Deontological Ethics

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”

― Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals

WEBSITE POST 7

Summary for Computer Assisted Warfare

The possibility of computer-assisted warfare becoming a reality is becoming increasingly likely, but it brings about numerous ethical concerns. This problem is important to the deontological ethical framework because deontological ethics is concerned with the morality of actions: Would it be an ethical act to deploy robots to assist in waging war? We can analyze the morality of this action under the Categorical Imperative by considering whether or not it would be favorable if every army utilized technology in warfare. When we consider this scenario, we might become hesitant to venture into this new territory. If every army used robots rather than soldiers, for example, we would likely be hastier to go to war without the outright risking of human life. Additionally, imagine how advanced technology in the hands of the wrong organization might play out. There is already evidence that organizations such as ISIS have been able to weaponize the latest technology in their usage of Twitter to find new recruits. While other organizations might program their robots to adhere to existing ethical warfare codes, organizations such as ISIS likely would not. Another concern is that the increased precision, lethality, and scope of technology in warfare will bring about greater consequences. We can look to the development of the nuclear bomb as evidence that greater technology results in a much more precarious environment in war. While the Cold War fortunately did not result in a nuclear holocaust, there were several moments in which such a reality was dangerously close (i.e., the Cuban missile crisis). For these reasons, the deontological ethical framework would likely hold waging computer-assisted warfare as an unethical action.

Summary for Discriminatory Registries

The problem being discussed in this situation is companies or governments gathering data on individuals and creating specific registries of people based on their race, sexual orientation, religion, or any other information about them that can be discriminated against. Deontology would see the action of collection private and sensitive information on people as a negative action. It would go against the categorical imperative in that allowing companies or organizations to collect this data, it would be acceptable for anyone to collect this data. In this view point we must look at these companies as a collection of individuals and apply the categorical imperative to all the employees involved in the process. They must all be comfortable with their information being gathered and organized. Pew Research Center did a study on how much people value their privacy and 80% of social media users said they were concerned about advertisers and businesses accessing their data they share. (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/27/americans-complicated-feelings-about-social-media-in-an-era-of-privacy-concerns/). This shows that it would be in the company’s duty to act in the best interest of their customers by better valuing the privacy of their users. In the 1950s it was declared illegal to collect religious data in the census, so it would also be within the companies duty to follow these same rules in data collection. (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/01/26/why-the-u-s-census-does-not-ask-about-religion/) So according to Deontology, they organization of data into discriminatory registries would be unehtical.

Summary for Job Automation

Job automation is a big problem these days as companies are replacing workers with machinery like self-checkout or robots every day. This is important to Deontology because it is an ambiguous topic. The pure action of automating jobs is the main thing to evaluate and we also want to analyze the other roles in the situation. There are so many companies today like McDonalds and even the town of Youngstown. Youngstown used to be a thriving town but as jobs died out and people were laid-off regional depression set in and the culture died. This could happen to any town now with the reality of automated jobs and less of a desire or need for humans in the workforce. Deontologists have a few different perspectives they take into account. This would be the lives of the engineers, the major companies that profit from job automation, and those who would lose their jobs to machines. In the case of the engineers, Deontologists would evaluate the actions that the engineers take instead of the consequences according to the categorical imperative. Purely designing a system is not immoral so the engineers have no faults as claimed by this framework. Reiterating, Deontology cares about the actions and not the consequences, so designing a system is a neutral action. Placing yourself in the shoes of those who lose their jobs, it is a difficult situation because Deontologists have the mindset that one rule should be applicable for everyone. The classic example is Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor but you would not want to be stolen from, therefore this is an immoral and unethical act. You would definitely not want to lose your job to a robot, so in that sense job automation can be considered immoral. One article talking about self-driving cars said that 100-1000 people could die in accidents they cause. Putting yourself in the shoes of one of these people, it is clear that you would not want to be one of the people who die. There is a hope that less people total will die in automobile accidents but there is not yet much evidence to support this claim. Additionally, so many people drive ubers or are taxi drivers and this would mean putting these people out of work, which again is not something we would want for everyone.

Algorithm for how to Analyze an Ehtical Decision based on Deontological Ethics

Assumptions: This algorithm is meant to declare whether a decision (action) is ethical using Deontological ethics as a framework. By Kant’s definition, the only thing that is important is the will of the person doing the action. Due to this importance, the algorithm will be based around this idea. The will of the person is determined by his/her respect to the moral law. The moral law is seen as the categorical imperative which says: act only that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Therefore, the two import checks in the algorithm are: 1) Whether the action satisfies the categorical imperative (action should be a universal law) and 2) Whether the person had good intentions 2.1. The conseqeunces of these actions do not matter

Inputs: action: this is the action in question person: this is the person who is completing the action

Step-by-Step

bool isMoral([person], [action]):
	if [action] satisfies the categorical imperative AND
	the [person] is acting in good faith relative to the action itself:
		return TRUE
	else:
		return FALSE

WEBSITE POST 1

Statement of Purpose

What makes an action ethical?

Deontological ethics is based on the the theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether or not that action itself is right or wrong and not look at the consequence of the action. This type of ethics is commonly referred to as ‘duty’ based ethics as it binds a person to the set of rules they follow that determine the morality of their actions.

Immanuel Kant is often considered one of the first philosophers to touch on this ethical framework. To determine if an action was ethical, Kant says the only thing that is important is the will of the person doing the action. If the person was acting in good will and doing what is within their duty, they are acting ethically. Deontology is in contrast to consequentialist ethics, which only cares about the end results of an action regardless of the steps to get there. Deontology instead is action-based and focuses on the morality of actions a person commits.

What triggers the need to evaluate an action?

Every action someone does while following the Deontological ethic framework triggers the need to evaluate that action. Kant describes the categorical imperative as the basis of evaluation. This states ‘Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature.’ What this means is that if you are willing for everyone in the world to adopt the action you are about to do, then you are acting ethically, and if not, then you are acting unethically. This exists as a personal way of checking the morality of an action that you are about to take.

Predisposition to act in accordance to Deontological ethics

In many ways people have the predisposition to act in accordance to Deontological Ethics. Many people will often evaluate whether a specific action is ethical or not before doing it and determine if they want to continue with that action. However, many people have a greater focus on the consequence of actions and look to the future to see what an action may result in. A common example is if a murderer were to ask you where a friend of yours is located. Deontological ethics says that you must tell the truth even if it would result in the harm of your friend, as lying is unethical. This is a way that many people are not predisposed to act and thus would require more awareness to act in accordance with Deontology.

Three issues in computer technology

1. Whistle blowing in computer science is something that Deontological ethics would be in support of. In the view of this framework, by having knowledge of something that should be known to all, it would be unethical to hide that from the global community. It is for the larger good to whistleblow and release the information, and thus is the duty of the deontologist. We can also consider a case in which an employee is being asked about the ongoings of the company they work for. In this case the developer must be honest with their answers as lying would be an unethical action within the framework, even if it results in negative outcomes for the company.

2. Deontologists would have a lot to say on Piracy. The action of downloading illegally obtained media would absolutely be considered wrong and unethical within the framework. Downloading this data would essentially be theft and regardless of what the data might be used for, it is against the morals of deontology to obtain the data in this manner.

3. Hacking is a field that deontologists would be morally against. Even if that hacking is white-hat and with good intent, that action of breaching a system’s defenses or finding an exploit would be considered unethical. The end goal of the hack are not of concern to the deontologist, only the specific actions involved.

ACM Code:

There is a section on avoiding harm which states “When harm is an intentional part of the system, those responsible are obligated to ensure that the harm is ethically justified.” We think this goes well with Deontology as the main goal of Deontology is to have moral actions are considered more than the consequence. The ACM code emphasizes the need to minimize harm unless there is a compelling ethical reason to do otherwise. This could relate to saving the life of a family member in exchange for driving terrorists somewhere- which was an example we read about in our framework. The ACM has strict rules but realizes there might be times when it is necessary to bend the rules. Section 2.3 further explains this as it states that professionals must abide by laws and regulations unless faced with a compelling ethical reason not to. In the ACM code, there is a section about fostering public awareness and understanding about technologies or communicating with the public good. Kant would argue that in Deontology, giving back to the community is unnecessary. He stated that giving a large amount of your paycheck to relieve a lot of the poor was not important and if you want to go see a concert or eat an expensive meal, that was okay and up to you. The code also stresses that professionals should be fair and take action not to discriminate. Deontology differs in that it is okay to put your loved one’s life above a stranger’s life.

We would say that our framework of Deontology adds specific examples as to when it is and when it is not acceptable to bend the rules of morality and that could add something to this code. Examples of typical situations professionals might be presented with and guidelines for what to do would be beneficial.

