of. The biggest theme here is ensuring that everyone within the corporation, from the executives to the newest of employees, are informed of what is happening so they have the ability to respond in an ethical manner.

Solving Unethical Corporate Behavior

Ban Tracking and Recording of Data

Because of the huge insecurity and uncertainty that people are feeling today due to the tracking, recording, and use of their data by big companies, the simple solution would be to ban this action completely. This is definitely something that these companies would not support, as they are able to use this data to direct advertisements and suggest content the user may be interested in. The companies would take a big hit, but if they value the security of their users it would potentially be a step in the right direction. If there was a way to record and use data that did not encroach on the users’ privacy, this would be an even better option, but there is likely too much overlap in these areas for that to be possible.

Prevent Display of Content or Services for Company’s Agenda

As talked about in class, India has regulated how Amazon is allowed to post their products, to prevent them from pushing their sales to the front instead of other items. This is one way that shows an attempt to prevent a company from simply pushing their own agenda, but rather supports what the user may prefer most. In some situations this may seem hard to regulate, on social media there seems to be no obligation to present content in a certain order. Regulation of this could help with ensuring that people are not being forced to see and interact with content they are not interested in.

Comparing Both Approaches

While both of these proposals would work in an ideal situation, there are some questions that prevent them from necessarily being possible. One is if there even is a legal or moral obligation to present content or products in a way that is most favorable for the user or not, and how this is determined. Companies like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter may think that a lot of what their algorithms are doing is to be most beneficial to the user, and not simply as a means of advertising or supporting sponsors. In this way there can be a grey area as to who is benefitting from what. In the same way, the collection of data and promotion of certain products, sites, or services in response to this data may be seen as in the best interest of the user by the company. Both of these proposed solutions may be possible, if slightly modified. Rather than a complete banning of collecting data and pushing certain content, the solution may be stronger regulation of these actions, and a more transparent disclosure of what these companies are doing. Each of these proposed methods puts the user as the main focus in decision making. They intend to support that in tech, users are granted the right to their own privacy and the ability to view what they want, even while using the product of a company.

Conclusion

Confucian Ethics has a hard time answering questions about things that do not involve interpersonal relationships as that is its main concern. That said, the best way to understand which of these two options is more favorable is probably to envision the company as a person and consider what advice Confucian Ethics would have for that situation. When one does that the question becomes is it more favorable to prevent another person from collecting information about you which would allow them to manipulate or change their behavior towards you or is it more favorable to prevent another person from using any information about you to exploit you. Confucian Ethics would probably advise the former: it is more favorable to prevent another person from collecting information about you which would allow them to change their behavior towards you to manipulate you. To Confucian Ethics this is favorable for two reasons. One, it is something that you have control over; you simply can not share information that you don’t want others to know. Two, it preserves the relationship that you have with the second person/company which is valuable in Confucian Ethics.

Confucian Ethics as a Force for Good

####Overview Corporate Social Responsibility is defined in the paper cited below as the “commitment of business to contribute to the sustainable economic development, working with employees, their families, the local community and society at large to improve their quality of life” (1). A core tenet of Confucianism is to live your life in the way of the dao and to act with virtuous ethics, that is, to live your life the way we ought to in order to act ethically and to affect the most people in as positive a way as possible. In one of the articles we read, there was a discussion of four ways to practice Corporate Social Responsibility: environmental effects, philanthropy, ethical labor practices, and volunteering. Because the importance of relationships and acting virtuously in Confucianism is so important, it is easy to see how a company run by a group of Confucianists would find corporate social responsibility so important to enforce. As is stated in the paper discussing Confucian Ethics and corporate social responsibility, Confucianists would believe that “taking the right actions are more critical than just holding the belief” (1). For example, you may believe use or production of a product known to harm the environment is wrong and unethical, however, if you don’t take action to then not use or produce said product, you are in direct violation with Confucianism. One way Confucianists would enforce this is to hire leaders who are benevolent, compassionate, and willing to make business decisions for the betterment of the overall community, not just the company itself. By leading by example and making ethical and socially responsible business decisions, Confucian leaders could pave the way for other business leaders to follow suit, thus spreading their virtues to a larger population of people and bettering the world as a whole. These leaders are accountable to the people of the world themselves. Another way in which Confucianism would enforce corporate social responsibility would be to create processes and feedback loops within the corporation that stress the importance of giving back to the overall community and making decisions based on the betterment of the world. This should become a “natural function and part of the process or loop when doing business” (1). Our proposal would be to be constantly assessing the leaders and processes within a company. We would be checking to ensure that leaders are not only acting ethically when it comes to the four ways in which to practice corporate social responsibility, but also making sure that these leaders are acting in the best interest of the company and its employees while still making sure to consider the impact of major business decisions on the community as a whole. Similarly, we need to continuously examine processes within the company (i.e. hiring practices, production processes, financial management, customer relations, etc) to ensure that we are abiding by the same principles we ask of our leaders. If there is ever a discrepancy to be found, it would need to be reviewed and adjusted in order to better the overall community. (Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256048647_Confucian_Ethics_Governance_and_Corporate_Social_Responsibility) ####Example An example of this can be seen in ethical labor practices. If a company, for example, knowingly employs workers and treats them unfairly (i.e. making them work long hours, not paying adequate overtime, forcing them to work in unsafe working conditions), our above proposal would require a review of all processes that go into these labor practices and a review of the leaders who let it happen. Confucianists would work towards creating a more stable work environment: one that benefits both those who are working for the company and the company itself. These positive relationships would then flow into a positive and more effective workplace. Whatever new leaders or policies are put in place would need to be consistently reviewed in order to ensure that the standards of ethical labor practices are being met through the eyes of a Confucianist.

