Legalist Ethics

“If in a country there are the following ten evils: rites, music, odes, history, virtue, moral culture, filial piety, brotherly duty, integrity and sophistry, the ruler cannot make the people fight and dismemberment is inevitable; and this brings extinction in its train.”

- Shang Yang, The Book of Lord Shang

Blog Posts

Blog Post 6: Job Automation ( 2019-02-28 00:00:00 +0000 )

Blog Post 5: Fight for the Net ( 2019-02-21 00:00:00 +0000 )

Blog Post 4: Corporate Malfeasance ( 2019-02-14 00:00:00 +0000 )

Blog Post 3: Corporate Ethical Responsibility ( 2019-02-07 00:00:00 +0000 )

Blog Post 2: Diversity and Immigration ( 2019-01-31 00:00:00 +0000 )

Blog Post 1: Code of Ethics ( 2019-01-24 00:00:00 +0000 )

Summary

Online Censorship

A Legalist framework is in favor of online censorship. The general argument against online censorship is that it violates the value of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, however, does not follow the tenets of Legalism. Freedom of speech supports the idea that individuals’ unique opinions are good and that individuals will be able to determine what is the best, most ethical philosophy for themselves given a wide range of different views. This goes against the Legalist view that people cannot be trusted to do develop their own virtue. Legalism believes that individuals must be given virtues to follow with incentives and punishments in place to coerce the individuals to follow these virtues. Additionally, online censorship conforms with the Legalist value of peace and order through strength. If given the opportunity to speak freely, individuals will create conflict with others who have divergent views. Legalism values the peace and virtue higher than individuality and free speech.

Job Automation

The Legalist framework would likely not be in favor of job automation, especially when it comes to low skill, low income jobs. Though there is no direct threat to the legal system with machines replacing people, there would be indirect effects from job automation that would be unfavorable to the legalist. The main effect that job automation could have is a high rate of unemployment. Though this in theory could be mitigated by some sort of job retraining program where the unemployed could learn new skills and be reemployed, this would take a long time especially for people who have been in an industry for many years or those who turned to the workforce because they could not pursue higher education. This difficulty to readjust to a world with automated jobs would lead to much civil unrest, and likely from this there would be a large rise in crime as people turn to illegal but accessible ways to survive. This is why large scale job automation would be unfavorable for the legalist. As the legalist framework considers following the law to be ethical, job automation would not be looked upon favorably in this framework as it could have a direct correlation with a rise in people breaking the law. Job automation in low skill, low income jobs would be even more unfavorable in the legalist perspective as the people employed in this sector would be at the highest risk for not being able to find another job after losing their job to automation.

Computer-Assisted Warfare

A Legalist framework would likely be in favor of the use of computer-assisted weapons and warfare tactics in support of its own state. There are two main tenets within the Legalist framework that come into play in this case. First, a Legalist should consider if there are any laws or otherwise state-imposed rules which prevent or impact the carrying-out of computer-assisted warfare. In this case, the state has very few laws against computer-assisted warfare. There are, however, some laws that exist at the international level. International humanitarian laws and the international laws of war, state most notable that a human must be in the loop for all weapons that are used in an offensive manner. This means that any system that is used in an effort to do damage to an enemy must have a human involved in its decision-making process. This is the only notable law that could impact the decision of a Legalist in this case. The second relevant tenet of Legalism is that it should be considered whether a decision shows significant benefit or detriment to the state. In this case, the use of computer systems in war can be very beneficial to the state because it can give it an edge over competing states on the battlefield. Computer-assisted militaries can move much more quickly and perform at a much higher level than analog ones can and, therefore, there is significant benefit to embracing computer-assisted warfare. Legalists would probably support computer-assisted warfare due to this second tenet, which would overrule the international laws which prevent autonomous offensive systems. A more neutral Legalist may propose a compromise, in which computer-assisted warfare is embraced within the constraints of international law. A strict Legalist, however, would likely ignore international law in favor of supporting his own state and would therefore fully be in favor of computer-assisted warfare of any kind.

How to Analyze an Ethical Decision

The inputs to the algorithm include an ethical choice to measure, relevant legislation, benefits/costs to the government, and whether the moral responsibility is on individual actors instead of a central authority.

1. If there is relevant legislation, or a legal precedent:
   • If there is competing legislation or ambiguity, skip to step 2
   • If the legislation permits this choice, output “Ethical”.
   • Else, if the legislation forbids it, output “Unethical”
2. If there are significant potential benefits/costs to the central government, especially in terms of greater control:
   • If there is a significant benefit, output “Ethical”
   • Else, if there are greater potential harms, such as disrupting the hierarchy of the government, output “Unethical”
3. If the decision places trust into the hands of citizens, output “Probably Unethical”
4. Else, output “N/A”