IEEE Code of Ethics:

In a deontological ethical framework, an ethical person must ensure that his or her actions are consistent with some set of rules dictating good actions and bad actions. Likewise, the IEEE Code of Ethics is largely action-based and rule-based. It consists of a list of rules that IEEE members must comply with, detailing both actions that members should strive to perform (duties and obligations) and those they should avoid. For example, members are called to “reject bribery in all its forms” and “to treat fairly all persons…”.

However, the IEEE Code of Ethics could not likely be considered a fully deontological ethical framework, since some of the guidelines listed cannot be considered purely action-based. In a deontological system, only the action is considered in determining morality, and this is done so in accordance with a set of rules. No time is spent considering the consequences of one’s action, so one should be able to recall the set of rules and quickly determine whether an action is right or wrong. However, rules such as the first (“to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, to strive to comply with ethical design and sustainable development practices, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;”) are vague. While this could technically be considered action-based, since “to hold paramount” is an action verb, the specifics of the actions one must undertake to do so are dependent upon the consequences that the guideline spells out—that is, the “safety, health, and welfare of the public”. One must consider: What exactly is the safety, health, and welfare of the public? Is it the most good for all people? This guideline requires nearly utilitarian analysis.

The IEEE Code of Ethics is largely consistent with deontological ethics. However, it could further benefit from aspects of deontological frameworks through added specificity in the ethical and unethical actions outlined in the guidelines. For example, the first guideline (“to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public…”) could be supplemented by the addition of specific ways in which to accomplish this, such as “to never intentionally obscure legal information from a user.” While this may seem an obvious transgression under the existing Code of Ethics, a member could still potentially justify this action due to the code’s ambiguity.

ICCP:

The ICCP Code of Ethics certainly contains elements of a deontological ethical framework. The most obvious of these is a list of guidelines dictating proper and improper behavior for an ICCP professional. These guidelines consist of action-based imperatives such as “Be honest and trustworthy” and “Respect privacy”, consistent with deontological ethics’ emphasis on action rather than consequences.

However, the ICCP’s Code of Ethics is highly contingent upon the consideration of the “public good” in determining the morality of one’s actions. It states in its preamble: “Questions related to these kinds of issues can best be answered by thoughtful consideration of the fundamental ethical principles, understanding that the public good is the paramount consideration.” In other words, an ICCP member must consider whether the consequences of his or her actions will result in the greatest public good to determine whether or not his or her actions are moral. This is incompatible with the deontological framework, which requires that only the actions (regardless of consequences) be considered in determining morality.

Additionally, the guidelines presented in Section 1 (General Ethical Principles) suffer from the same problem as some of the guidelines in the IEEE Code of Ethics. While these guidelines might technically contain an action, the action is intentionally vague since there are many possibilities as to how to go about performing it, and the morally correct way is dependent upon the consequences of that action as specified in the guideline. For example, one of these guidelines is “Contribute to society and to human well-being, acknowledging that all people are stakeholders in computing.” Adhering to this guideline requires that one consider whether one’s actions will result in a contribution to human well-being. This is incompatible with the deontological ethical framework because it requires consideration of consequences rather than purely the action. One thing that the ICCP Code of Ethics could potentially gain from a deontological perspective is a more thorough list of unethical practices, an example being “sharing someone’s information without their consent”. One of the potential drawbacks of ethical frameworks that focus upon consequences rather than actions is that immoral actions could be justified in favor of a positive consequence. While it has its own set of drawbacks that must be considered, a deontological framework prevents this by prohibiting and mandating certain actions regardless of outcome.

WEBSITE POST 2

Analyzing H-1B

The H-1B visa system allows for workers from all different countries to obtain part-time legal residency in the United States. However, these workers must be skilled and working in jobs that require at least a bachelor’s degree of the foreign equivalent. Although it is the largest guest worker program in the United States, this system is very controversial, and President Trump signed an executive order that puts increased pressure on the program and its effects on U.S. citizens.

Despite the controversy surrounding H-1B visas, there are definite positives associated with the program. One of the most obvious goods associated with this program is that it affords skilled workers from other countries the ability to work and live in the United States. The program includes workers from any country, which contrasts with visas such as the TN visa program that includes only Canadians and Mexicans. This gives foreign workers access to companies and jobs that may not exist in their native countries. The direct corollary accessing these jobs is often a higher standard of living, as some of the jobs are relatively high paying. Another positive is the effect that these workers can have on the U.S. economy. Many of these workers have highly valued technical skills and Silicon Valley tech companies are willing to pay salaries of well over $130,000 in order to bring these workers to their firm. This led to further development in the tech industry. Another aspect of the H-1B visa that foreign workers find attractive is that spouses and children are also welcome to stay in the United States while the visa holder is working. This is under a different visa called the H-4, which has its own employment opportunities and rules. Lastly, the H-1B program is something called a dual intent visa. This means that a programmer hired from India who is currently working at Apple has the opportunity to apply for legal permanent residency in the United States.

Unfortunately many of the pros listed above are negated by flaws within the H-1B program. One major example of this is the large numbers of visas that are taken by outsourcing and consulting companies. The sad reality as that most of these firms pay their foreign workers lower salaries than United Citizens. So even though it is possible for foreign workers to get an Apple or Google job paying over six figures, it is much more common to get a job at Wipro or Infosys paying half of that. This hurts both the foreign and the domestic workers. The foreign workers are making less than their American counterparts for the same job, and domestic workers are losing jobs to cheaper H-1B visa labor. Another complication associated with the H-1B program is the long wait time for permanent legal residency. In Bloomberg reading, a worker on the H-1B visa claimed that his green card waiting process could take ten to twenty years. This leaves many workers in limbo because the program is only three years, which is obviously not long enough unless the worker is able to extend it. This extension is certainly not a guarantee. Some of the other disadvantages of the program are logistical. The number of applicants for the H-1B visa is massive, but there are only a limited number of spots. A lottery decides who gets the visa, but over 100,000 applicants are out of luck. The firms also face some costs for foreign workers, as the visa can cost a firm up to $7,700 dollars. These cons and more that are not listed have led to much scrutinization of the H-1B program.

Approaching the controversies associated with the H-1B program from a deontological point of view can help to determine what is moral with the program and what is immoral. The most important things to remember about the Deontological ethics framework is that it is an actions-based framework that does not care about consequences and that it is founded on the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative states that the morality of an action can be determined by asking if you would want everyone else to perform the same action. By utilizing this framework, the overall morality of the H-1B visa system can be assessed by applying the categorical imperative to the various actions of those involved. In this instance the decision-making parties would be the foreign worker hoping to obtain the H-1B visa, the company where the foreign worker is planning to work, and the government that puts the program into effect.

The action of the worker is the clearest under the deontological framework. The worker is attempting to better their life by applying for a job and a living permit in a foreign country. A deontologist would argue that this is moral based on the categorical imperative. There seems to be no apparent situation in which the actual action of searching out opportunities for one’s best interest would be disagreed with. That is not to say that there are not unforeseen consequences, such as an American worker who is replaced, but these are consequences that do not make the action itself immoral. In fact, a deontologist would likely reason that unfortunate consequences in the H-1B visa case such as these stem from immoral actions by somebody else.

In this instance that somebody else would be the multitude of firms that accept workers with H-1B visas but fail to accommodate them fairly. This is exactly what the IEAA-USA article claims outsourcing and consulting firms do. These firms do not have to pay the foreign workers as much as domestic workers. As a result, foreign workers are not paid enough, and American workers are left out of the workplace. In the Deontological framework, it is easy to see that the actions of the company to maximize profits by undercutting worker compensation. The reason for this is because the company executives would certainly not want their compensation lowered to unfair and uncompetitive values.

The morality of the government is most easily assessed when looking at the action of setting up the H-1B program. A deontologist would likely argue that the action itself is moral because the government is simply attempting to maximize the welfare of its citizens. This is something that would be universally accepted. Once again there are unforeseen consequences (caused by employers and other natural reasons such as a large number of applicants) that should be addressed, and that seems to be the direction that legislators and lobbyists are attempting to do just that in an attempt to further make decisions based on the welfare of its citizens.

Discussing the Google Memo

The Google internal memo touched on diversity programs within Google and how they are discriminatory. The memo tries to paint a picture where the lack of diversity in terms of gender is not a result of bias and discrimination in the workplace but rather a result of traits that are innate to men and women (Biological Differences). The author of the memo argues that these differences are not socially constructed because of the universality across cultures, the presence of biological causes and so on. The author then goes into how these differences result in different desires and personalities between men and women which eventually lead to the gender gap we have. The author then goes to suggest what he calls non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap which are based on the biological differences he highlights. One example of these suggested measures is making software engineering more people-oriented by using pair programming and making it more collaborative so that women, who have a higher interest in people, can thrive.