###IBM-Nazi Relationship ####Culpability of IBM One of the biggest measures of IBM’s culpability is the fact that they were consciously involved in the Holocaust as well as the Nazi war machine. At the time, IBM’s stance on the advancement in technology was “if it can be done, it should be done” which leaves not regard for the future/intended uses of the technologies being developed. IBM saw the means as more important than the ends and this was fueled by the enormous profits the company was making during this time. In order to aid Hitler in finding people of Jewish descent, IBM Germany designed, executed, and supplied the technological tools that Hitler’s Third Reich needed in order to be successful in this endeavor. It is important to note that IBM Germany did not just sell machines to the Third Reich and cut off ties there, they custom designed the complex designs and specialized applications as an official corporate undertaking. This did not only include IBM Germany, the IBM headquarters in New York also had knowledge of this. Perhaps more alarming is the fact that IBM was originally founded as a tabulating company in charge of the census. When IBM Germany formed its alliance with Nazi Germany, the census served a new purpose. The racial census was created by IBM Germany which listed not only religious affiliation but also bloodline going back generations and this is how the Nazi’s were able to track down Jewish people. The fact that IBM Germany changed their census taking practices in this manner once they formed an alliance with Nazi Germany speaks volumes to the company’s culpability in relation to the Holocaust. ####Stakeholders in the Controversy As it stands today there are several stakeholders in this controversy: the holocaust victims and their families, any remaining employees of IBM who had knowledge of the relationship between IBM and the Nazi regime and IBM, the company. Obviously the holocaust victims and their families are stakeholders because they were the ones that were directly targeted by the work that IBM carried out on behalf of the Nazi regime. Similarly, IBM, the company, is obviously a stakeholder because it was sued over its involvement in the holocaust and because in a legal sense IBM, the company, exists today and is responsible for its actions in the past. Last, any remaining employees of IBM who had knowledge of the relationship between IBM and the Nazi regime are stakeholders because they may be especially personally responsible for IBM’s conduct with respect to the holocaust. ####Culpability under Confucius Ethics Under Confucian Ethics, IBM is fully culpable ethically for their role in causing the Holocaust. Knowing that the Nazi party depicted Jews as an undesirable group, IBM still took on a project solely designed to oust Jews in German society. The Analects claims, “The humane man, desiring to be established himself, seeks to establish others; desiring himself to succeed, he helps others to succeed.” But IBM took the exact opposite approach, in order for their company to succeed they took on a project designed to do the opposite of establishing others and help them succeed. Instead they acted to strip humanity from German Jews. One may say that Confucian Ethics would approve of the action of IBM because they were acting according to the relationship of loyalty that they should have with their government, however this neglects that fact that their government was not acting benevolently. There’s also the issue that IBM New York approved of this action, which shows a lack of loyalty to their American government. In essence IBM failed to follow any guidelines of Confucian Ethics because they failed to consider the interaction their work has on human beings. Without doing this, there is no way for them to pursue dao and thus shows that there was no effort on their end to act ethical at any point during this project.

