Utilitarian Ethics
“Create all the happiness you are able to create; remove all the misery you are able to remove. Every day will allow you, –will invite you to add something to the pleasure of others, –or to diminish something of their pains.”
― Jeremy Bentham, Advice to a young girl
Post 7
March 7, 2019
A summary on computer assisted warfare (Maggie)
Computer assisted warfare is an area in which computing and the internet become the main weapon. This could entail anything from the use of robots in place of humans on the battlefield, to the cyber-warfare and netwar. The discussion of war is relevant to the Utilitarian framework due to the extreme pain and consequences that come from war, and computer assisted warfare is simply new frontier of war time technology. When it comes to calculating the Utilitarian stance on computer assisted warfare, it is important to remember that the Utilitarian framework only maximization of resulting pleasure, and not about the means at which it was achieved. This makes it difficult to analyze whether or not all aspects of computer assisted warfare are ethical or not, being that many of these methods have not been utilized in order to determine the resulting pain and pleasure. Ultimately, I think the determination of whether the use of computers as a weapon in war is ethical from a Utilitarian standpoint can only be determined on a case by case basis, at this point in time. For example, political groups such as ISIS have been using social media platforms as a means to spread information, and gain a digital advantage against opponents, also referred to as “netwar.” ISIS has employed powerful online marketing, bots to convince the public of anything they want them to believe, making the public easier to manipulate and perpetuating the us v them mentality. This tactic creates pain and fear for the majority of the public. Additionally, ISIS will often flood media outlets with false information which has an unpleasurable result of decreasing the credibility of all sources on social media. For this reason, netwar is unethical. In a different example, Ronald C Arkin has been conducting research on the ethical use of robots to carry and use weapons in a war situation. Because completely autonomous robots have never been used in combat, it’s impossible to be certain about who this would benefit and who it would hurt in the end. Ideally, less people would be injured or die in war, but there is also the fear that the robots will “run amok” and harm a lot of people. But overall, I believe the pros of saving lives and making battlefield decisions more humane bring more pleasure than the potential fear that robots will take over. So therefore, this instance of computer assisted warfare is ethical for Utilitarians.
A summary on diversity in the technology sector (Jonny Xu)
Diversity in the technology sector is a problem related to the disproportionately low representation of women and other minorities. This is important to our framework because our utilitarianism is fundamentally concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number of people. To that end, utilitarianism considers demands the greatest number of all people to all be treated equally. A lack of diversity in technology is unethical as it prevents access to the industry by deserving individuals who happen to be in the minority. Therefore, utilitarianism states that individuals and society as a whole must do more to call for equal representation and consideration for opportunities in the technology sector. There are two basic attributes of utilitarianism that support this notion. First, as mentioned previously, utilitarianism clearly states that the happiness of all individuals is equal. The current lack of diversity is catering towards the happiness of male workers at the expense of minorities. This is immoral. Second, in a similar vein, a lack of diversity does not bring the greatest number of good for the greatest number of people. It clearly brings maximum good for a subset of people. For these two reasons of utilitarianism determines the current lack of diversity as highly unethical. ### A summary on autonomous vehicles (Ivy) Ever since the advent of assembly lines, automation has become a more and more popular choice for corporations. Nowadays, you can hardly walk into any factories and not encountering any forms of automation involved in the production process. The problem of job automation is that on one hand it increases efficiency and effectiveness, and on the other hand, machines and robots take away humans’ jobs so that these people become unemployed. The problem of job automation is important to Utilitarianism because Utilitarians care about the happiness of the society overall and job automation affects people’s happiness. Utilitarians would support job automation in general since being more effective and efficient is directly related to being happier in most cases. So the overall utility of the society would increase. The first piece of evidence is that with the help of robots, factories can produce more products in a given time and would produce more profit so that will make every shareholder of the company happier. The second piece of evidence is that robots are doing many jobs that are laborious and repetitive. Humans who are set free by these robots will also be happier since they can now engage in other jobs that are more interesting.
Algorithm to analyze an ethical decision (Ethan and Beatriz)
The inputs of the algorithm are: decision being analyzed and context in which decision is being made (i.e. location, people involved and any other details necessary). The algorithm assumes that given the context of the decision, a list of people affected can be compiled. If decision affects a large, unquantifiable number of people, make a rough estimate (i.e. ~2,000 employees in a company, ~100,000 people in a town, etc.). Algorithm: Make a list of every person that can in some way be affected by the decision. Let effect = 0 For every person identified in (1): If the decision is going to increase the person’s overall happiness: effect = effect + 1 If the decision is going to decrease the person’s overall happiness: effect = effect - 1 If the decision doesn’t affect the person’s overall happiness, continue. If effect > 0: Output: Probably ethical If effect < 0: Output: Probably not ethical
Post 1
January 24, 2019
Utilitarianism Statement of Purpose
What makes an action ethical?
An action is ethical when it leads to the “best” end result possible based on that choice of action. “Best”, in terms of Utilitarianism, is defined as bringing the most happiness and pleasure to the most people at the greatest intensity, proximity, and purity and for the longest duration. This happiness and pleasure can also be referred to as “utility”, hence the name of this ethical framework. An ethical action considers the happiness of every person it could effect equally, not just the personal happiness of the doer.
What triggers the need to evaluate how ethical an action is?
Jeremy Bentham wrote utilitarian ethics with the intention to apply them toward social and legal reform. In this way, utilitarianism calls people to evaluate the utility of actions when writing laws or social codes of conduct. But in evaluating the utility, it is important to remember that only the end consequences of these laws should be considered in measuring how ethical it is – not a given person’s reaction to the law. Because different environmental and social circumstances could lead to different consequences, laws must be re-evaluated on their ethicalness frequently to adjust to changing times.
The predisposition people have to act ethically
A predisposition is the tendency to hold a particular attitude or act in a certain way. According to this definition, people may or may not have a predisposition to act ethically depending on whether they are a self-centered or more self-aware person. A more self-centered person might not have a predisposition because they are focused on the greatest pleasure for themselves, not necessarily the greatest number of people. However, a more self-aware person might always want to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and thus will be more predisposed to act ‘ethically’ according to the utilitarian framework.
Three issues in computing technology related to utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a strong ethical framework to consider a variety of issues in computer technology. One of these is corporate ethical responsibility. For example, a company might build their products in such a way that many people benefit while a small number are harmed. Using the utilitarian calculus, the actions of the company are ethical. A specific example might be automation of factories and other miscellaneous jobs. For a particular company automating their factories, this might result in a cheaper product for millions of customers while harming those whose jobs were replaced. Using the utilitarian calculus, this is a very moral action.
A second example is government surveillance. Utilitarianism would have a lot to say about this with regards to whether mass surveillance brings the most happiness to the most number of people at the greatest intensity, proximity, purity, and for the longest duration. One might argue that government surveillance causes no perceived displeasure for the people who are surveilled while providing safety. Thus, it is very moral. However, one might say that government surveillance provides no perceived benefit to those who are surveilled while instead causing anxiety and unease.
A third example, related to government surveillance, is whistle-blowing. When someone like Edward Snowden releases documents related to the surveillance activity of the NSA, it brings into question an ethical dilemma that utilitarianism can weigh in on. While many people have different opinions on whether Snowden’s actions were patriotism or betrayal, utilitarianism provides an interesting viewpoint by determining whether greatest happiness was brought to the greatest number of people. Perhaps people finding out about government surveillance brought them displeasure, or perhaps more pleasure was created from people knowing the truth. It depends on interpretation and thus this is an interesting topic for this particular ethical framework.