A deontologist would argue that it is immoral to have gender or racial discrimination with in the tech industry. The memo makes suggestions or criticizes existing google initiatives that are trying to fix this gender and racial discrimination or disparity. At face value the “Anti-Diversity” manifesto is not immoral for merely making suggestions about existing policies we have to further look into each suggestion and how they relate to the categorical imperative. The first harm of Google’s biases that the author presents is programs and resources for people with a certain gender or race. This would be considered immoral by a deontologist as it goes against the categorical imperative as it cannot be made universal. The policy should allow universal accessibility for those who would want to participate and need these resources regardless of their gender or race. Similarly having a high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates would be immoral under deontological ethics for the same reasoning given above. In fact, most of the suggested harms of Google’s current policy would be immoral as they would favor a certain group (Women and Ethnic minorities) over others. Deontological ethics only looks at the action itself and not the resulting diversity or good and thus would consider Google’s policy immoral. The author makes what he calls “Non-discriminatory” ways to reduce the gender gap. From a deontological perspective these would have no moral harm, but this would depend on the premises the author outlines about women and men being true. If the premises are false, then the suggestions would be based on a lie and be morally harmful. The deontological framework would consider wanting more diversity as moral because it does not go against the categorical imperative. But the hard part would be coming up with ways that lead to diversity without going against the categorical imperative.

Gender Bias in Tech

The disparity between women and men in technology has been an issue ever since the age of modern technology began to take shape. From the early computer programmers at MIT to Silicon Valley today, there have always been less women than men in technology. While there are a lot of opinions and theories around why this is the case, the National Center for Women & Information Technology (NCWIT) has made it clear that this issue is not one that deals with women’s innate behaviors. The NCWIT has pointed out three main problems with society’s stigma against women in technology which are: 1) Misunderstanding the research on brain differences (between women and men), 2) Misunderstanding the research on gender differences in interests or aspirations, and 3) Misunderstanding the nature of computing, engineering, or work in general.

The first point about brain research that the NCWIT is making is essentially highlighting the fact that there are no “hardwired” differences between the brains of women and men. There is no biological evidence supporting the differences between men and women. The second point is pointing out that there are no innate desires within women that dissuade them from pursuing a career in technology. In fact, one of the main reasons why women do not pursue a career in technology is due to social pressures and stigmas that women do not belong in technology. Finally the third point that the NCWIT is making is that engineering is not about building things or is a debate of technician versus artist as many people think. Engineering is about the art of problem solving and cooperation with each other, which people from all backgrounds can succeed in.

A deontologist would argue that the lack of women in technology is immoral and that there should be a greater level of gender diversity within technology. The pure act of gender discrimination is innately immoral and goes against the categorical imperative – discriminating in itself is inherently bad. When it comes to the three issues that the NCWIT presented, a deontologist would support the NCWIT through these issues and would further agree to fixing the gender differences that exist in technology. For the first issue, there is not much correlation between science and deontologists. However, fully understanding any issue and educating oneself would be moral. In this case, one could say that those trying to make the argument that women’s brains are simply different from men’s brains is not making an informed argument, and therefore is going against our ethical framework. Moving on to the second issue of the innate desires and aspirations of women, a deontologist would argue that the social pressures that exist that cause these misunderstandings are not good for the world. Women should do whatever they want to do and they should not have any negative influences or pressures preventing them. The virtues of allowing equal opportunity without negativity is universally good and moral. Additionally, providing greater gender diversity promotes problem solving, innovation, and decision making according to the NCWIT. Although a deontologist may say that these are consequences of promoting women in technology and not actual actions – they are actions in themselves and certainly moral actions according to the categorical imperative. Finally, the misunderstanding of the engineering field and work in general would fall under similar evaluation to the NCWIT’s first point – making an uninformed judgement on women in technology is immoral according to a deontologist. Understanding the engineering field and what it really is would help promote women in technology which is a positive action that falls under the categorical imperative. In summary, from a deontological view, promoting women in technology and eliminating the gender gap is moral, the right thing to do, and is something that could be universally applied. Giving opportunities to those who are underprivileged is a virtuous action.

Race and Ethnicity Biases

“[Silicon Valley] wants to do these things, but nobody is making the solid commitments,” said Howard University’s Computer Science Department Chair, Legand Burge in a Bloomberg piece reporting the struggle to get African American programmers into the elite tech bubble in California. What’s gone wrong? To begin with, the computer science pipeline is broken all the way down towards grade school and secondary education which puts minority computer science students behind the curve when they arrive on a college campus. Students from Howard University who were interviewed for the Bloomberg article noted that their computer science experience started in college; there were no coding classes or hackathons available to them in high school. This puts these students at a preparedness disadvantage compared to white students from coastal biospheres where early education has a focus on tech. Without these early experiences to put on their resume, minority college students often lose out on early college internships which continues to stifle their tech employment prospects.

Part of this broken pipeline is not just educational, but cultural as well. The “Hollywood Hacker” is hardly ever portrayed as a minority individual from a representative background, but usually as a white nerd from a well-to-do suburb. Minority students are being turned off from tech at this young age when they are stereotyped out of fitting some sort of programmer mold.

For minority college students who resolve to complete a computer science education despite these early factors working against them, they are now forced to contend with a tech culture that has, for decades, been saturated with white culture alone. This creates a minority retention problem for computer science. As students come into universities and don’t see anyone like themselves in their classes and computer science cohorts, it can be alienating and foster doubt that this student should be in the program in the first place. This cultural alienation can have consequences for companies too. How could we expect a minority student to see themselves being successful at a company that is dominated by white culture.

A minority programmer might feel out of place in a computer science program or workplace, but that is the less sinister byproduct of the whiteness of computer science culture. More problematically, companies that have been hiring white employees for decades have set the standard for what workplace culture is like, and it’s predominantly white. Legand Burge explains, ““Back in the civil rights period, it used to be that lighter-skinned people were able to pass and be more acceptable, so they were able to get into organizations or get into companies. Now it’s a little bit different. It’s about cultural fit. Do you laugh at the same jokes? Do you Rollerblade or whatever?” These tech companies have developed an implicit bias against hiring minorities because they don’t necessarily fit in with the white lifestyle culture that has come to dominate the industry.

As deontologists we commend the work that technology companies have already started to bridge the gap for minority computer scientists who might be starting late in their education or who don’t see a fit for themselves in this workplace or culture. The Google “Engineer in Residence” program that helped re-envision the Howard University curriculum is one such step. However, upon realizing that it is not enough to simply equip minorities with knowledge, it is imperative we do more to change the unconscious bias in the computer science culture. Universities and companies should endeavor to expose minority students to programming in high school by offering sustained encouragement to the subject, rather than fleeting, one day at a time efforts. Additionally, it would be virtuous if these organizations set out to redefine the perceived culture of computer science by not making the existing one a standard for entry since it bars others from inclusion.

WEBSITE POST 3

Brief Summary of Issues in Corporate Ethical responsibility

The first issue noted is the question of what responsibility does a corporation have in comparison to a person. Corporations can be criminals but only bodies can go to jail is an important concept highlighted in the first article. It is easier to point to an individual and say one person did an illegal thing but sometimes a whole corporation can be at fault. The extent to which corporations have a legal responsibility to be ethical has changed over time and there are a few court cases that go into corporation rights. They have free speech, corporations can have religion that the government can’t interfere with just like individuals, and they have equal protection under the law which grants a number of rights.

Another of the major issues addressed in the articles on Corporate Ethical Responsibility and discussed in class was on data privacy. Facebook is the first company that comes to mind when talking about a leak of privacy and selling the data of users to other companies. There are many things to consider but the biggest one is understanding what data is supposed to be private and what the terms and conditions. One article discussed how there is not a coherent approach to regulating what data can and cannot be pulled. The EU does have more of a code with their GDPR and different states are developing their own rules and regulations that companies must abide by in order to protect their residents. A sub-issue would be that some people of an older generation that are in positions of power do not understand the technical terms and newer technology that makes it difficult in addressing this problem. Relating to this topic, one issue brought up in class was that major tech companies have a database of users who do not have an account or do not use their service. There are no regulations on this and how they use this data.

On a completely different note, one issue addressed was gun control. According to one article, Dick’s and Walmart both decided to raise the age of a shopper to buying a gun from 18 to 21. Additionally, Walmart has ceased to sell toy guns or air riffles. Dick’s has stopped selling assault weapons all together. This is all as a result of the numerous school shootings and Dick’s took their stance after the Sandy Hook massacre. These companies are taking action to appease some of the Americans is an example of a few large corporations taking on social responsibility.