###Muslim Registry Controversy ####Summary Donald Trump, in both his campaign and now presidency, has targeted Muslims as a group he is uncomfortable with. In the first months of his presidency, he tried to implement an unlawful travel ban for entering the United States on individuals and refugees from seven Muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen). He has also increased the power of ICE and other immigration agencies to “increase detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants”. In today’s world, big data is a very hot topic. It is easy to see how so much of the data that is collected could be used to build the “Muslim registry” that Donald Trump has threatened. Many tech and data companies have stated they will not help him compile such a list but there are others who have not made such a statement meaning it is entirely possible this type of registry could be formed, despite the human rights ethical implications. America has had a program, National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, or NSEERS which consisted of two sub-programs: “one that required foreign nationals from certain countries to check in with the government before entering and leaving the country, and another that obliged some foreigners living in the United States to report regularly to immigration officials.” This program applied to people from majority-Muslim countries and North Korea. The program’s structure still exists but is not implemented today. This is not to say, however, that it would not be easy to reinstate it, thus creating another way in which Donald Trump could create a “Muslim registry.” Finally, the fact that Korematsu v. United States is still a valid ruling sets a dangerous precedent for the use of race to discriminate. As Mr. Dixon states in the final article we had to read, this case should be “reversed and overturned.” ####Arguments While the argument could be made that a private corporation should be able to assist in implementing a Muslim registry, from the point of view that a private corporation, as its own entity, should be able to make its own decisions (whether or not those decisions are ethical), Confucianism would argue that private corporations should not help in implementing a Muslim registry. The first reason that a private corporation should not help in implementing a Muslim registry is because of Confucianism’s stance on only taking an action if one would want that action to be applied in every similar situation across the board. I’m sure that many of the non-Muslim people who would assist in the registry would not want a registry of their own ethnicity or religion being made. So, unless all of the people who work at the private corporation assisting in the registry are Muslim and are okay with the registry being made, they should be careful to not be hypocritical in their professional and/or personal actions. Another key principle of Confucianism is to always see the humanity in oneself and others. Would creating a registry of a group of people just because they happen to practice the same religion be seeing the humanity in those people? Another point of Confucianism that goes along with this is doing what one feels is right. If a private corporation doesn’t necessarily think that creating a Muslim registry is the right thing to do, but they are considering doing it anyway because of the money they could gain from it, according to Confucianism, it would be ethical of them to take their business elsewhere and to make up that profit in other areas of their business. In the end, the dignity of the human person is more important than any sum of money. Finally, according to Confucius, people have the potential to be good. Is creating a registry based on the religion of a group of people assuming that they have the potential to be good? While many people who have the potential to be good will certainly not realize that potential, and very well might do just the opposite, that does not mean that that needs to be the generally assumed case. According to Confucianism, the origin of evil is not believed to come from man himself, but from external sources and circumstances, meaning that everyone starts out good and gets to choose whether or not to stay that way. ####Analysis stance if government-implemented registry Without citing a purpose for the registry, Confucianism would still stand opposed to a government creation of such a registry. Confucianism emphasizes that people should follow their dao in order to live not only ethically, but a fulfilled life. Following dao means maintaining the ethics of ren, yi, and li. Ren embodies benevolence and humanity, yi embodies righteousness and justice, and li embodies the etiquette that drives how one lives in a society. As mentioned previously the issue still stands that a Muslim registry doesn’t insinuate any means of benevolence, justice, or acting in a way that is helpful in following dao. Instead it is easy to see how it leads to discrimination, exiles individuals from society, and works to create tiers of humanness among people. However, Confucianism also teaches of the five human relationships, and describes how they should be facilitated in order to follow dao. One of those is between a government and its constituents. Confucianism says that within this relationship constituents should be loyal to their government, but it also says that a government should be benevolent. Therefore the main concern is that the creation of such a registry doesn’t imply any benevolent purpose. A government would need to create it as a means to some benevolent action, safeguarding that it only is used for that benevolent action, in order to gain the support of Confucianism. In regards to Donald Trump, some may claim that mitigating terrorism is a benevolent act, however when you punish and strip the humanity of a large group of people in order to have a desired impact reach only a few then Confucianism would not declare this as a benevolent act. Rather it’s a practice of extreme caution with no ethical grounding or regard for the role of people in the action. ####Interview: Utilitarian Ethics I interviewed someone in the Utilitarian ethics framework group about how they would view a Muslim registry. Before talking to them, while I assumed we may have pretty similar overall beliefs, I thought our reasons for them may be slightly different. One big focus of Confucianism is on relationships, and as has been seen through the outcomes of the suggestion of a Muslim registry, there is a large strain that this would put on relationships. There is a divide between those in support of it and those who oppose it, and likely an even stronger strain between those who support it and those who are actually on it. For this reason alone, Confucianism would oppose it. Additionally, the concept of “do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself” acts as a guiding thought for Confucianism. It can be almost certain that anyone in support of a Muslim registry would not want the same if it were a list containing them. This is another reason that Confucianism would oppose the registry. I believe that Utilitarianism would also oppose the Muslim registry, but for different reasons. Utilitarianism looks for the outcome that causes the most good for the most people, or in this case, the least harm to the most people. I would think that this would mean that Utilitarianism would not support the registry because of the harm that it would cause to individuals whose privacy was being violated. After talking to a member of the Utilitarian group, I realized that while my above prediction was partially right, their view may be more complex than what I thought. Utilitarianism does promote the option that causes the least harm to the most people, but in many cases, this is difficult to predict. When looking at the idea of a Muslim registry, you need to see which side will cause the least harm. If what the president believes is true, and extremist groups will be stopped from carrying out large-scale attacks due to the implementation of a Muslim registry, than the reduction of harm that would occur due to it could be seen as outweighing the harm it causes to those who are put on the list. On the other hand, it is very possible that these things would not happen, and creating a Muslim registry may not prevent them in the first place. For this reason, there is no certain side that Utilitarianism would necessarily be on. The member I interviewed believes that they would ultimately be opposed to a Muslim registry, because it is likely that the creation of one would cause the most harm, but there is not a way to be certain. ####Interview: Ethics of Care I interviewed someone from the Ethics of Care framework. I would anticipate that our thoughts on the Muslim Registry would be pretty similar overall, because both of our frameworks value developing and maintaining strong and healthy relationships. However, Confucian Ethics would also involve bringing virtue into the discussion, which Ethics of Care does not have. Confucian Ethics would oppose the Muslim registry because it would strain our personal relationships with Muslims on the registry and likely also strain relationships on a worldly scale: countries would start taking sides and this could cause issues with foreign relations. Further, it is certainly not virtuous to force people to be put on a register simply because of their background, be it religious or geographical. I would anticipate that the Ethics of Care would think similarly and oppose the registry, but with their emphasis being on the relationships being harmed and in particular minorities and women. After interviewing the member of the Ethics of Care framework, it would seem that my original predictions were slightly off, mostly in the way in which relationships are treated. They told me that, like I mentioned, relationships are the main focus in Ethics of Care. However, not all relationships are equally as important - those with ones close to you are more important than those with people you don’t know. He gave the example of the trolley problem, with one side being your mom and the other side being three strangers. You would obviously pick your mom because you have a more meaningful relationship with her. So in this scenario, he said you could argue that you would pick the registry side that more closely aligns with protecting relationships close to you. If you feel it would protect those you’re close to by having a registry, then you would support it, and if you feel that it makes no difference or would harm those close to you then you would oppose it. However, he also said that the Ethics of Care, like I originally mentioned, state that you should consider the impact that an action would have on someone in proportion to their current vulnerability. When this factor is taken into consideration, it becomes obvious, given that Muslims would be the most impacted and are very vulnerable in the USA in the current climate, that they need to be more strongly considered and protected. Thus, despite the first comment potentially being contradictory to the latter, Ethics of Care would certainly oppose the Muslim registry. So my original thoughts were accurate in the conclusion and two main factors, but didn’t account weighing relationships differently.