On the IEEE code of ethics
Similarities:
One thing that’s common between IEEE code of ethics and Utilitarianism is impartiality. IEEE code of ethics specifically states that members should treat everyone fairly and not discriminate against anyone. This statement follows the Utilitarian belief that everyone’s happiness should be weighted equally. Therefore, regardless of race, gender, and religion, every individual should be treated with respect and fairness. IEEE also states that we should avoid damaging other people’s property or reputation in any sort of ways. It again reinforces the Utilitarian thinking that no one’s happiness is greater than anyone else’s and. Everyone’s happiness is of equal value. Another common theme between IEEE code of ethics and Utilitarianism is maximizing the overall good. Utilitarianism emphasizes that we should strive to bring the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of individuals. Similarly, IEEE code of ethics also stresses the importance of the safety, health, and welfare of the public. According to both, we should behave in ways that can benefit most people and refrain from behaviors that may cause harm to most people.
Differences:
IEEE code of ethics requires its members to “reject bribery in all its forms”. However, according to Utilitarian thinking, different forms of bribery can lead to different results and thus might be acceptable in certain conditions. Since whether an action is right is solely dependent on the consequence it brings and there is no direct correlation between bribery and the loss of happiness of all parties involved, Utilitarians might want to argue about the validity of this particular statement.
Something missing that Utilitarianism can provide:
Utilitarianism provides a clear instruction on judging what should and should not be done. We should do anything that maximizes the overall good for all people and stay away from the other ones. IEEE tells us to avoid conflict of interests if possible, but it fails to provide a solution if the conflict is unavoidable. Utilitarianism could provide a way to resolve conflicts when necessary (though it might not be the best way).
On the ACM code of ethics
Similarities:
Many of the moral imperatives of the ACM Code of Ethics align with the Utilitarian framework. As it is stated in the first imperative, the ACM believes that professionals should “contribute to society and human well-being”. This ideal is strongly related to Utilitarianism as it encourage professionals to use their abilities to improve society and people’s lives. Another strong resemblance to Utilitarianism can be seen in the second imperative, which states that professionals should “avoid harm to others”. In other words, the ACM Code of Ethics, like Utilitarianism, sees ethical actions as producing happiness and minimizing pain.
Differences:
Although there aren’t direct contradictions between the ACM Code of Ethics and Utilitarianism, if the Utilitarian framework is applied to certain situations, it might result in a violation of the ACM Code of Ethics. For example, the ACM greatly values honoring privacy, confidentiality, copyrights and intellectual property. However, a Utilitarian might easily break one of these ideals if it were to maximize overall happiness. For instance, leaking a confidential document would be seen as a serious offense by the ACM, but for an Utilitarian it would be an ethical decision if the confidential information would benefit the general public.
Something missing that Utilitarianism can provide:
Utilitarianism can help complement and further expand on the ACM Code of Ethics. As for instance, ACM states that professionals should “contribute to society and human well-being”. However, the code doesn’t expand very much on how exactly this should be done and how professionals should have this imperative in mind when making decisions. The Utilitarian framework can provide a more structured definition on what contributing to society and human well-being really means (i.e. maximizing happiness). Although applying Utilitarianism to the ACM Code of Ethics may cause some contradictions, it can help expand on some moral imperatives and give more strict guidelines on how professionals should act.
On the ICCP code of ethics
Note: using the old ICCP code, found here.
Similarities:
The ICCP Code of Conduct and Code of Good Practice include many tenets which fall within Utilitarianism. These tenets include emphases on social responsibility, public education, and accountability, which coincide with Utilitarianism’s focus on maximizing the greater good. The Code of Good Practice also includes public safety as a major tenet, which again represents the Utilitarian ideal of maximizing wellbeing for all.
Another way in which the ICCP Code of Conduct matches with Utilitarianism is impartiality. Like the IEEE Code of Ethics, ICCP stresses impartiality—avoiding conflicts of interest, maintaining honesty and integrity, and
Differences:
Like the ACM and IEEE codes, one of the main ways in which the ICCP code could contradict Utilitarianism is in its restrictions to honor privacy, confidentiality, and other social and professional norms. In general, Utilitarianism takes the view that the ends justify the means and that if an action that might generally be understood as “wrong” (e.g. lying, breaking a contract, taking bribes) leads to a good outcome, that action is ethical. The ICCP code generally rejects this idea, explicitly rejecting decisions which it determines are wrong, regardless of the outcome. In this spirit, the ICCP requires discretion, law-abidance, and protection of privacy.
Something missing that Utilitarianism can provide:
The ICCP Codes of Conduct and Good Practice outline certain types of conduct as either encouraged or disallowed, but many real-world decisions can be morally ambiguous when looked at through this sort of lens. For instance, choosing whether to disclose a non-critical bug in a piece of software does not directly concern the Code’s discussion of public safety or social responsibility, so the Utilitarian principle of maximizing happiness can be used to make a decision.
In addition, the Code of Good Practice makes the broad claim that “computing professionals must ensure that their efforts are used to benefit humanity.” While the ICCP does not define what constitutes a benefit to humanity, Utilitarianism can provide the framework with which to measure a benefit to humanity.
Post 2
January 31, 2019
A summary and response to the controversy surrounding H-1B visas
To gain a clear picture of the H-1B visa system, it is necessary to view its benefits and drawbacks both from the position of those who either hold or desire a visa and from that of employers who are in need of the skills that non-immigrant workers hold. Many of the facets of this system have conflicting merits between the two groups; that is, what is beneficial for the employer may harm the employee, or vice versa. This makes it particularly challenging to value the system as a whole unless a clear ethical framework is used to analyze it. Therefore, in this discussion, the arguments both in favor of and in opposition to the H-1B system will be discussed with respect to both employers and employees, concluding with an analysis of the system guided by the utilitarian ethical framework.
For employers, the most obvious benefit is that they can more easily hire the talent they need. Especially in advanced STEM fields, it can be difficult to find enough people who have the skillset required to satisfactorily complete a job or project. By expanding the applicant pool beyond US borders, there is a greater chance of finding someone who meets a company’s needs. This is not only an advantage to the company, but to the customers who enjoy the services they provide. For employees, many workers enjoy protections under the system. For example, if certain qualifications are met, employers are required to pay visa holders an equal or higher wage than that of US citizens. However, Americans need not worry that a foreign applicant could take their job, since employers are not allowed to displace an American worker within 90 days before or after filing for a visa, and must prove that they have exhausted their resources in searching for a citizen to fill the position. For employees, it is a way to get a foot in the door to pave the way for citizenship or a permanent position, or to acquire international work experience. Additionally, unlike green cards and other work authorizations, there are no quotas or limits set on the number of citizens from certain countries, which means that citizens from countries with a high number of aspiring migrants may have a better chance at acquiring an H-1B visa.