An article listed four of the major corporate social responsibilities that consumers look for and they are environmental efforts, philanthropy, ethical labor practices, and volunteering. One example on environmentally conscious actions and how they affect business is the BP oil spill. When the oil spill happened, so many drivers stopped getting their gas at BP and they took a huge hit. People are starting to care more about the environment and shopping from companies that support these ethical efforts. Other examples include shopping at companies that treat their employees with respect and offer generous benefit plans or supporting corporations that give back to the community.

Critique of Facebook using Deontological Ethics Framework as Guide

In 2018, it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica, through a data sharing partnership with Facebook, had been harvesting the personal data of Facebook users to be used for political purposes. While Facebook claimed that this partnership (along with numerous other data-sharing partnerships it was involved in—another being the Royal Bank of Canada, all as part of an effort to grow Facebook’s user base and generate advertising revenue) did not occur without the permission of users, many felt that Facebook’s claims of privacy lured users into a false sense of security that was then exploited. Few users read the lengthy and legal terminology-laden terms and conditions, and many believe that Facebook deliberately exploited this fact, knowing that most users would not otherwise consent to their data being shared.

Within the deontological ethical framework, the categorical imperative is used as a basis for determining the morality of an action. To analyze an action in conjunction with the categorical imperative, one must ask: “Would I want everyone in the world to perform the action in question?” In other words, one must determine whether or not it would it be favorable if everyone acted in the manner under consideration. If the answer is “No”, then the action is immoral and should not be performed. Otherwise, it is acceptable. The Facebook privacy scandal will be analyzed under the lens of deontological ethics, and specifically, the categorical imperative.

In the Facebook privacy scandal, it is not clear who is to be placed as the deliberator. Is it the corporation? The CEO? The collective consensus of the executive board members? While the idea of a corporation deliberating in this hypothetical situation may seem strange, there is precedent for the treatment of a corporation as a person. The concept of corporate personhood has a long history and a series of court rulings to back it up, and it is arguably fundamental to the functioning of a capitalistic economy. However, the ultimate benefit of the concept is debated even amongst those who share political affiliation. Regardless of whether one accepts the concept of corporate personhood, however, it is still possible to analyze the situation through the lens of the categorical imperative. Behind the actions of every abstract corporate entity is a person (or group of people) with reasoning and decision-making ability. So, we will refer to this reasoning and decision-making body as the corporation and regard the corporation as the actor in the categorical imperative

Now that the actor has been identified, we can proceed with the analysis. However, for the categorical imperative to be a sensible means of analysis for this scenario, we must modify the framework slightly. Generally, the action in the scenario is performed by an individual person. In this case, the actor is a corporate entity, and the action that is performed as well as the scope of its consequences are incomparable to any action that might be performed by an individual person. So, rather than asking whether it would be favorable for every person to perform the action in question, we will ask whether it would be favorable for every corporation to perform the action in question. Without altering the categorical imperative in this manner, we would be comparing the action of a corporation (sharing the personal information of millions of people for monetary gain) and that same action hypothetically performed by individual people—a nonsensical and useless comparison.

In accordance with this slightly altered version of the categorical imperative, we ask: Would it be favorable if all corporations shared the personal data of its users without their consent? The answer, likely, is no. If all corporations were to share the personal data of their clients without clear consent, people would lose their trust in corporations and seek alternative means, perhaps refraining from supporting these corporations. As a result, the economy would be disrupted and users would have to abstain from utilizing the many conveniences and services provided by corporations. Perhaps the argument could be made that if companies were able to successfully share user data to without the users’ knowledge (so that users cannot become upset as a result), there would be no harm caused to anyone since users would not be aware that their data was being shared and the corporations would be generating profits. However, the sharing of private data solely for the purpose of profits through advertising revenue (as in the case of Facebook) could result in subtle negative consequences besides the immediate upset of users. For an example directly from the case being discussed, personal data was gathered through Facebook about the political leanings of users to create targeted ads for news articles and websites that exaggerate or lie about political events to generate clicks, inflaming political divisions across the U.S. If users had the option to opt out of personal data sharing, such an event may have been avoided. Overall, it is in the best interest of all for corporations to maintain transparency with clients and users about how their information is being used.

How might Facebook have acted ethically in this scenario according to the deontological framework? Simply clearly and explicitly asking users for their consent before sharing information would have been perfectly sufficient to be considered ethical under deontology. Under the categorical imperative, having everyone gain consent before sharing others’ personal information would garner few objections. An additional detail that might be necessary might be that Facebook share with its users the purpose of sharing its users’ personal information. It is easy to imagine the corporation being deliberately vague in disclosing how the users’ information might be used. However, if users knew toward what purpose their personal information would be going (such as targeted advertising), they might be warier to consent. Because deontological ethics is an action-based rather than consequence-based framework, it is most important that Facebook is, out of principle, as clear and transparent as possible towards its users about the usage of their information.

Comparison of Potential Solutions to an Ethical Issue

A large ethical problem that many industries are facing, especially the tech industry, is the potential monopolies that the largest corporations have over important and lucrative markets. This problem leads to an anticompetitive nature of the industry and prevents innovation from happening at the start up level. When a company has the power to control an entire market by either purchasing a company or pushing others out of the market, it prevents competition and growth of the industry. Two solutions have been proposed to solve this problem and reduce the anti-competitive practices within the tech industry. The first is simply preventing monopolies from the start by limiting the acquisitions that can be made, and the second is regulating the product theft and price undercutting from tech giants like Amazon and Google.

Preventing monopolies from existing can be done by restricting the type of acquisitions a company can make. This can be accomplished with regulations set by the government. Back in 1968 if a company had over 15% market share, then they were not allowed to acquire a company larger than 3% market share. This prevents one company from ballooning and taking over an industry. By limiting the size of a company that a major tech giant can purchase, then they can no longer buy out all competition and integrate the smaller companies into their own.

A large problem contributing to the monopoly issue in the tech industry is the capital that is behind the largest companies. Companies like Amazon have the ability to take a good selling item on their platform, create their own version, and sell it at a much cheaper price eventually pushing the original product out of the way. They can control what items are show first within the search and insure that their product is being purchased. By regulating this behavior in terms of price cuts and search result rankings, this type of behavior can be prevented and shut down.

Both of these methods can be effective in controlling the size of the tech giants. The way in which a company like Google or Amazon displays search results and preventing the steep price cuts these companies can make would be easy to implement and control as well as being an effective way to allow new and small companies to rise up and have a fair shot at growing themselves. Without the fear of an idea being stolen and resold for cheaper, smaller developers can innovate, creating new products. By not permitting companies to always display their own products first, it would more organically allow smaller companies to gain a foothold in the industry and get their ideas or products out there. This solution provides an effective and simple way to ensure that all companies have a chance and would require some way to monitor the ranking algorithms a search would use.

However, by implementing this it would still be possible for a large company to just buy these new innovative company and take their product that way. By preventing this type of acquisitions, it would further help smaller startups have confidence in their own products and give them time to grow into a competition for the larger companies. It would leave the door open for more competition because overall there will be more players within a market creating their own products and innovating within the industry. It would require some type of limitation on either the size of a company being acquired in terms of market share or the number of companies that one can acquire.

In reality it would be most effective to implement both solutions as by themselves they will not be wholly effective. If both solutions are implement then the playing field within a market will be much more balanced and all players would have fair opportunity to grow and develop. Both solutions leave alternative methods that would allow a company to create a monopoly so individually they are rather useless and wouldn’t solve the greater problem. If the giant can’t buy a company then they can just force them out of the market, and likewise if they can’t force them out of the market, they will just buy the smaller startup so a much better solution would be to merge these two solutions together for the most anti-competitive protection.

In terms of Deontological ethics, it would say that the solution of regulating search engines and price cutting would be a more ethical solution to the problem. Deontology is an action-based ethics and it would say that the action of providing biased and inaccurate data in terms of search result, both in a general search engine as well as product search, would be considered unethical. Therefore, deontologist would want to have a way to regulate this type of behavior and not permit the ability to modify the results in this way. If a deontologist was in charge of one of these tech giants, then they would not want to undercut a smaller company and steal their product regardless of whether or not it would lead to more profit. They would only look at the specific action of taking the product idea and making it themselves and ask if they would want that action to be done by all in the world (the categorical imperative) and decide that it would not be morally right. Therefore, this solution would be a more favorable one to solve this aspect of corporate unethical behavior. Also, it is worth considering if the solution itself is ethical and in this case the action of regulating prices would be considered a morally fine action.