Net Neutrality

Stakeholders

Internet Service Provider Corporations (ISP) such as Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile etc.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) - the government agency who would be in charge of repealing net neutrality.

The Internet Association - a grouping of large tech companies such as Google, Netflix, Facebook etc that have publicly stated that it would join a legal battle against the FCC. Other smaller tech startups and companies are also considered stakeholders in this issue.

Members of Congress, both Democratic and Republican, for whom net neutrality is an issue of either a committee they are on or who are up for re-election.

The general public, consumers of the Internet, who would be affected by legislation of net neutrality.

Core Beliefs

Internet Service Provider Corporations (ISP): Internet Service Providers are mostly publicly traded corporations and as such their main motive is to make their shareholder money. As such their position on net neutrality is the one that they believe would make them the most money: repeal net neutrality because it would allow them to charge higher rates for accessing bandwidth intensive website such as video streaming.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC): The Federal Communications Commission is composed of partisan commissioners and a partisan chairman who largely set the agenda of the Federal Communications Commission. As such their core beliefs tend to reflect those of the people that appointed and confirmed them (the President and Congress respectively). Their position on the net neutrality thus is largely reflectively of their party’s stance and since 2/4 commissioners and the current chairman are republicans they want to repeal net neutrality.

The Internet Association: like the Internet Service Providers these are companies, many of which are publicly traded, and thus their main belief or purpose is to earn profits for their shareholders. However, unlike the Internet Service Providers, they oppose the repeal of net neutrality because it would take away power from them and give it to the Internet Service Providers thus hindering their ability to make profit.

Members of Congress: Members of Congress are widely varied on their core beliefs with Republican members on average tending to favor business interests and Democrat members on average tending to favor consumer protections. As such their positions on net neutrality are largely opposite: Republicans tend to favor repealing it while Democrats tend to favor keeping it.

The General Public: like Members of Congress the general public’s core beliefs vary widely and as such the general public’s position on net neutrality tends to follow the Members of Congress for whom they support.

Analysis

Opposition to Deplatforming

The largest point that individuals against deplatforming make is that it violates an individual’s First Amendment Rights. People cannot say their true opinions on online platforms because if those opinions are deemed to be against the terms of service for a certain platform, that individual can get kicked off with little to no warning, no matter how hateful their content may have been. Additionally, once deplatformed, individuals cannot easily contact people at the respective social media corporations and are often met with automatic replies if they try to reach out to resolve this issue. This leaves those individuals who have been deplatformed with very little options and very little clarity as to how and when they can get back online. Matt Bracken claims that a majority of individuals that get deplatformed are Christian, white, heterosexual males who are being targeted simply because they fit those demographics and that no one is looked at more closely than people within that particular group. He also compares deplatforming to government censorship under the veneer of private corporations because though it’s corporations like Twitter and Facebook that are deplatforming people, they are cutting off the microphones of those they deplatform which is essentially what government censorship would do. Finally, those opposed to deplaforming claim that it is happening to hide “the truth” about controversial issues and keep people on the internet “brainwashed” to believe certain things, especially the opposition to traditional family values.

Proponents of Deplatforming

The intention of deplatforming is to decrease the amount of hateful and discriminatory content that is published on the internet. For individuals who are directly referenced and impacted by content that is harmful, deplatforming is clearly a positive thing. Although it does limit the freedom of what people can say and do on the internet, it is for the protection of those who are in a vulnerable position due to it. Websites generally have a clear set of rules of what is and is not allowed to be posted on their site, so content that violates these regulations is removed, along with the individual who posted it. This is essential in preventing the spread of untrue and hateful information, which is something that many people believe is a responsibility of websites. From a perspective of a company that runs one of these platforms, deplatforming is essential in maintaining public approval. Companies will generally have ideologies that dictate what they allow and do not allow on their websites, and these are often times greatly influenced by the views of the public. From a business standpoint, companies benefit most by acting in favor of what the public wants. In cases of hateful or harmful content, the company itself does best by censoring or deleting it. If a platform like YouTube or Twitter allowed a user to continually post discriminatory material, much of the public would respond by ceasing to use their product. While there likely is a strong preference for the wellbeing of the users of their website, a large part of this may be due to the harm their business could face if the companies did not act in this way.