Despite these advantages, there are many flaws with the system. First, from an employee perspective, there are obstacles that make getting a job more difficult than it would be for a US citizen. For example, even if a prospective foreign employee already has a job offer in hand, the lottery puts him or her at odds with all others who have applied for the H-1B visa. Out of hundreds of thousands of applicants, only 85,000 are granted the visa each year. Another issue lies within the exempt status that is conferred upon many employees. If an employee is being paid over $60,000 per year, he or she is considered exempt from the protections that were discussed earlier. In fields and cities where wages are much higher than $60,000, this presents major wage inequality problems, and even raises questions of livability. Additionally, this visa is only a temporary work designation. For workers who desire a more permanent post, getting a green card is a separate process that also has its flaws as it relates to the H-1B system. For example, only a certain number of green cards can be granted to citizens of a given country. Since there is no such restriction for H-1B visas, Indians, for instance, hold a majority of all H-1B visas, but the country restriction prevents many of them from achieving this permanent work certification later on despite already holding a job in America. The distribution of visas among fields is also uneven. According to the IEEE article, a disproportionate number of visas go to outsourcing companies that barely qualify as requiring highly skilled workers, which severely limits the amount of tech talent that is able to be hired by other companies, especially in conjunction with the already restrictive lottery.
From a Utilitarian standpoint, it is important to analyze the consequences of the system, rather than its intent, and then to determine the relative happiness of those impacted by them. The main result of issuing an H-1B visa is that an employer gains a skilled worker, and an employee secures a desired post. Taking into account that no Americans can legally be displaced, this should action should not cause pain to any American citizens, at least with respect to job loss. Therefore, simply in terms of acquiring desired employment, there is a net increase in happiness, thus making it utilitarianist approved. However, one could argue that the flaws cause pain to employers and employees alike. For example, employers must pay thousands of dollars in fees to take on this new worker, and the employee could be being paid an unfair wage. Despite these obstacles, however, the employee still chooses to hire the worker, and the employee still chooses to take the job, which implies that the happiness they get from this newfound employment outweighs any pain they endure in the process. Therefore, net happiness is still positive, meaning that the H-1B visa system passes the utilitarian test.
A response to the Google internal memo
The Google internal memo describes the opinions of an internal, Google engineer. The author writes about how we as a society must stop assuming that a gender gap implies sexism; and, more generally, we must stop assuming that differences in employee representation imply discrimination. The author says that some of these gender differences can be attributed to inherent psychological and biological differences between men and women. The author hopes that we as a society can have a discussion about some of these differences without shaming and generalizing the people that bring these issues up. The author continues the article by arguing that Google (and society) is often blind to harmful, and even discriminatory practice because, as a culture, people’s’ biases (moral, political, or other biases) do not allow them to have a meaningful, open discussion about these issues. Then, the author discusses how our “culture of shaming” makes people afraid to voice their opinions if they do not fit in with the majority. The author concludes the memo by offering some suggestions to how Google should change: demoralize diversity, stop alienating political views, confront biases, stop restricting program to certain genders/races, have an open and honest conversation about diversity programs, focus on psychological safety not just diversity, de-emphasize empathy, and to be open about the science of human nature.
The Utilitarian framework is a consequentialist, ethical theory that prioritizes the most happiness for the most people. Since we are focused on consequences, the Utilitarian framework is mostly indifferent to many of the points in this article and the framework would have to analyze the consequences of some of the authors’ suggestions to form an opinion. One specific concept that the Utilitarian framework would agree with is about the author’s discussion of gender roles. The author says that feminism has made great progress of freeing women from the “female gender role”; but, society has more work to do to free men from the “male gender role” and allow them to be more “feminine”. The Utilitarian framework agrees with the concept that people should be free of their gender roles because it would, in theory, allow more people to be happy because they can act and behave how they desire and this will bring happiness to more people.
The Utilitarian framework would disagree with the author’s suggestion of “Prioritizing Intention”. The author argues that Googlers should not focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions because it will eventually lead “authoritarian policies”. Instead, Googlers should prioritize the intentions behind a person’s actions. The author believes that this is important for a community’s psychological safety and open, honest discussion. A Utilitarian would disagree with the author that we should prioritize intentions over the consequences. A Utilitarian would argue that the morality of an action is based on their consequences. It does not matter to the Utilitarian if someone had good intentions and accidently produced a negative consequence; to the Utilitarian, the person still committed an immoral action.
An analysis of gender bias issues in tech
Unfortunately, today’s tech space is filled with gender issues. Women are constantly subject to differ treatment than men, which leads to some alarming statistics. Today, women only hold approximately one quarter of U.S. computing and mathematical jobs. The percentage of female computer-and-information science majors is only 18 percent. (The Atlantic) There are many gender issues that play into these skewed statistics, but two key issues are: a misunderstanding of studies regarding gender, sexual harassment in the workplace.
People in positions of power often misunderstand gender studies (or simply only accept facts they want to). This leads these people to believe they have some sort of rational justification for why gender issues arise in their area of work. Sexual harassment is unfortunately very common in tech. Males feel that they are allowed to harass women, as there are often no consequences. Women feel they can not speak up, as doing so may lead to them losing their own jobs.
Utilitarianism can be used as a valuable ethical framework to better understand how to solve these gender issues in the tech space. In addressing the misunderstanding of studies, the Utilitarian would say that those who use these studies to justify their actions should spend more time reading and analyzing the studies in question. The person may lose some happiness in doing this extra work, but the world would gain more happiness in doing so. In gaining a deeper understanding of the study, the person will be able to better act upon the findings in the study and stop using falsehoods to justify his or her actions.
A Utilitarian would consider two people in the situation of sexual harassment in the workplace: the victim and the perpetrator. A Utilitarian may have trouble giving a definitive answer on how the victim should act. On one hand, if the victim calls out the perpetrator, the victim could lose his or her job. This would lead to a tremendous amount of unhappiness, but in speaking up, the victim could be making the lives of other people who are also victims of the perpetrator much better. If the victim does not speak up, the victim may keep his or her job, but will have to suffer the heinous act of sexual harassment. A Utilitarian would tell the perpetrator to admit his or her actions, face the consequences, and receive help. The perpetrator will lose happiness in the process, as fines or jail-time will likely be in the near future, but the victim(s) will gain a tremendous amount of happiness in knowing that justice is served. Also, the perpetrator will eventually gain happiness, as they hopefully learn to be a better person. A person who sexually harasses others lives a deplorable life. In seeking help, this person can transition to someone with a much more healthy and fulfilling life.
An analysis of race and ethnicity issues in tech
African-Americans are severely underrepresented in Silicon Valley, as roughly 16% of the US population is black, but less than 1% of major Silicon Valley employees are black, including Google and Facebook. It is also very difficult for minority students to enroll in computer science courses due to the fact that they are stereotypically mostly white, thus causing them a feeling of isolation or exclusion. For example, a Stanford grad Khalil Griffin felt uncomfortable in computing courses, but is now prepared to attend the ACM Diversity Conference. This is an example of how we can strive to eliminate this issue of diversity. Stanford is taking a big step by addressing this issue and donating $8,000 to the conference to boost its recognition. Also, many young adults who are not your typical white male experience struggles even when they are in Silicon Valley working. Hallie Lomax states that she heard multiple people say things along the lines of “I learned to code when I was 7”. She did not have those kinds of opportunities growing up as a child, so even though she is working at Google, there is still a lot of diversity struggle within the company. Google also didn’t give engineers any incentives to teach at a majority black school in Howard University. They said it would hurt the engineer. Recently, a software engineer wrote a 10-page document against Google’s diversity initiatives, which has since gone viral. The author states that Google has created many discriminatory practices such as programs only for people with a certain race, special treatment for “diversity” candidates, and practices that lower the bar for said candidates. The author claims that these practices are based off false assumptions backed by biases, and can ultimately increase racial tensions.