Proposal to Enforce/Reinforce Corporate Social Responsibility using Deontological Ethics Framework as Guide

The Deontological framework is action-based and thus would stress general moral actions and not worry about the results of these actions. These moral actions can range from a variety of things, but to put it into perspective we should focus on sanctions that would prevent companies from doing unethical things. Deontological ethics would suggest that companies follow a set of these ‘moral sanctions’ because performing said action is the ethical thing to do. Thus, the main goal for reinforcing corporate social responsibility would be to define these ‘moral sanctions’. These sanctions would most likely follow the categorical imperative meaning that all should adopt the policy. Within the example of sanctions on tech companies, the categorical imperative would imply that all companies would follow the sanctions because whatever action it suggests is morally good. Something that instantly comes to mind for companies is donations to charities. Deontological ethics would support wealthy companies donating to causes that aid people in need. If all companies did this, this would seem morally good. Companies would be fulfilling the social responsibility to help those who need the help. However, this particular sanction would be tricky since it would reduce the overall profit for a company thus, negatively influencing all the employees. Yet, from a Deontological perspective the result of an action does not matter, so implementing this type of sanction may be a benefit.

Defining a set of sanctions means developing a list of actions that companies need to take because that is the moral thing to do. However, it should come into question whether imposing these sanctions is moral in itself. Limiting the behavior of a company could seem unethical from the Deontological point of view from the start. Is forcing an action ethically right? Should companies have limited abilities? It is hard to justify limitations without mentioning some result of imposing such limitation. For our purposes we will assume that enforcing these ‘moral sanctions’ is a morally good thing to do. To do this we must really focus on actions that would automatically seem ethical. Most likely this will come in the form of something that will cause an immediate improvement. Something that impacts people right away and is always the right choice to make. The ‘moral sanctions’ will serve as a solution to limiting unethical behavior.

One sanction that instantly comes to mind is a sanction regarding environmental efforts. The environment is something that impacts legitimately every single person on the planet. Deontological ethics would most likely support sanctions that are in favor of preserving the environment. A Deontologist would recommend that companies must take actions to not hurt the environment. This is where the previously defined ‘moral sanctions’ come into play. Now these sanctions can come in a variety of forms, but ultimately they must be a universally good action to enforce. The first that comes to mind is implementing direct rules that companies must follow in order to reduce their carbon footprint. This may mean spending money on new or better equipment, altering manufacturing methods, changing locations, or any other altercation, but it is overall the morally right thing to do. It promotes a better environment, and thus positively impacts the people within that environment. This is something all people should consciously do thus fulfilling the requirement of the categorical imperative.

From a Deontological perspective, environmental efforts should be made by every company. Companies should actively strive to reduce their carbon footprint through all of their actions. If they are not doing this, then they are actively contributing to the destruction of the environment. This contribution is negative to all people, thus the company is acting immorally. Companies like this are knowingly hurting the environment which seems unethical. The ‘moral sanction’ implemented by a deontologist to limit the carbon footprint of companies would prevent this unethical behavior to hurt the environment. This prevention justifies the sanction, and thus would fit on the list of actions a company should take.

WEBSITE POST 4

IBM and the Nazis Case Brief

Edwin Black’s book, IBM and the Holocaust, is based heavily on research from museums, government documents, and library archives. These documents provide the bulk of the relevant facts to determine IBM’s culpability. One of the most important facts is that IBM machines were definitely sold and maintained for the Nazi regime and that the company admits this is true. It is also important to note that high-level IBM executives knew that these sales were occurring, which was made evident by CEO Thomas Watson’s frequent trips to Germany and even his meeting with Hitler himself. Another key fact that is more uncertain is the extent that IBM knew what their machines allowed the Nazis to do. It is difficult to what extent the company and employees knew what was happening and how crucial their devices were in the genocide, and this largely due to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of the firm. Unfortunately, it is also a fact that IBM’s Hollerith Machines greatly increased the Nazi’s efficiency throughout the Holocaust. The last couple of facts that could help with assessing the stakeholders’ morality involve the author of the book. Based on his own writing, Black is investigating and writing to allow the accountability process to continue and he released this book to coincide with the announcement of a lawsuit against IBM.

This is an interesting case because many of the stakeholders in this controversy have long been dead and the primary stakeholder is a corporation with corporate personhood. To start, the two primary stakeholders are IBM and Edwin Black. IBM has maintained that they did nothing wrong, as they had lost control of their German subsidiary during the era. The company has not issued an apology but realizes that IBM products were used by Nazis. Edwin Black is strongly against IBM and makes that well-known. He timed the release of his book perfectly to drum up as much publicity as possible and many critics claim the book is filled with hyperbole – possibly in an attempt to drum up controversy and even more publicity. Some of the other stakeholders in this controversy are the people who have filed the lawsuit against the company. They also believe that IBM has acted immorally, but it is important to note that the lawsuit was dismissed. Some of the former stakeholders that are now deceased are obviously the past executives of IBM, such as Watson. These executives also believed that IBM has the moral right to obtain profits regardless of the problems that this may cause.

The overall ethical culpability of IBM is difficult to assess due to company’s supposed lack of knowledge over the actual reason that the Nazis were using the Holleriths. However, deontologists base the morality of action based on the categorical imperative, which means that an action is only moral if you would desire everybody do the same action. Applying this to IBM there are multiple immoral actions. The primary action of selling machinery to a foreign government is not necessarily wrong, but the decision to not ask questions and attempt to find out the truth regarding the purpose is immoral because generally we would want people to both tell and find out the truth. IBM failed to do this, and as a result, the action that they really took was to seek out profits indiscriminately, which deontologists would argue does not align with the categorical imperative. The company has also failed in recent years because they have failed to accept accountability in almost every way. This also does not follow the categorical imperative. Therefore, the deontological framework would find that IBM acted immorally.

Muslim Registry Ethical Analysis

The Muslim registry was a plan that was brought by the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election. What such a program would entail was not really discussed or explored but it would involve having a database of personal information of Muslims with in the United States. Several of the articles draw similarities to a similar history in America’s past which is the Japanese internment camps that were installed to host Japanese Americans stripped of their rights when the US was fighting against Japan in world war II. There have also been similar attempts made by the US government to register immigrants from Muslim majority countries previously (NSEERS) but these programs are currently suspended but are feared could still resurface. Most people think that implementing a Muslim registry would involve people going to certain places and registering themselves and giving up their information but the interesting thing that one article mentioned was that the government would not have to physically register people at all. In today’s world of social media and several data mining techniques, it could easily be done without the need of physically registering people. There were a couple companies one with personally identifiable info on about 1.8 million individuals that are Muslim and another with 3.7 million individuals and claimed its data to be 85% accurate. This topic of a Muslim registry is quite controversial one because of America’s past and secondly how much such information collection would go against some one’s right to privacy as information regarding religion is considered sensitive and private. It is important to note that religion was dropped from the census by the US government because it was deemed to be a private and sensitive matter since the 1950’s. But making a Muslim registry would involve having a database of identifying information about people.

Making a Muslim registry would involve having sensitive data about people in the hands of a private corporation or the government. Given the several breaches of some companies like Facebook and Equifax this could put the people in these registries at risk and goes against our ethical code of do no harm. Under our deontological ethical framework, the categorical imperative asks us to ask the question of whether we could make something universal and thus having a broad registry of people with identifiable information violates this because it is immoral to universalize something with the potential to cause harm. It would also be a breach of privacy and religion should be a private and sensitive matter as the government had already put earlier. Another aspect to look at it from is the lens of human rights. It is immoral under our framework to cause or contribute to human rights abuses. The amnesty international article mentions the use of techniques such as predictive analytics to make models that are highly accurate, yet there is a significant amount of error involved at least at the human level. We run the risk of inaccurate labels and misrepresentation. This form of data collection, with its inaccuracies, could lead to the abuse of innocent people. Human rights, privacy and safety are moral and important things that should be universal and go with our categorical imperative. But such implementation of a Muslim registry puts all the above virtues at risk and thus would be an immoral action.

According to our deontological ethical framework there is really no difference between the government or a private corporation doing the registry/data collection. As per one of the articles that we read, a data scientist working for a company that brokers data, the field of data science and data mining is like the “wild west”. Since there is a lack of any regulation or a code of ethics in the field, whichever party implements such registries, there are no guarantees for the people affected that their privacy and safety would be protected. Whichever entity develops this the act goes against our categorical imperative. According to some ethical frameworks like the legalist framework the government doing the data collection might be better and could guarantee that the data would not be sold to other parties. There could be some advantages to the government doing the collection over a private corporation especially because a private corporation would be able to sell the data after collection. But whichever entity does the data collection this still would violate our categorical imperative.