Confucian Interpretation

While there could be points made both for and against deplatforming from the standpoint of the ethical framework of Confucianism, overall, it would lean in favor of deplatforming. One of the major reasons for this belief is because one of Confucianism’s core teachings is the universality of actions, where a person should only take or believe in an action if that person would also be okay with everyone else taking or believing in that same action. One of the primary reasons given by proponents of deplatforming as to why deplatforming is right is that it will help to decrease hateful messages and rhetoric against certain groups of people. This fits with Confucianism in that the people posting hateful rhetoric should only be doing so in the first place if they would be okay with everyone else posting similar things about them online. In this way, deplatforming would help to stop these people from posting hateful and threatening messages without considering if they would be willing to receive those same messages in return. Another main reason that Confucianism would support the deplatforming side of this debate is because one of the other primary beliefs of Confucianism, which is respect and right treatment of others. While deplatforming would obviously not stop those whose hateful messages would be blocked from thinking hateful things, it would at least keep the intended recipients from seeing or hearing them. In this way, the basic respect that should be showed to all people would not be forced upon the people who lack it in the first place, but would be further given to the people who are being targeted, by keeping them from having to deal with hateful and threatening rhetoric online. While this does not solve the problem of hateful rhetoric, it helps the intended victims maintain a more consistent peace of mind.

A Proposition

Echo Chambers

Online echo chambers are generally seen as communities full of people that share the same, or at least very similar, opinions. When they share their opinions, they reinforce each others beliefs, strengthening their resolve behind that opinion. Dissenting opinions are struck down quickly, ganged up on, or straight up not allowed. The hidden algorithms behind popular social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram essentially create personalized echo chambers. People follow others they like or who share similar opinions, and thus their feed is filled with those opinions. Targeted advertisements analyzes your feed, cookies, and search history to send you advertisements that you may like - these will likely not be for products or opinions different than your own. The longer the service is used, the more personalized the feed becomes. Algorithms, intended to increase engagement, do so by consistently personalizing and recommending similar content. However, people who look for content on their own tend to be less affected by echo chambers, while people who look for content based on what’s popular are more strongly influenced. Further, people who are more social or younger in age also tend to more easily fall into echo chambers.

Deplatforming Attempts

Neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and alt-right website The Daily Stormer recently had its had their domain revoked and thus website taken down by numerous internet service providers due to their hateful commentary and extremism. All of these providers, including GoDaddy, Google, and Cloudflare, were making a statement about what is and isn’t acceptable. However, this made numerous people call them out for being hypocritical by still hosting other harassment sites. It also made people wonder whether domain registrants policing the internet and what affect it may have on free speech. Alex Jones and his InfoWars platform were also removed from numerous popular sites like Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Apple, Spotify, PayPal, and more. He was, like The Daily Stormer, deplatformed because of hate speech and harassment. And like the ban of The Daily Stormer, it rose questions about free speech and whether these sites were pushing their own agenda. Some other notable groups and figures that have been banned lately include Milo Yiannopoulos, the Proud Boys, Richard Spencer, and more. While the general public has had a positive reaction to these bans, it has definitely resulted in questions being raised about what is and isn’t allowed on these platforms, about free speech, about whether some groups get preferential or unfair treatment, and for calls in consistency to how different groups are handled.

Deplatforming and its Affect on Echo Chambers

Deplatforming definitley has an effect on online echo chambers, the caveat lies in whether the act contributes to the diminishing or promotion of echo chambers. In the context we’ve largely been speaking of through this post, deplatforming often comes as a means to control the flow of hate speech, and thus is intended to diminish the prevalence of echo chambers. In the case of The Daily Stromer, ISPs greatly diminished the role of the website in facilitating echo chambers. This is because they could ban the entire website itself, removing the central place for its users to congregate and preventing its content from being shared across the internet. However this benevolent outcome only caters to those who view it as benevolent, and it’s especially volatile to expect this result when the action is making a statement about free speech. While some cases of deplatforming can diminish echo chambers, there is always the risk of creating new, more intense echo chambers as a response. Take the Alex Jones case for example. Being someone who antagonizes the “Left”, his deplatforming can be seen as politically motivated, especially when his hate speech aligns with current political tensions such as the role of Muslims in America. While the content of Alex Jones may no longer be available on commonly used social media platforms, the argument can be made that the echo chamber his content contributed to only grew. Jones’s viewers don’t stop watching his content, rather they promote a narrative where there is a war on free speech and tech companies work only to promote the values of the “Left”. In the eyes of those in this echo chamber, this isn’t an attempt from the likes of Facebook to combat hate speech, it’s a way for them to abuse their overwhelming power to promote their own political agenda. Should we expect the group feeling victimized by this to rest silently? Side-effects of deplatforming are inevitable, if we want to estimate the impact it may have on echo chambers, then it’s important to understand how those in the echo chamber will view the act.