Obviously these statistics are alarming and the groups of people involved are unhappy with their representation in the technology industry. From the perspective of a Utilitarian thinker, we would want the most good for the most number of people. Thus, we would be upset with these issues in diversity, and would be proactive to try and encourage racial inclusion in tech. This is because it would make the most people happy. However, many might think that this would possibly make the majority folks upset because they will be less represented. But, in Utilitarianism we like to see as many different people happy, so we would push to include more African-Americans, Hispanics and many others in the technology and computer science industries.
Post 3
February 7, 2019
A summary of corporate ethical responsibility issues in tech.
Recently, there has been a lot of attention given to tech companies in regards to their corporate ethical responsibility. As technology companies are mostly unregulated by the government, they have the freedom to act in ways that are considered unethical or undemocratic by many people. One of the most crucial issues with how tech companies operate is their anti-competitiveness. Many argue that today’s largest companies act as monopolies. Although four of the five largest companies in the world are technology companies, they virtually do not compete with one another. Take for instance Amazon, which acts both as a retailer and as a marketplace. As a result Amazon is the biggest ecommerce company in the US, and is predicted to control 50% of online sale in the US by 2021. Similarly, Google holds 85% of online-search-ad revenue and is responsible for 80% of referral traffic. These statistics are clearly problematic as Amazon can have control on prices, and Google can control what sites a user may be referred to or what ads are shown first. Another clear example is Facebook, which has gained control over most social media platforms mainly by acquiring companies that threaten their supremacy (like Instagram and Whatsapp). Whereas most companies throughout history have been prevented of having such control on their customers, tech companies are currently allowed to act as monopolies. This can have serious ethical implications as these companies can take advantage of their user’s dependency on their services.
Another very important issue in regards corporate ethical responsibility in tech is the idea of data collection and privacy. As many of these companies need to collect data from their users in order to provide their services, a key question that often arises is how these companies deal with that data and what measures they take to protect it. Currently, there is not much information of what kind of data these companies collect on their users and how this data is used. Furthermore, this data is clearly valuable for the companies as it allows them to create targeted ads for each specific customer and arguably, binds them to the company, which contributes to the monopoly problem. To solve the issue of data privacy, there is a wide variety of proposed solutions like making companies get user permission before sharing their data or making them share their data with their competitors in order diminish the big tech companies dominance on the market. Another major issue in technology that has become very evident recently is the spread of inappropriate or fake content on social media. As it was the case with the spreading of fake news on Facebook or with the sharing of extremist videos on Youtube, these companies are either clueless or are purposely avoiding taking control over what is shared on their platforms. This is not only a serious ethical issue, but it also shows the lack of accountability of tech companies, especially when compared to other forms of media. Maybe the fact that Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook had to suffer some consequences as the result of the spread of fake news during the US presidential election shows that this might be changing and that social media companies will start doing a better job of filtering what gets shared on their platforms.
A critique of a specific unethical corporate action using your ethical framework as a guide.
A specific unethical corporate action according to the Utilitarian framework would be Apple’s decision to slow down old iPhone software and hardware to compensate for older iPhone’s batteries. Apple has stated that the software slows down because as lithium ion batteries age, and iOS software gets newer, older phones may not be able to compensate and the older phones would shut down if put under too much stress. So, the iOS software prevents random shut offs by slowing down performance. Your iPhone may not be as fast as it used to, but it won’t randomly shut off. That, at least, was the official statement from Apple on December 20th, 2017. However, much of the public has speculated that Apple slows down old iPhone software for more selfish reasons and has been doing so for a long time. After all, if people are frustrated that their phones are getting old and slow, they are more likely to buy newer iPhones. This may be a cynical view coming from the public; but this speculation has stood the test of time. Reasons people believed this speculation is true include the fact that Apple has always had transparency issues and that their batteries are (relatively) hard to replace compared to other cellular devices. Apple’s response to all this criticism? In late December 2017, they published an apology (mentioned above) and emphasized that their customer’s trust is very important to them. And, as for compensation, Apple offered a $29 battery replacement to all of its customers, instead of the usual $79. Supposedly, once an older iPhone gets a battery replacement, it will return to its original level of performance. Many people felt that this apology gesture was not genuine and that the company really did not care about their customers.
Now, from an Egoist framework, this action may be perceived as moral. Apple may have been acting in their own, selfish interests because it would have been a good thing for them to have slowed down people’s iPhones if it resulted in more sales for Apple. But from a Utilitarian framework, this action was unethical. As described before, the Utilitarian framework is concerned on whether the outcome of an action produces pleasure or pain. An action is ethical if it produces pleasure/happiness for the most amount of people and it is unethical if it produces pain for many people. So, Apple committed an unethical action by deciding to slow down the software in older iPhones as newer iOS software came out. It was unethical because it made iPhone users internationally very unhappy - many people felt betrayed by Apple and that Apple was trying to force its customers into buying newer iPhone models. Even if the employees at Apple were happy with this decision, many more people experienced pain and frustration. Since Utilitarianism states that the sum of the involved people’s happiness dictates the morality of the action, and the majority of people in this action were unhappy, Apple’s action to slow down old software was immoral. What’s more, even if Apple is telling the truth, and that they slowed down old iPhone performance because the phones would randomly shut off, it does not matter - the action was still immoral. This is because Utilitarian morality is concerned with consequences and outcomes, not intentions. So, even if Apple had good intentions, the negative consequences felt by the majority of the public makes Apple’s actions immoral.
There are a few ways that Apple could have acted that would have produced an ethical outcome according to Utilitarianism. Perhaps the most obvious way would have been to not slow down old iPhones in the first place. This may have still resulted in unhappy people if their phones randomly shutdown. But in this case, Apple did not commit any specific action that resulted in the public’s unhappiness. Thus, it could be argued that Apple did not act unethically. It could even be argued that phones randomly shutting off because of old batteries and new software is just a side effect of buying an iPhone. And, over the course of owning an iPhone, it is likely that use of the iPhone produces much more happiness than the pain and frustration that comes in the end with the iPhone randomly shutting off. Thus, if Apple did not slow down the performance of old iPhones, it could be argued that they “acted” ethically.
Another way that Apple could have acted more ethically would have been to be more transparent at the start. If Apple had been more transparent from the beginning, then it is possible that customers would not have been frustrated by their slower performances. If Apple had been open and communicated with customers that it is next to impossible to guarantee performance and innovation being compatible with old hardware, then it is possible that customers would not have been that frustrated when their iPhones randomly died. Thus, Apple would have been acting ethically from a Utilitarian point of view if they were transparent with their customers and if the customers were not caused pain from their phones randomly shutting off, because the customers were able to expect this pain.