Interview with Utilitarian Ethics representative Ethan Williams

From a deontologist view, a muslim registry would generally go against our virtues. Registering people based off of their religion and creating this registry is an immoral action. Our categorical imperative would dictate that having a wealth of data for the government to use on a certain group of people is not a good thing. For this interview, I (Patrick) will be interviewing Ethan Williams from the Utilitarian ethics framework. Utilitarians, of course, believe that actions should be judged off of their consequences as to if they benefit the greater good, i.e. does an action bring the most happiness and pleasure to the most people. In terms of a muslim registry, this is a tricky situation to think about. On one hand, a muslim registry would not bring pleasure or happiness to those on the registry. On the other, it does not has a direct effect on those who are not on a registry. Additionally, if one believes in the reasons for a muslim registry that President Trump has made, one could say that it would be preventing harm. However going back to the root of the action through technology, there would be a good chance that the government asks technology and data companies for information to start the registry. I think that the utilitarians would say that data companies sharing large amounts of personal and identifying data would overall be a bad action and would not bring the most pleasure or happiness. People tend to value their privacy and would certainly not be happy to learn that data companies are sharing information that these companies have been collecting. I think that those not on the registry would also be alarmed of this mass sharing of data because it could theoretically happen to them too at some point. In summary, I think that the Utilitarian framework will go against the creation of the registry.

Post Interview: After the interview with Ethan, he confirmed our thoughts on how the Utilitarian framework would answer. Ethan essentially said that depending on how the Muslim registry is used it can be either morally wrong or right according to the Utilitarian framework. If the registry is successful in stopping terrorists and enemies of the state, then it would be a good thing. Additionally Ethan mentioned that if it a majority of people were not on the list or had a negative view of Muslims, then this would overall be good because it is serving to those people. However, if the list brings more harm than good, it would be morally wrong. For example, if the list led to mass persecution of innocent Muslims or if the list came from data companies sharing private data, this would almost certainly not lead to the most amount of pleasure and happiness possible and would lead to public outcry.

In summary, our initial views were fairly accurate when it came to analyzing the Utilitarian framework’s view on the situation. We thought that they would be overall against it from a data sharing side and for it from a results side. The issue of a Muslim registry is not an easy one and it would be tough to evaluate it before it were to be created from a Utilitarian view.

Interview with Epicurean Ethics representative Kendyll Kraus

As discussed, we deontologists believe the Muslim registry is unethical because it intends to ostracize and invade reasonable rights to privacy. We chose to speak to the Epicurean ethics group because their ethical framework is rapidly divergent from our own. Whereas we seek to measure the moral intent of an action, the Epicureans are results based ethicists. If the outcome maximized pleasure and minimized pain it was a good action. Therefore, we believed that the Epicureans might disagree with our ethical views on the Muslim registry because it was claimed to serve a national security purpose, which would cause a reduction of pain even for many even if it caused discomfort for others.

However, Kendyll and the Epicureans had a completely opposite opinion than what we imagined going in. Citing The Atlantic article that makes the argument that the Muslim registry is ineffective at improving national securing, they argued that the Muslim registry was unethical because it wasn’t directly reducing pain, or improving the prospect of being able to prevent pain in the future. In fact, they went a step forward taking up a line of argumentation similar to our own. They claimed that since the registry created discomfort for Muslims while not contributing to any generally improved state of national security it was almost entirely unethical. Then we had an interesting discussion about the sources and acquisition of Muslim registry data. For the Epicureans I figured it might matter whether the data was collected with or without consent. This turned out be true. Kendyll said that if the Muslim personal data were aggregated from sources where users consented to giving that kind of personal information, then it is hard to argue that they are experiencing discomfort or some other sort of violation. In essence we got the impression that it would be a wash for the Epicureans-the registry doesn’t improve security, but it also isn’t violating privacy to use data people already agreed to release.

In the end, we ended up uncovering the divergent ethical standards we predicted. From our view, religious profiling is an unvirtuous behavior which violates the categorical imperative, so we could never support it whether data for such profiling were collected with consent or not. For the Epicureans, the result was clearly all that mattered considering that data collected with consent seemed to be fair use. We wanted to interview the Epicureans specifically because it has been hard to get a read on what motivates them during class discussions. We have noticed that sometimes they agree with our propositions and other times they are in clear opposition of our motivating framework. This was a valuable opportunity to explore why that has been happening and what factors can cause them to vary so often in their decisions on these ethical issues.

WEBSITE POST 5

Summary

Stakeholders in the issue of net neutrality

• Internet Service Providers
  • ISPs are major stakeholders in the conversation of net neutrality. Given the repeal of net neutrality, they would have more opportunity to make a profit off of various pricing methods that are currently forbidden. It would allow them to offer various internet packages and change the way internet is currently offered. meaning more money for these companies. Without the rules stating that the internet service must be provided equally, they will have more control over throttling speeds to certain sites or users. This gives the large internet provider companies more freedom and control over their own services and prices which means they are definitely in favor of repealing net neutrality.
• The government
  • The government in this situation is the regulator of the internet rules through the FCC. They have the ability to repeal net neutrality and pass more power over to the ISPs in charge of internet connectivity. This can lead to more success in that industry, but diminished success in industry that would be negatively affected. So they government would likely be the most neutral on the matter, however as we have seen in recent years, FCC officials are in favor of repealing net neutrality.
• Companies that deliver their products over the internet (Google, Facebook, etc.)
  • Companies that utilize the internet for content delivery, such as Google, Facebook, or Netflix, would be adversely affected if net neutrality were repealed. They believe in a free and open internet as it is in their own best interests financially. For example, Netflix services would likely be throttled unless users paid a premium to access acceptable speeds. Therefore, Netflix and other tech giants are willing to spend money and energy to fight the repeal of this regulations that help them deliver their content and maintain a business.
• Consumers
  • Many consumers will believe in the idea of a free internet and support net neutrality as it allows them to continue using the internet as they have been. They also support the ability for innovation to occur within the industry. Most people don’t want to have the large ISPs, many of which are already distrusted by the populace, have the ability to change the pricing model for the content that they most want.
  • However, many consumers are also for repealing net neutrality because in their beliefs, giving the government more control over things like this is a negative thing. They would rather see the market have control over itself and be less regulated by the government. Some people also argue that net neutrality prevents competition as the large companies have such a great control over the market and there is little competition to have. They would like to see smaller companies have an easier time getting into the industry and believe that net neutrality is a limiting factor in this opportunity.