Net Neutrality

Stakeholders

Internet Service Provider Corporations (ISP) such as Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile etc.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) - the government agency who would be in charge of repealing net neutrality.

Members of Congress, both Democratic and Republican, for whom net neutrality is an issue of either a committee they are on or who are up for re-election.

The general public, consumers of the Internet, who would be affected by legislation of net neutrality.

Core Beliefs

Analysis

Opposition to Deplatforming

Proponents of Deplatforming

Confucian Interpretation

A Proposition

Echo Chambers

Deplatforming Attempts

Deplatforming and its Affect on Echo Chambers

Job Automation

Summary

Stakeholders

Workers whose jobs are being replaced by job automation Consumers of the world Companies, such as Foxconn, who are replacing significant members of their staff with robots The governments of countries utilizing job automation in major companies

Effect of Automation on Stakeholders

The effects on workers vary company to company. For some, they are simply now out of a job and need to find another way to secure income. For others, however, their company is now reinvesting in their education to help workers be trained at a higher level to help with things such as research and development. This may also be a stress-inducing time in the lives of these workers as they may have families to support or people who depend on them. For consumers, the idea of job automation could lead to a steady decrease in quality (take, for example, McDonalds food) but an increase in efficiency due to the automation. For companies who are replacing workers they are saving money by purchasing one time technologies that need only be maintained (and will eventually be counted as an asset financially) instead of needing to continuously pay an employee who is less efficient. They must also face backlash from workers who lose their jobs due to this or others who are in support of the workers. Finally, for the government of any country utilizing job automation these effects will be mostly economical. This could have major effects on the job supply and unemployment rates if not kept in check. It could also affect wage rates in these countries. Finally, it would also affect politics as the number of people in the work/labor force shifted.