One last way that Apple could have acted ethically in this situation would have been to issue a better apology and gesture that mitigated the pain and frustration of the customers. If Apple had offset the pain and frustration of the customers then, from a Utilitarian framework, they would have been acting morally. Much of the public felt that a $29 battery placement was not a good enough “apology” from Apple because $29 still felt like a lot. The public felt like Apple really wasn’t “sacrificing” anything with their apology gesture. Perhaps, if Apple had offered free battery replacements and/or Apple Store credit, then the public would have felt that Apple was giving a genuine apology and they would have been happier - thus mitigating the pain the customers felt creating an outcome in which the pleasure outweighs the pain. This is the definition of acting ethically from a Utilitarian point of view.
A comparison between two proposed methods for solving unethical corporate behavior.
One method for solving unethical corporate behavior would be to substantially fine corporations in a way that will hurt their ability to compete in the marketplace. This may be carried out by the Ethical Computing Institute, and will be effective in bringing out change by attaching monetary punishment to breaking ethical rules. A second method would be to call for boycotts of a certain company and demand that those responsible resign. This will seek out those specifically who had acted unethically and try to assign blame. These two methods are very different, and have specific advantages and disadvantages. We will highlight these and also evaluate them with the Utilitarian ethical framework. Placing monetary fines on companies is an action that is often seen with corporations that break the law. For example, if a hedge fund is found to have acted on insider trading, a significant fine may be levied on them. The way it works is that companies may come to a settlement with the authorities that results in a fine and possibly some further regulation on the offending company.
An advantage of this method is its simplicity. This is relatively simple to do and does not require a specific assignment of blame to someone within this company. This action signifies that the company in general was at fault. This may be an advantage in that it is often difficult to place blame for unethical actions on a single person. For example, in the case of the Wells Fargo incident where sales representatives were creating fake accounts in order to meet target goals, it is unclear who was at fault. It could have been those who directly made the fake accounts, or it could be the managers and executives who had created the target goals in the first place. The use of a fine will wholly place blame on an entire company, and demand that everyone do their part to change the behavior of the company. The company will also be hurt in their ability to compete, which helps to negate any unfair advantage they may have received.
However, this method also has several disadvantages. Not assigning blame to someone in particular may mean that little overall change happens. When accountability is not assigned to someone in particular, it may be unlikely that someone actually take the initiative to change things. If there is not someone who is specifically at fault, there may not be a big incentive to actually change behavior. Another disadvantage is that this proposition may be relatively difficult to enforce. It is difficult to make companies adhere to a specific ethical institute in such a way that they will actually pay a fine if they break it. Logically, that company wouldn’t agree to be a member of that institute or adhere to it if they disagreed with the code of ethics in the first place. Though in theory this model seems good, it may not be practical when trying to apply.
The second method of calling for boycotts/striking is much more within the realm of what an ethical institute might be able to do. The result of this boycott could be for specific members of the company to resign. A main advantage of this method is that it does not require any formal backing in terms of legislature or stature in a way that fining would require. Instead, if enough people agree with the ethical institute, and the ethical institute has the reach, it will be able to affect the offending business. This method is more effective than the previous method in that there can be more tangible change as a result of it. For example, if a boycott is successful, then the company will have to clearly change its behavior or change the personnel in a way that satisfied the ethical institute and those who follow it. However, as mentioned earlier, there may be difficulty in assigning blame for who exactly should resign if the boycott is demanding accountability for those responsible.
When evaluating both of these methods through the lense of the Utilitarian ethical framework, several key points and facts must be considered. First, Utilitarianism is concerned with bringing about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. To that end, the happiness of each person is equal. Or, in other words, nobody’s happiness is more important than anybody else’s. Additionally, Utilitarianism is concerned with consequences, and not the intentions.
Method one will result in a fine on the company. In terms of Utilitarianism, the consequence is that the general happiness of employees may be slightly diminished because of the negative publicity received by their company. Additionally, the general public or people who want to see the company change their ways may also be unhappy. As shown in the banking sector, people are generally unsatisfied with how little fines do to actually change behavior. A fine is a punishment that may keep a company’s ability to compete in check, but does very little to alleviate the pain caused by the unethical behavior. Utilitarianism is focused on the consequential happiness and the consequence is that generally there is not much happiness.
Method two will be a boycott that calls for the resignation of those who are at fault. Using the Utilitarian calculus, it is clear that everybody at the company will clearly be hurt by the lack of sales and the negative publicity. In addition, those who must resign will be unhappy by losing their jobs. Although, if the boycott is successful in getting the at-fault members of the company to leave, those in protest to the company’s goods and services should be satisfied and therefore, happy. It is highly likely that the number of people who are boycotting is greater than the number of people at the company. Though the happiness of each person is equal, in John Stuart Mill’s account of Utilitarianism there is a distinction of ‘higher-order’ goods like intellect and music. In this case, we can also consider social justice to be a higher order good. Therefore, by weighing the happiness of the boycotters against the unhappiness of those affected at the company, the boycott is clearly a very moral decision. Thus, all things considered, the boycott is supported in Utilitarianism and hence the more favorable solution.
A proposed way to enforce/reinforce corporate social responsibility according to your ethical framework.
Utilitarians believe that we should all go after actions that bring the most happiness and pleasure to the most people at the greatest intensity, proximity, and purity and for the longest duration. Corporations, being a part of society, should also act in a way that brings the most good to the society. Engaging in corporate social responsibility activities can ultimately benefit the company itself and society as a whole. Being that Utilitarianism states that everyone’s happiness counts the same, all parties need to be taken into consideration in and they should all be weighted equally. This includes a company’s stockholders, employees, customers, suppliers and society as a whole that might be affected by a decision. In reality, many corporations falsely follow the idea that wealth is the only way of obtaining happiness. Most unethical behaviors are actually a result of decision makers’ shortsightedness. They focus only on the short-term utility and pleasure that wealth brings and overlook the negative impact that unethical behaviors have on the long run. Truly, everyone wants to be richer and wealth is a means to bring happiness under a lot of circumstances. However, it is not the only means and in fact, according to Utilitarianism, there are different levels of happiness and among them the morally right action is the one which produces the most pleasure. Therefore, pursuing corporate social responsibility activities such as helping the poor and promoting the social good can bring about more happiness and pleasure than only going after wealth alone. Taking on social responsibilities can also be a great way to motivate employees and enhance brand loyalty among consumers. For example, many corporations hold volunteer activities regularly as a means to develop teamwork spirit outside the professional settings. In addition, a study shows that 87% of consumers stated they would purchase a product based on values, because the company advocated for an issue they cared about, and 76% would boycott a brand if it supported an issue contrary to their beliefs. In the long run, taking on social responsibilities is beneficial to both the company and people in society and can introduce the most good to the most people.
An example of corporate unethical behavior in which Utilitarianism would have something to say is Walmart being accused of refusing workers to take sick days and even punishing those who took lawful sick days back in 2017. It appeared that Walmart was trying to force workers to work as much as they can so they can maximize the utility of each worker. However, it fails to take into account the fact that sick workers will inevitably perform worse than healthy workers and that might have unpleasant effects on many people. On the first level, workers who are sick might take longer to recover if they don’t take time off. On top of that, some illnesses are contagious, for example, flu. Sick workers might affect the health or other healthy workers, causing them to catch a cold or other illnesses. Even if the illness is not infectious, asking sick workers to keep working will definitely cause them to be unhappy and they will bring their negative emotions to work, which ultimately will cause their coworkers unhappy too. The same thing could happen to customers too. Sick workers can both impact customers physically by spreading their illness and psychologically by spreading negative emotions. Similarly, punishing workers who took sick days would cause those workers to be unhappy about their jobs and would impact their future performance as well. For sure, forcing workers to work even when they are sick can result in Walmart hiring less people and therefore save money for the company, which would bring happiness to some people, say shareholders. However, such an action would undeniably bring more unhappiness to more people and ultimately can have negative impact on the company itself as well. According to Utilitarianism, such an action is apparently not worth pursuing since it brings a small group of people happiness and sacrifices the happiness of a much larger group. Avoiding actions like this will bring more happiness to more people in the society overall.