Deplatforming and Deontology

Deplatforming is the act of disallowing some person or organization from expressing their opinion over a private platform or at an event and is usually enacted by the owner(s) or organizer(s) of said platform or event. In recent times, deplatforming has become more and more popular with technology companies, specifically social media and entertainment companies. Many groups are not happy with this development, and foremost among these groups is InfoWars, a conservative news platform owned by Alex Jones. In the past year, some farther right-leaning groups, InfoWars especially, has faced deplatforming from some of the most major entertainment and news delivery services such as Apple iTunes, Facebook, YouTube, and even Twitter. Most of this deplatforming has been in reaction to a statement made or action taken by the deplatformed party that the causes the deplatfomer to not want to host the deplatformee’s viewpoints. Alex Jones, and many other conservative figures, argue that they are being robbed of their First Amendment right to free speech. They argue that, by not allowing them to express their viewpoints on these popular platforms, they are being unfairly discriminated against. A common idea among the far-right opponents of deplatforming is that white, European-descended, Christian, heterosexual men and their values are under attack. However, it is not only right-leaning groups who oppose deplatforming. Some left leaning groups argue that suppressing controversial opinions just make it harder to combat these ideas, as those who are curious about them will have to seek out the echo chambers (more on those in the next section) where they thrive, and might not be exposed to alternative viewpoints or de-bunking of false information that would otherwise be present on popular, open platforms. As deontologists, we would be inclined to oppose deplatforming. According to the categorical imperative, we would only support deplatforming if we could logically come to the conclusion that we would be fine living in a world where any party can deplatform any other party for any reason they see fit. It is hard to make an argument that such a world is desirable, for indeed, we wouldn’t want to be kicked off of Facebook just for disagreeing with Mark Zuckerburg’s political ideology. On the other side, left leaning peoples and organizations seem to generally support deplatforming. They often cite “hate speech” or “harassment” as valid reasons to remove someone from a platform. And indeed, the poster boy of deplatforming – Alex Jones – was removed from so many platforms in large part because of his repeated denial of the Sandy Hook school shooting and his harassment of the victims and their families. Deplatforming, in this way, protects vulnerable parties from attack by those who would do them harm, either via emotional abuse or by inciting violence. Others say that, by letting hateful or bigoted speech be seen and heard on major platforms, young or impressionable people are susceptible to being radicalized or tricked into false beliefs. Deplatforming, in this way, is a good buffer against the spread of misinformation and radical ideas. Most, if not all, misinformation campaigns are spread by radical groups or individuals, so if these parties are deplatformed, they will not have the chance to sow their lies among the general public. As deontologists, the categorical imperative obvious tells us that preventing the spread of misinformation is a moral action. After all, nobody would logically want to live in a world where misinformation spread without opposition, one would never know what news they could trust and would live in a constant state of doubt. Yet now we see to be at a contradiction. After all, how can deplatforming be both a moral and an immoral action? To answer this question, we will appeal to the idea of higher versus lower imperatives. To give an example of said degrees of imperative, we will look back at an example discussed previously within the Ethical Computing Institute. When discussing collection of private user information via website tracking, we argued that a government can collect data on its citizens if it does so in the search for potential terror groups. In that case, the moral imperative of a government protecting its citizens was a higher moral imperative than respecting the privacy of its citizens. Now, back to deplatforming. In this case, we assert that things a deplatformed party has said or done is of the utmost importance. We argue that the action of deplatforming a person whom is inciting violence or spreading misinformation is a different action, and thus can be examined independently under the categorical imperative, from the action of deplatforming a person who expresses different political beliefs. I will attempt now to justify this distinction. Firstly, the person who is originating the spread of misinformation is lying, which of course is a completely different action from expressing one’s political beliefs. Thus, we can also separate “deplatforming a liar” from “deplatforming someone stating an opinion”. After all, is it not a different action for law enforcement to remove a dangerous criminal from a public space, then it is for them to remove a peaceful protestor from said space? Secondly, the person who incites violence is attempting to hurt another person, however indirectly. Surely, we can argue that attempting to hurt another person is a different action from expressing political beliefs that may, in their extremity, harm another person. Thus, we can also separate “deplatforming someone who incites violence” from “deplatforming someone stating harmful opinions”, in the same way that we can separate “law enforcement removing a rioter” from “law enforcement removing a protestor with controversial opinions” (i.e. the Westboro Bapist Church, who regularly protest military funerals. While it may be generally accepted as bad taste, they are peacefully protesting, not throwing bricks). Thus, we have separated the action of deplatforming into several different actions, each with their own morality under the categorical imperative. Deplatforming a liar and deplatforming someone who incites violence are obviously both moral actions, as we would logically want to live in a world where those who lie and incite violence have their ability to do so taken away. Alternatively, deplatforming someone starting controversial or ‘harmful’ opinions is not a moral action, since we would not want to live in a world where those with controversial opinions have their ability to do so taken away. After all, the civil rights movement was rather controversial, but we feel there are few who would argue that it would have been moral to remove Martin Luther King Jr.’s ability to get his message out. And under the categorical imperative, we cannot distinguish between the ‘morality’ of an opinion, we are forced to accept either all opinions, or none at all. Logically, we would want to live in a world where all opinions can be heard, so as to prevent a “baby thrown out with the bathwater” situation.

Proposition Regarding the Potential Effects of Deplatforming on Online Echo Chambers

An online echo chamber occurs when like-minded individuals congregate somewhere online. While this seems to be a natural outgrowth of the internet, with little exposure to outside opinions, individuals reinforce each other’s opinions, leading users to become more and more assured of the correctness their ideas. While it is intuitively natural for individuals to form communities based upon shared interests and opinions, the internet intensifies the negative consequences of this phenomenon. Not only can users willingly isolate themselves from individuals with differing opinions, but this shielding is built into many online platforms themselves. Facebook, for instance, has personalized algorithms that generate news articles based upon one’s previously expressed political opinions. Other platforms recommend users similar to those one already follows. Certain studies have found that some individuals are more susceptible to echo chambers than others. One MIT study found that subjects who tended to browse website content by category were less likely to fall for echo chambers than subjects who browsed content filtered by popularity. Based upon this baseline observation, the study found three types of individuals who are most susceptible to falling for echo chambers: highly social individuals, users already familiar with the content being presented to them, and young people. As part of an attempt to curb the negative effects of echo chambers, many social media platforms have begun deplatforming users who violate community standards. A debate has recently arisen regarding the ethics and effectiveness of the practice of deplatforming. One of the most hotly-contested cases is the deplatforming of Alex Jones from major social media sites in August of 2018. The deplatforming occurred after Jones claimed that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax and some of his followers went on to harass the families of victims. After his comments sparked legal action from some of the families, Apple removed several podcasts featuring Jones from iTunes. Soon enough, Facebook, Youtube, Spotify, Stitcher, and Pinterest had also removed Alex Jones-affiliated content. Twitter, which had already had a history of deplatforming with the banning of conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos, eventually banned Alex Jones as well. What is the effect of such deplatforming? One Georgia Tech study found that a 2015 ban of subreddits containing hate speech decreased the amount of hate speech on the forum overall. However, many people argue that deplatforming is a threat to the ideal of free speech, with some even alleging that social media platforms are biased and unfairly target conservatives. Others argue that private companies have no obligation to provide everyone access to their platforms, and that deplatforming is sometimes a necessary action to maintain a safe environment for other users. Does deplatforming have the potential to curb online echo chambers? Perhaps, but it also has the potential to exacerbate them even further. On one hand, deplatforming might ruffle the feathers of the deplatormed individual’s followers, causing indignance and turning the deplatformed individual or entity into a martyr. Additionally, even if large platforms like Twitter are stringent in their rules and regulations surrounding matters like hate speech, users may simply flock to different platforms. The Pittsburgh synagogue shooter was active not on a large platform like Twitter, but rather a little-known website called Gab. Unlike its larger competitors that monitor and censor content, the website boasted a policy of free speech at all costs. On the other hand, certain followers may not be committed strongly enough to bother to follow the banned individual to another platform. Perhaps these people are not interested enough in the content to seek it out outside of the convenience of receiving it directly to their Twitter feeds. The general public have busy lives and convenience is an important factor in the content that they consume. This is key because it is generally not rabid extremists who drive culture; rather, it is moderates who are gradually swayed. When an individual is given access to a platform that has the power to reach the general public, they suddenly have much wider influence. So perhaps the main benefit of deplatforming may not lie in preventing echo chambers (since extremists seem to always find outlets to express themselves and like-minded people to reinforce their views), but rather in limiting the exposure of violent and hateful ideas.

WEBSITE POST 6

Summary on job automation

Three key groups of stakeholders in the issue of job automation that we will be analyzing come at three different points on the scale of how job automation affects them. They are 1) the laborers and factory workers who will get replaced by robots, 2) engineers or workers who are not necessarily affected by the robots but might work with the robots (i.e. their work cannot be done by robots [yet] but the robots might make their work faster), and 3) upper level management and company owners who make profit off of the companies and products that the robots are producing. For the laborers and factory workers, job automation means almost certain termination of their jobs. The robots are explicitly developed to replace the jobs that these workers do. These people are paid a salary may be under a union but all of this is lost with job automation. There may be a few jobs remaining such as making sure everything is running smoothly, or maybe there’s a section of an assembly line that requires human inspection. However for the most part, these people’s jobs are no longer needed with robots. The Atlantic article A World Without Work used the example of Youngstown, Ohio to demonstrate what happens when employees and laborers are laid off in mass numbers. Towns die off and regional depression sets in. This is potentially what could come with mass job automation. The next group are the engineers or workers whose work with the robots and won’t be replaced by them. For example, say that one worker works in a car factory and their job is to paint custom decals on cars that are produced by job automation. Another example could be an engineer who writes software for the car itself. In the case of the worker, their job could potentially be improved with job automation if they were previously painting cars at a faster rate than the rate that human workers were producing cars. In this case, the worker can paint more cars and make more money (if he’s on a per-car commission for example). However job automation could also put more pressure on the worker to paint cars faster and faster. With the engineer, job automation doesn’t necessarily affect him/her because his/her software is going to be pushed out to cars regardless of who is actually uploading that software. The final stakeholder is the company executives and owners who profit off of the company. They of course are the people heavily pushing for job automation. With job automation, they only have to pay to create the robots and then maintain them as opposed to paying workers and potentially dealing with unions and other human elements. After the robots pay for themselves – the cost to maintain them is cheaper than human salaries and they produce products faster than humans – the company executives can pocket all of their excess money that they save from the robots versus the humans. When it comes to the Deontological view on the engineers designing job automation systems, we must evaluate their actions, and not their consequences, under the categorical imperative. In this case, the action of the engineers is purely designing a system. The facts that the system is for job automation and that job automation causes workers to lose jobs are only consequences which do not fall under evaluation of our categorical imperative. The act of designing a system is a very neutral action and does not necessarily violate any universal morals or values. If we were examining the act of job automation which one could say is the action of replacing human jobs with robots, this could be considered immoral against the categorical imperative. With the engineers design the system, it is hard to take a one-sided stance. The engineers’ actions are neutral because their action is designing a system.