Culpability of Engineers

As the Confucian Ethics focus on the different responsibilities that people have in the context of their different relationships engineers that design job automation systems that cause human workers to lose their jobs have varying levels of culpability. To the people that lose their job the Confucian Ethics would likely hold that they are culpable to that person and have some sort of responsibility to make them whole, whether that means helping them find a new job or only designing job automation systems that will also provide for the human workers that lose their jobs. To the engineer’s dependants/family the Confucian Ethics would likely not hold that they are culpable because they have done nothing to significantly alter that relationship. To the engineer’s employer and colleague the same would likely be true as the engineer was fulfilling their responsibility towards them and likely did nothing to significantly alter those relationships. ###Analysis of Job Automation ####Summary of Opposition to Job Automation One of the major factors that is brought forth in favor of job automation but is easier said than done is that workers who are replaced by automation can be educated or re-educated to work on maintaining the new and emerging technologies in their industry or other similar jobs. While it is true that this can be done, since even these new technologies are man-made and will eventually break and need repair, buying these automated machines is already a heavy investment on companies’ parts. Add the re-education of already-existing workers plus those workers’ salaries for their new jobs on top of those heavy investments and those new technologies might not be the great ideas that they were originally thought to be, as is referenced in The Economist’s ‘Technology isn’t working’ by the lack of expected productivity spike after a technological boom. On the other hand, the re-education and salary costs can be cut by laying off those workers, but then those workers are without jobs. Generally, they should be able to find another similar job at a company or in a sector which has not yet become completely automated, but what about when this happens over and over again until there are not enough jobs left for these workers to shift into because so many parts of the workforce have been automated? Investment in personal education can also be very expensive and often unattainable, so these workers might be stuck with their current skillset and no jobs in which to put it to use. Another related reason why job automation may not always be the way to go is because technological improvements don’t always directly lead to productivity growth, even though it is commonly believed that it does. This issue is also addressed in ‘Technology isn’t working’, where the point is made that this is a paradox that is still somewhat of a mystery. But in the end, if industries are doing well and wages are consistently increasing with real people working these types of jobs, why try to change it? Often times, this leads to productivity stagnation and loss of jobs for workers, both of which should always try to be avoided in any situation. ####Summary of Proponents of Job Automation Two of the largest factors in support of job automation are the increase in profit and increase in efficiency that are likely to come with it. It becomes much more cost effective for a company to make a one-time purchase of a robotic arm, rather than paying a human to do the work every day. Additionally, it is much easier to guarantee consistent, effective results that may be lost through human error or burnout. As is highlighted in the concept of McDonaldization, four concepts that drive job automation are: efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control. These allow for faster, more efficient work, it allows for a company to ensure that the work is regulated with greater certainty, and also allows for greater profit. Job automation becomes an even greater benefit as the minimum wage requirements are facing an increase. A company can increase their profits by investing in equipment to do their work instead of humans. Another benefit, as mentioned in the Foxconn article, is that if companies are able to transfer repetitive tasks to automated machinery, they will be able to use their employees for higher value elements. This can include things such as development, process control, and quality control, and while people may assume that replacing these jobs would lead to many people losing work, Foxconn states that it would just change responsibilities and overall productiveness. Job automation also would relieve people from having to do many repetitive, unstimulating tasks, and open up an opportunity to pursue something more in line with the worker’s interests. There may be a debate as to whether this extra free-time would actually be a positive thing, but if all factory jobs were reserved for machines, humans would be forced to find other things to do that may be more enjoyable, and help industry grow more than they otherwise would have. ####Analysis I believe that while both sides of the argument have some merit, Confucianism would ultimately reject job automation. That being said, there are undeniable pros to job automation that Confucianism would be supportive of. The major one of these would be the efficiency and consistency that job automation would bring to the table. This would fall in line with the concept of Li, part of which is the idea that every action affects someone else. By developing automation and machines that are faster, more reliable, and more consistent, it will speed up many aspects of our lives and thus should lead to happier people when using these products. However, the cost outweighs the benefits in this case. For instance, let’s take the concept of Li again. You could argue that end consequence is faster machines and easier lives for people who use those services or machines. However, the action required to make that a reality would be developing the machines. Undertaking this action would also cause for mass job displacement among the people who used to work in that manufacturing factory or service position. Doing these would cause harm to all of those people, because now they’d have to search for jobs again, may be struggling for money, and may become more stressed. This would harm the relationships between these now disgruntled workers who were “pushed aside for new innovation” and the new technology along with those who pushed for that technology to be created in the first place. The virtue question is also raised: is it more virtuous to create the technology for job automation, which would benefit many (to a smaller extent), or to save the jobs and skill sets of the people currently doing that work (to a larger extent). Because the main aspects of Confucianism are stressing virtue and the building of strong and meaningful relationships between people, I believe Confucianism would overall be against job automation, unless there was a condition that those who would be affected with job displacement had some program in place to help them find new jobs or be trained to maintain the new machines. ###Self Driving Cars ####Summary of Opposition to Self Driving Cars The opposition to self-driving cars is mainly focused on the safety concerns that come with a car that is not manually controlled by a human but also focuses on a lack of connection. People have already been killed by self-driving cars, which is one of the sacrifices that comes with experimenting with this new technology. The hope is that, eventually, self-driving cars will eliminate the majority of human casualties due to car accidents in the future, but is that worth the lives lost in the present time? This question is something that those opposed to self-driving cars would say no, it’s not worth it in response. There is also a potential for cars to begin to feel like a work cubicle, or even a prison. Currently, humans must be aware for the entire duration of a car ride. If there was suddenly a new wealth of free time, while the car was driving itself, it’s likely that they would be able to find other forms of entertainment during the ride. This would completely change the behavior of people who own cars making the gap between those who own cars and those who don’t even bigger. This type of disconnect is something that those opposed to self-driving cars worry about. On a more economic level, self-driving cars would ideally eliminate the need for traffic tickets completely, as all cars would be programmed to abide by the laws of the road. Traffic tickets bring in billions of dollars annually so something will need to be done to make up for the fact that these funds will not be generated. It is expected that self-driving cars, once perfected, will greatly reduce the amount of human deaths related to vehicle accidents. Additionally, roadkill will also become an event that will stop occurring. This will have an important ecological impact as it will enable animals to live in closer proximity to us, which could become dangerous. Without animals being killed due to traffic related incidents, the populations of certain species could get out of control without enough food to sustain the population. ####Summary of Proponents of Self Driving Cars The proponents of self-driving cars largely focus on an increase in efficiency when it comes to this method of transportation. Traffic would be greatly reduced as self-driving cars would be able to perfectly maneuver around each other at intersections and in other areas where traffic can easily become jammed. Intersections are also an area where a majority of traffic accidents take place, which slows down traffic coming to and from that area. It is predicted that self-driving cars would only crash if there was some type of mechanical error, meaning that the chances of a self-driving car crashing at an intersection would be much lower. Additionally, with fewer cars idling in traffic, autonomous intersections could produce an estimated 20 to 50 percent less carbon dioxide. Parking is also something that could could become vastly different than it is today. There would not longer be a need for dedicated parking lots/garages as self-driving cars could go off on their own and park wherever, not unlike that of a trash dump. This would allow areas that had previously been used as lots/garages to be repurposed and used for something more useful. Self-driving cars would also provide a wealth of free time as humans would not longer need to devote their full attention to driving anywhere. This could allow humans to be more productive during their commutes or where ever their destination may be. ####Analysis While there is speculation that self-driving cars will have detrimental impacts on social behavior, more chaotic outcomes have already been experienced. However, it is important to consider that this has only been a small number of edge cases. Confucian ethics would largely depend on the direction of self-driving cars in determining favor. For example, if development continues down a path where human life is sacrificed for capital innovation then this would be an overreach against the ren of each person along the path of one of these cars. However if the wellbeing of the bystanders involved is considered, Confucian Ethics would largely consider these accidents as mere accidents part of the cycle of life and death. When action is taken to halt development and make a conscious effort to avoid further errors, there is a reflective action honoring the life and ren of the victim. Therefore, the few accidents shouldn’t deduct from the consideration for good and promotion of humanity that comes from the lives saved through the implementation of self-driving cars. One way that Confucian Ethics would definitely be in favor of self-driving cars were if they were implemented as a public service. Confucian Ethics frames itself around a central themes that people should have a family-like relationship with their State, and that “government should exist for the benefit of the governed.” The perceived possibilities for innovation and freedom that self-driving cars offer makes it more than believable that they will be a mass public good when economic factors don’t become large enough to overshadow them. As a public good, it is unlikely that self-driving cars will only be accessible to certain groups of people, especially because if implemented at a State level, personal car ownership could become unnecessary. The price for a public car ride could be less than the cost of public transportation today. This aligns with not only Confucian Ethics’ regard for governing with benevolence, but also reflects that this embodies striving for a society built on harmony. Implementing self-driving cars as a public good would create more free time in everyday life, decrease the growth of climate change, remove a system of fines that many citizens lose their money to, drastically decrease a leading cause of fatalities, and increase daily productivity like never before. When a system like this can be relied on, it becomes one of the most beneficial services a government can provide. There is also the possibility for the effects self-driving cars would have on personal freetime. Confucian Ethics would largely be in favor of working towards this effect because it would create more opportunity for people to foster the relationships in their lives. An important part of following one’s dao is striving for moral virtue, and Confucian Ethics largely focuses on practicing this through life’s essential relationships. More free time would mean more free time spent with family; giving parents time to foster the moral and intellectual development of their children, and giving children more time to take care of their parents in their old age. This could also mean that more development is placed in complex relationships like friendships. Confucian Ethics shows that a lot of moral development comes from friendship, but friendships need to be developed over time and prove steadfastness because they are voluntary. Along with the increase in freetime, self-driving cars can also provide a new place for friends to interact, and find time to do so, on their hour long work commutes.