Post 4
February 14, 2019
A case brief on the relationship between IBM and Nazi Germany
IBM, the worldwide technology company that prides itself on providing solutions, had some alarming ties to Nazi Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Specifically, Nazi Germany utilized IBM’s Hollerith punch card machines to keep track of the Jewish population, schedule trains, and ultimately, carry out their evil deeds. IBM’s actions are particularly in question because IBM engineers and service technicians would regularly service these machines, even with some machines being near or in concentration camps. IBM officials from New York were also constantly in Berlin and Geneva, ensuring that the American side of IBM was kept informed of the company’s dealings in Germany. Eventually, in the presence of WWII, the United States made such business dealings with Nazi Germany illegal. Rather than taking this cue and cutting all ties from the Nazis, IBM instead chose to use their Swiss office as a conduit between the United States and Germany. It should also be noted that Thomas Watson, the chairman and CEO of IBM at the time, visited Nazi Germany multiple times and dined with Hitler. With these facts in place, it is worth examining the different parties involved in these interactions and understanding their positions. The Nazis, who physically carried out the atrocities, were prosecuted with the conclusion of WWII, and Germany was able to transition to a democratic country that respects human rights. Many of the engineers, service technicians, and even IBM executives of the time have likely passed away, due to the nature of WWII taking place eighty years ago. The key parties today are the current executives of IBM, and those whose parents or grandparents were tortured in the Holocaust. The IBM officials have been very silent in commenting on the actions of their predecessors, often offering no comment when pressed on IBM’s ties to Nazi Germany. Other companies like Ford and GM have claimed that their German offices acted independently as they aided the Third Reich. IBM has not done the same. The strength of the ties IBM had with Nazi Germany has a tremendous impact on how the public views IBM. The children of Holocaust victims are interested in finding out the truth of IBM’s involvement and bringing about justice. From a Utilitarian viewpoint, both the IBM high level executives, as well as the engineers and service technicians who serviced the Hollerith punch card machines, are culpable. Utilitarian philosophy does not care about intentions; rather, it is only concerned with the consequences of actions, and how they affect the overall happiness in the world. Regardless of how much IBM employees knew the consequences of their actions, their actions contributed to the evil and atrocities of the Holocaust, and as such, they are to blame. The high level executives may have gained some happiness from the increased profits due to their business with Germany, but this happiness is greatly outweighed by the suffering of the victims of the Holocaust. While the service technicians and engineers may have simply been doing their job, their actions perpetuated the torturing of innocent people. From a Utilitarian standpoint, IBM is culpable for their actions during the time period.
Analysis of the Muslim registry controversy
During his 2016 presidential campaign, then candidate Donald Trump suggested, among other hardline immigration rhetoric, the creation of a “Muslim registry” by the US intelligence community to track Muslims living in the United States, including American citizens. While many saw this as illegal religious discrimination, there is some legal precedent for using national security as an excuse for otherwise discriminatory behavior; for instance, in Korematsu v. United States in 1944, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Japanese internment camps. In addition, while government data collection is regulated by such laws as the Privacy Act of 1974, most of these restrictions only apply to direct data collection by government agencies. These laws do not apply to data collected by private companies and then sold to third parties, including government agencies. In fact, the Supreme Court has upheld the private sector’s right to freely buy and sell personal data.
The possibility of US intelligence agencies building a Muslim registry based on private industry data (data which generally has a significant margin of error) has caused widespread controversy. Many big tech and data collection companies have publicly stated they would not cooperate, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Acxiom, and Palantir. In addition, many individuals have signed petitions pledging not to participate. Others have said they would register as Muslim to dilute the registry, though it is doubtful this would have any effect if data was sourced from existing databases.
By Utilitarian standards, the implementation of a Muslim registry is unethical, even if it is by a private corporation. In utilitarianism, we would want to see the highest number of people happy, and by subjecting millions of people to the unethical distribution of their personas based on their online activity, this would substantially surpass the amount of people in said private corporation who are made happy. This is one example of why Utilitarians would be against the implementation of Muslim registry. Imagine being someone of Muslim descent, and you are living a normal life in the United States, but everything you do on your phone is stored in massive registry, categorizing you and your people by your last names. This would not make you happy. Now multiply this by 1.8 million people. On ExactData.com, you can buy this personal information for just 7.5 cents. A private corporation who uses this data for whatever reason would see its people happy, but the Muslims affected would severely outnumber them. Another example of why Utilitarians would be against the registry is that members of the technology workforce who aren’t even Muslim are unhappy. 55 people have signed a pledge that says they will not participate in mass data collection that targets a certain race or religion. They will still participate, but make sure the data is collected and used ethically, not from their technological devices and personal privacy. Another reason we are against it is because it can lead to something more catastrophic, which would make even more people unhappy. Those who signed the pledge mentioned the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and IBM’s affiliation with Nazi Germany as historical examples of this “registry” getting out of hand. Lastly, America had already had a Muslim registry, and it made more people unhappy than happy. A program was started a year after 9/11 under the Bush administration, which forced people from certain countries to be monitored when entering and leaving the United States, as well as check in regularly with officials when they are here. It applied to all Muslim-majority countries, as well as North Korea. Trump’s team then revamped it and reapplied many of the same concepts, along with a few more. This made even more people unhappy with it. Thus, as a Utilitarian, we would go against the implementation of a Muslim registry. Ultimately, there are many prime examples of why a registry would displease a lot more people than it would please.
The Utilitarian view of the Muslim registry would not change significantly if the registry was government-created instead of sourced from private data collection. The source of the data ultimately would not affect the unhappiness it would cause on the millions of Muslim Americans nor would it likely make the many others who are not Muslim but have otherwise indicated they are opposed to this registry any more happy. Furthermore, while a direct census-style data collection by a government agency might be more accurate and therefore could possibly be more effective than the approximate nature of private data, people have expressed the willingness not to cooperate or even actively to sabotage that sort of data, meaning that any increase in effectiveness in preventing terrorism, and the happiness that might come along with that, is negligible.
Utilitarianism vs. Epicureanism on the Muslim registry
Despite the fact that both Epicureanism and Utilitarianism are consequentialist theories, there are some key differences that result in contrasting views on the morality of the Muslim registry controversy. Primarily, utilitarianism has a focus on maximizing utility across all parties, and does not distinguish between different types of pain and pleasure. Therefore, a Muslim registry would be viewed as unfavorable because, as mentioned in the response above, it makes more people unhappy than happy.
However, since an Epicurean could possibly deem a feeling of security that could a Muslim registry could provide as a luxury good, it may be viewed as unethical since it is unnecessary, whereas a Utilitarian would look at the end result and see what the effects of the registry were, regardless of whether it is deemed necessary. Additionally, it seems likely that an Epicurean would consider data collection to be unethical since their statement of purpose finds advanced technology that makes this possible to be potentially considered unethical as well. A utilitarian would disagree, again, as long as pleasure is being maximized, regardless of the means.