Critical Analysis on job automation

Job Automation has been a heavily debated topic for hundreds of years. During the Industrial Revolution a group called the Luddites were so strongly against technological advances that they vandalized factories. The Luddites no longer exist, but the debate surrounding automation in the workplace continues to rage on, and encompasses economic, social, and political issues. One of the primary arguments against Job Automation is the fact that it has and is expected to continue to cause massive job loss. In 2016, Foxconn, which is an electronics manufacturing company, decided to replace 60,000 employees with robots (BBC). Obviously, this puts thousands out of work. It is possible that these fired employees will easily find work in another factory, but if the adoption of robots is widespread, then there is a shortage of jobs and a surplus of workers. The immediate impact on the workers is largely negative. Many jobless adults experience feelings of depression and unfulfillment. According to The Atlantic, the depression associated with job loss is often greater than the depression associated with other types of hardship. This is because the routine that steady employment provides is no longer there. Evidence of this negative effect can be seen in Youngstown, Ohio. Automation resulted in the closing of Youngstown Sheet and tube leading to the loss of $1.3 billion in manufacturing wages. The effects were devastating for the city; suicides and violent crimes increased, hundreds left the city, and neighborhoods were destroyed. The harmful social effects of joblessness can be summed up by Derek Thompson’s quote: “The paradox of work is that many people hate their jobs, but they are considerably more miserable doing nothing” (The Atlantic). The economic effects of Job Automation could potentially be harmful as well. Joblessness may very easily lead to poverty, which would cause incredible harm to the nation’s economy. This is because workers are also consumers, but if there are no workers that are earning wages then it becomes difficult for people to buy goods. Lower consumption causes lower Gross Domestic Product, which is generally used as one proxy for a country’s economic welfare. The other potentially harmful economic effect is greater inequality. The owners of the factories and firms will utilize these robots, which may lead to higher profit margins. This may increase the amount of wealth concentrated at the top of the economy. However, the hundreds of thousands of jobless would not be earning those wages. As a result, the wealthy would likely get richer and the working class may fall towards poverty. The other few arguments against Job Automation regard problems with the machines themselves. There could be concerns regarding the quality of products created solely by robots. This is because Job Automation is extremely similar to a concept called McDonaldization, which is focused on maximizing efficiency through extreme rationalization. A negative side effect of McDonaldization is that the focus is on quantity over quality. On a large-scale this could cause a decrease in the amount of what we would now consider quality goods. The other problem with Job Automation is that there is a distinct lack of human connection through transactions. Instead of telling a waiter what you want at a restaurant, you would select it from a machine. This provides a completely different experience, and many people would much rather have that human interaction. This is not to say that Job Automation is objectively bad. There are many arguments in favor of job automation. The primary argument is that increased technological advancement and efficiency is a good thing. The ability to produce goods at an unprecedented rate with far fewer hiccups would undeniably be a positive for producers. Machines would also be likely to lower costs. There may be a few technical hiccups along the way, but the costs to deal with those issues is likely going to be far smaller than the monthly wages owed to thousands of workers. This increased production capability at much lower costs are a huge positive for producers. These same producers would also argue for the positive effects on consumers. This is because more goods at cheaper costs could lead to economy wide lower prices for consumers. Another potential benefit for implementing Job Automation would be that workers would be removed from jobs in bad working conditions. The use of robots in the Foxconn factory is another example of this, as workers had complained about the working conditions in the past. The other potential benefit involves a complete societal change towards leisure. Without jobs people can shift their focus towards leisurely activities. This can be seen in Youngstown with the former workers who now spend their time in the foundry creating art that they enjoy. This post-work society would allow people to find meaning and purpose in activities that they truly enjoy. Instead of feeling guilty about their leisure, they will not have to worry about the work they are missing because all or most of the work is automated. The role of engineers creating these machines that replace people is somewhat ambiguous under the Deontological framework. This is Deontology focuses on the morality of the action regardless of the consequences. The question becomes what is the action that the engineers are actually making. I would argue that the engineers are creating machines to replace human labor. The counter-argument would be that these machines are being built to increase efficiency or lower costs, but that argument focuses more on the consequences of the action rather than the action itself. Having determined the action of the engineers to be creating machines to replace human labor, it is now important to consider whether this is a moral action under the Deontological framework. The Categorical Imperative considers an action moral only if you would want everyone to adopt the same action. The engineers’ action does not pass the Categorical Imperative because there are instances in which you would not want someone to create a machine that replaces human labor. An easy example would be one’s own job. As a result, the Deontological framework views the engineers as acting immorally, but there it is left to some interpretation regarding the actual action the engineers are making.

Critical analysis on self-driving cars

The argument in favor of self-driving cars seems to be twofold. The first argument is fairly concrete, although its premises seem still theoretical and needing more thorough investigation. The second argument is rather abstract. First, self-driving cars are anticipated to reduce motor vehicle deaths. The reasoning is that the precision and dependability of swarms of vehicles coordinating movement will reduce driver unpredictability. Whether that means distracted drivers no longer put themselves and other vehicles at risk of crashing or simply that bad drivers no longer have the chance to make the wrong driving decisions, self-driving cars should reduce the chance of unpredictability on the road and therefore would reduce the prevalence of situations where accidents can occur. Another benefit would be an increase in efficiency. The benefits of an increase in traffic efficiency are a bit abstract, but in theory, self-driving cars should be able to coordinate the most efficient ways to move traffic through intersections or merge on and off the highway. No traffic jams would be pretty nice! In fact, without having to actively manage a commute, humans would also gain productivity in their commute time as they would be freed up to do, well…something!

That’s where the arguments against self-driving cars come into play. What does all that freed up time actually mean? Would it feed a pervasive corporate lifestyle where employees are now expected to work on their way into work? Even if the time was our own, does anything about how we as humans use our free time now to engage with digital media indicate that we would even gain personal or productive side effects from this newfound time on our hands? It seems most likely that in a future of self-driving cars, the time commuters gain back would be spent buried in a screen. Our own irresponsibility as digital consumers is one of the more abstract arguments against self-driving cars. More realistically, we have to consider the intentional loss of human life that will pave the road to a world of self-driving cars and the algorithmic killing that will take place, via the trolley question, in such a world. In the Longreads article, the CEO of Toyota North America was quoted saying, “The reality is there will be mistakes along the way. A hundred or 500 or a thousand people could lose their lives in accidents like we’ve seen in Arizona,” in reference to the death of pedestrian Elaine Herzberg when she was struck by a self-driving Uber. First, this is a troubling statement because it implies that technological progress will be knowingly sacrificing human lives. The argument goes that the cost of human life now will offset the lives saved when autonomous vehicles reduce motor vehicle deaths later. However, this seems to accept the premise that self-driving cars will actually reduce fatal accidents without much scrutiny. Sure, automated systems perform very safely and very predictably within the finite state machine that dictates their behavior, but who is to say that something as complicated as driving can be expressed by a state machine, no matter how complex? What happens the first time a single vehicle receives conditions outside its state machine and doesn’t know how to act, and how might that create a chain reaction of vehicles forced to act beyond the cases in their internal programming? One of the proven hardest things for computers to do is to learn to react to new data in ways that humans can do almost instinctively. In addition to the understated threat to human life, there are softer consequences we as a society will have to deal with. For instance, the inefficiency of traffic in many cities throughout the US incentivizes many commuters to take public transit, which is an environmentally conscientious outcome. By reducing the implicit cost of owning a personal vehicle, we might encourage consumer buying habits which are environmentally damaging. Furthermore, a non-trivial amount of blue-collar jobs in our society center around human drivers. Presumably, every taxi and truck driver in the country would be out of a job. There is a disturbing lack of discussion about how this type of automation would disproportionately affect the livelihoods of lower income workers and how we as a society would support them if they were displaced from the job market.

As deontologists, we feel there is not enough evidence that the pursuit of self-driving vehicles will be positive for society. In considering the categorical imperative in this context, we conclude that the failure to consider the unemployment consequences for workers in the driving industry and the lack of planning as to what their new role in society will be demonstrates a fundamental lack of regard for the well-being of others. If this were to become the case for all jobs if they were to be automated, the harmful effects of such disregard would become readily apparent. Additionally, we cannot abide a process of technological development which knowingly and willingly ends human lives, as the CEO of Toyota North America previously acknowledged. Even if self-driving car development were harmless and all of society adopted them overnight, there is still a serious question left to consider when these autonomous vehicles have to make a decision in a situation where all outcomes likely lead to fatalities. When we ask the trolley question, it should not be answered by an individual’s ability to purchase a car model which prioritizes self-defense over the good of the many, and on the other hand, a car that willingly chooses to end a person’s life to save many more is not acceptable to us since that person would be subject to an algorithmic destruction that does not reflect the high premium we place on human life. Neither is a good option for us, so autonomous vehicles should not be introduced to the delicate driving situation at all.