Overview

Computer Assisted Warfare

Confucian Ethics is an ethics that is extremely situational, so there is no black and white answer to whether or not computer-assisted warfare is ethical or not. For the most part, our ethical framework would oppose computer-assisted warfare because thought Confucian Ethics is situational, it’s also based on relationships. Warfare of any kind, computer-assisted or not, would obviously ruin any kind of relationship between the opposing sides, so for this reason our framework would oppose computer-assisted warfare. On the other hand, we are also interested in the intent of an action. If computer-assisted warfare were deemed absolutely necessary to settle a conflict, and the ultimate intent was to offer help to an issue in some way, this would be a situation where computer-assisted warfare was deemed ethical. Again, it is situationally dependent where the intent of the action is the most important decision factor on whether or not the action is ethical according to our framework.

Diversity in the Technology Sector

Being based in the B.C. era, confucian ethics is written to perpetuate stereotypical gender roles. However confucian ethics places more importance on core values such as benevolence and justice. Although in one instance confucian ethics may say that a woman is meant to fulfill her role as a mother, we should also remember that in context with our current times there is no reason that confucian ethics would consider this view as more important than making sure a underrepresented group is empowered to follow their life path. Furthermore the tech industry is based around a culture of teamwork, which could be considered to closely resemble family. Confucian ethics would largely denounce acts of undermining and hostility in the workplace. A family wouldn’t expect people to change and conform when confronted with malevolence. Instead they would embrace the differences and determine how they could best foster the growth of that individual. In the same way confucian ethics would denounce harmful ethnic stereotypes. If a environment is created where people don’t feel welcomed among their peers, then clearly something drastic would have to change. When viewing the workplace with the same regard as family confucian ethics would make facilitating a welcoming environment that facilitates the growth of each individual the top priority of a company when examining how their decisions are impacting the diversity of their workplace.

Online Censorship

In all likelihood, a framework like Confucian ethics would be in support of online censorship if it were in response to hateful or discriminatory content. One of the core teachings of Confucianism is the universality of actions, or the “golden rule”: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In respect to this guiding concept, this framework would be strongly against the posting of hateful content. No group of people that discriminates against others would want the same action turned around on them. The deletion of hateful content and censoring of those who choose to participate in it becomes the responsibility of companies in order to act ethically. As an ethics of virtue, Confucianism looks to act in a way that promotes the overall wellbeing of others. For this reason, it would be the responsibility of websites to censor content when necessary. However, Confucian ethics would view these on a case by case basis. It would recognize the importance of not controlling everything that was being shared, but just trying to promote things in a virtuous way. There would definitely be backlash from this selective censorship, as some would believe it infringes on a freedom of speech, but in order to follow the Confucian framework it would be necessary to recognize and act on situations requiring censorship. Treatment of others how one would like to be treated, and doing so in a virtuous way, should act as guiding factors in recognizing what should be censored.

Algorithm

is_decision_ethical(decision):

ethical = True

For relationship in my relationships

	If decision does not satisfy my duties in the relationship

		ethical = False

For virtue in confucian virtues

	If decision exemplifies virtue

		ethical = True

Return ethical

We believe that this algorithm captures the key parts of the Confucian Ethics. It captures that the Confucian Ethics is mainly concerned with relationships and virtues. Something is considered ethical according to the Confucian Ethics if it satisfies the duties that you have in all your relationships or it exemplifies some specific virtue. Our algorithm evaluates a decision according to those considerations. If a decision is input it is assumed to be unethical unless it satisfies the duties you have in all your relationships or it is found to exemplify one of the virtues in the Confucian Ethics.