To test these predictions, an interview was conducted with a representative of the Epicurean group. Here are the most relevant questions and responses:
In your statement of purpose, you mention that Epicurus would find computer crime to be unethical. Though it is technically not a crime now, would using technology to collect data on the religion of people residing in or migrating to the US be considered unethical? Why?
I think your real question is unrelated to computer or computer crime but on the ethics of data collection. Epicureanism is a lifestyle, not an ethical framework. It guides decision making, not a platform to judge past decisions. Epicurus would likely be okay with performing data collection as long as it does not infringe on the pleasure of those the collection targets. If it is non-invasive and absolutely does not lead to abuse in the future, it is probably providing pleasure to those collecting and analyzing the data.
Now the real question is whether or not Epicurus would support a “Muslim registry”. In that case, what brings the most pleasure to the most people? After all, it is a decisive issue - many support it on grounds of terrorism from un-adjudicated nations, having future worries on the implications of national security - others do not support it by worrying about potential human rights violations. The immigrants themselves may worry. There could even be people who have no opinion but worry about how much everyone else is worrying. In what scenario is pleasure maximized? Is it worth sacrificing some comfort for more security?
This response implies that because the technology exists, the ethics of data collection must be assessed within the context of the prevalence of tech, since it is something that happened in the past and not easily reverted for the sake of morality, something not considered in the predictions. Otherwise, it aligns more with utilitarian thought than predicted, because of the maximization of pleasure regardless of the type.
To what extent can one’s feeling of personal safety count as a basic necessity, or is this considered an indulgent good? In either case, how would it weigh against another’s desire to live in the US while avoiding discrimination and persecution?
Personal safety is a basic necessity. It is a natural and necessary desire, just like hunger or thirst. Worrying about personal safety causes anxiety, and anxiety is the greatest destroyer of happiness… I would argue that they are unsafe in their home country because of persecution - one owes themselves the attempt to escape that extreme persecution, which infringes upon their own personal safety, to at least be safe from physical harm in the US. The threat of death or physical injury is far greater than discrimination. Now if this pleasure is weighted against nativist desires - a nativist is holding onto societal constructs that might cause more harm than good, and surely refugees fleeing imminent danger would gain more pleasure than the pleasure of nativists blocking their passage.
This differs from the prediction that a feeling of personal safety would be considered superfluous, but it is logical given the necessity of safety for survival, something overlooked while making predictions.
Utilitarianism vs. Deontological Ethics on the Muslim registry
The Utilitarianism’s attitude towards the Muslim registry would vary depending on different calculations and speculations on the possible consequences following a Muslim Registry. People on either side could defend their opinion. Donald Trump and his supporters are likely to argue that the Muslim registry could reduce the possibility of terrorism in the United States which would bring happiness and pleasure to the society. Although his arguments do fall into the category of Utilitarianism, it is clear that there is no intrinsic relationship between terrorism and Islamism and thus his calculation on utility is completely wrong. Furthermore, the Muslim registry would aggravate the hatred and division in the society and seriously damage the human rights of the Muslim community. If it is hard to image a specific disastrous consequence of such registry, the history of last century might be a good reference when Jewish are required to wear a yellow star in public to demonstrate their identity, no difference from the Muslim registry, in the Nazi regime. I believe that Deontological ethics would consider the Muslim registry unethical since the acts of unfair treatment of a group of people due to their religion are intrinsically immoral. No one would want these acts to be universally practiced. It diverges from the utilitarianism argument in that it doesn’t concern the consequence of the Muslim Registry but the morality of the act itself.
Do you think that such a policy on a specific religious group would be unethical from Deontological ethics point of view?
Yes, it is unethical since such a discriminative policy is unethical in itself no matter how much good or bad consequences it might bring. If everyone asks themselves whether they want to live in the world in which such a policy is universal, I believe everyone would agree that such a policy should not be implemented.
How about data collection on a specific religious group? Is that unethical?
Actually, it’s hard to say such an act would be unethical. Though, for utilitarianism, data collection on a specific religious community might lead to a disastrous consequence but the act itself has no moral implication. The data collection within a group has been performed everyday and everywhere. In this situation, most people haven’t claimed that data collection should be eliminated completely and I think this is a good evidence that Data Collection on a specific groups are intrinsically immoral.
Post 5
February 21, 2019
A summary of key stakeholders and their positions in the issue of network neutrality.
There are three core stakeholders involved in the issue of net neutrality. They are the the government and its governing body the FCC, internet companies such as Amazon, Netflix, and other small startups, and finally the internet users themselves.
One of the main stakeholders is the government through the Federal Communications Commision (FCC). This is the governing body in charge of enforcing net neutrality. On December 14, 2017, the FCC planned to eliminate net neutrality rules. The government believe that net-neutrality rules are stifling investment in broadband investment. As a result, there is less innovation and flexibility with regard to Internet Service Providers (ISP). By eliminating protections, this may open the door for for other ISPs to enter the arena and provide more innovate services as a result of more market competition. The government also believes that this deregulation will provide for more competition, privacy, and freedom for the actual users. The government has not explicitly stated many more reasons justifying the repeal of Net Neutrality, which has also led to many accusing the government as representing the ISP’s and their monetary interests instead of the good of all of society.
Internet companies stand to be affected heavily by eliminating Net Neutrality. Under the deregulation of net neutrality, internet companies like AT&T and Comcast would be able to charge different prices for different services. With regards to internet companies, this means that a company like Netflix, which relies on heavy data streams, could be charged extra by internet service providers in order to continue to provide their service over specific providers.It also means that certain internet service providers may block access to a certain website for their customers. This would mean that if Netflix was blocked by a given service provider, they would instantly lose access to all of those customers. Many companies also argue that this will stifle innovation by making it harder for internet startups to gain traction. For example, if a small internet company must pay more in order to allow people across the company to view their web-app, they may struggle to continue to growing. Smaller companies may not be able to rely on an open internet to help their product grow and gain traction. Perhaps, their growth will be limited by the whims of different ISPs. This is one of the reasons many internet companies, including big ones like Google and Netflix, are openly against repealing Net Neutrality.
Lastly, the most widely affected stakeholder may be the users. Currently, all data goes through a single connection with one monthly fee that allows a user equal access to any service that is accessed over the internet. With the repeal of Net Neutrality, as mentioned above, companies will be able to charge depending on usage, and for specific services. Thus, certain services might be throttled unless the user pays more, or certain services may not be available at all! An example that is given is that a company like Comcast could charge high prices for a service like Google Maps and instead guide users towards using another map service. Thus, in general a common argument is that people believe that remove net neutrality will allow less access to the internet for the common user.
A critical analysis of deplatforming using your ethical framework as a guide
Deplatforming is the removal/banning of users who violate the rules set forth by a given platform from that platform. Users are most frequently deplatformed for breaking rules against hate speech and online harassment on sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram, but also on payment platforms like Stripe and PayPal, and even DNS providers like Cloudfare. Obviously, individuals or organizations who have been deplatformed on any of the above are in opposition to the concept and most frequently argue that the act of deplatforming is in violation of their right to free speech. The first amendment to the constitution prohibits the government from any act that prohibits people from expressing their opinions verbally and in writing, and those against deplatforming hold this freedom in the highest regard. They believe that regardless of it their opinions may be hateful, slanderous, or misinformed, they should be granted freedom to proliferate these opinions on any platform available.
On the other side, the proponents of deplatforming believe that there is a point at which the safety of others trumps another individual’s freedom of speech. Deplatforming is a way to decrease the spread of everything from misinformation to online harassment. Different platforms, such as social media sites, have guidelines that prevent their users from posting anything hateful toward any group of people or any direct bullying toward other users of the platform. These guidelines are meant to protect all people from harassment, but also misinformation (or “fake news”) because these can both be a threat to user’s safety. Social media is a powerful platform that can not only reach a vast number of people but also penetrate deep into someone’s everyday life making it an extremely powerful tool for threats and bullying. The deplatforming of bullies is a way to prevent cyberbullying that could otherwise cause victims to suffer from great psychological pain or even physically hurt themselves. Also, misinformation surrounding topics like health, for example, could lead readers to falsely diagnose themselves with illnesses and carry out a treatment for something that might actually cause more harm than good. Another argument in support of deplatforming and removal of posts and comments is that it keeps online conversations and debates more productive instead of hateful allowing posts to go viral. Chris Cox, product manager at Facebook, discussed this point in an interview with Wired, saying that they want their platforms to be a place were productive conversation and debates can take place, especially surrounding political elections. This intention lends itself to the support of deplatforming users who repeatedly mudsling against canidates, specifically when the information these users are spreading is FALSE.
From a Utilitarian point of view, whether deplatforming is ethical or not depends on its effects. In other words, deplatforming is only ethical if it brings more overall happiness and pleasure than it causes pain. Based on the evidence and recent cases of deplatforming, we can conclude that letting hate speech flow unhinged on social media causes pain to more people than it causes happiness. Obviously, deplatforming will cause unhappiness to the person or group being deplatformed and his/her followers. Moreover, if this person or group have as a purpose to bring some kind of utility to people in general, than deplatforming can have serious negative consequences. It can also be the case that if deplatforming becomes a common practice, it may be used as a form of censorship, in which people with dissenting opinions are prevented from sharing their views. From a Utilitarian standpoint, this can be problematic, as preventing people from expressing their beliefs can be a cause of great unhappiness.
On the other hand, in order for deplatforming to occur in the first place, a large group of people need to feel offended or threatened by the person or group’s content. As evidence seems to indicate, usually the views of the entity being deplatformed are representative of the views of a small, extremist group of people. In other words, in most cases where a user is deplatformed, the number of people who disagree and feel threatened by that user’s views is usually much larger than the number of people who agree with them. Another important aspect to be considered is the fact that there have been several cases in which extremist social media accounts have been linked to real world attacks or threats. That is the case with Alex Jones’ followers who kept harassing the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting. An even more serious example is the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which was promoted by Alex Jones and led to a shooting at a Washington D.C. restaurant. Therefore, evidence seems to suggest that allowing hate speech to flow unhinged on social media can lead to real world violence.
Analyzing the overall utility brought by deplatforming, we can conclude that from a Utilitarian viewpoint, it is an ethical decision. Of course, this might change in a case by case basis, as in some specific scenario deplatforming may cause more pain than pleasure. Nevertheless, from the recent cases of deplatforming, we can conclude that removing users that promote hateful or offensive ideals causes more happiness to more people (as more people disagree than agree with these ideas) and diminishes pain (as it can help prevent violence and threats).
A brief proposition of the potential effects deplatforming could have upon online echo chambers
An online echo chamber is a situation in which beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed online system. Within an online echo chamber, we only hear and see information and content that share similar views with us and we are seldom exposed to other ideas and viewpoints that we don’t agree or are not interested in. The reason is that companies like Facebook use algorithms that biased towards presenting content that we care and agree upon so that we would enjoy using their products more. However, given the convenience the algorithm brings, it reinforces our own beliefs and information sources while creating barriers for dissenting views or entirely new information to permeate our world. The danger of an online chamber is that we end up not seeing what people who think differently see and in fact not even knowing that it exists.
Research shows that users who conduct little exploration and rely more heavily on the crowd will, over time, see less diverse content and as a result will be at a higher risk of getting caught in an echo chamber. By contrast, users who consistently search by their topics of interest and rely less on the crowd’s previous choices were less likely to suffer from echo chambers. Among all people, highly social individuals and young users are more at risk for falling into echo chambers.
In 2018, Cloudflare terminated the account of the Daily Stormer after Daily Stormer claimed that Cloudflare was a secret supporter of its ideology. Conspiracy theorist and InfoWars host Alex Jones was banned by Twitter, Facebook, and other social media because he regularly spreads hate speech, harassment, and other horrors through online platforms. Self-proclaimed “western chauvinists” Gavin McInnes and the Proud Boys were removed from Facebook, Instagram, etc. for instigating violence. Myanmar military officials were removed from Facebook for inciting violence. So is the leaders of the far-right anti-Islamic group Britain First. The conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson was banned from Twitter. Other nationalists, anti-Semites, leaders of the alt-right, racists, etc. were also deplatformed on social media.
The outcome of the deplatforming is these people no longer have the capability to spread misinformation and hatred among people so their influence is vastly reduced. It also causes some people to protest against the censorship of freedom of speech online.
Deplatforming should properly only be used to silence hate speech, speech that incites violence, or other forms of non-protected speech. If used in this way, deplatforming does not contribute to echo chambers. Just as there are legal precedents for restrictions on First Amendment free-speech rights without compromising the spirit of freedom of speech, deplatforming can be used to maintain civil, non-violent discourse without limiting the diversity of views represented on a platform. For instance on Twitter, many users have been deplatformed as noted above, but there still exists a full spectrum of viewpoints being expressed, and no portion of any reasonable spectrum of viewpoints is in danger of being removed entirely. The purpose of deplatforming is not to silence (e.g. conservative) viewpoints, but rather to limit hate speech, violence, or generally violating a platform’s terms of service, which usually specifies things like platform decorum and such without regulating particular viewpoints.
Furthermore, echo chambers often form online regardless of the presence of competing viewpoints. This is because individuals’ interactions with online media occurs in a segmented manner. Twitter has users representing a wide range of political viewpoints, but a user’s feed may not be representative of those viewpoints if that user only follows other users of one specific viewpoint. Likewise, other media sites can be selectively consumed, either intentionally or because of algorithmic recommendations and targeted promotion.
Post 6
February 28, 2019
A summary of the effects of job automation on each of these stakeholders.
Three groups to consider in job automation are: employers considering increasing automation, employees that may lose their jobs to automation, and the government. Depending on the industry, employers could greatly increase their profits through the use of automation. Work could get done more efficiently with automation, and this could save a great deal of money that would have been spent on the salaries of human employees. Employees that may lose their jobs to automation often work low-skilled jobs. If they lose their jobs to automation, they need to find a new way of supporting themselves, and if they do not have many skills, this could be a tremendous challenge. The government has the responsibility of regulating how employers implement automation, and providing some support to those who lose their jobs to automation. The government will be challenged between giving companies freedom to do what they choose, while still providing reasonable protections to people who work these low skilled jobs.
From a Utilitarian standpoint, the culpability of engineers designing a job automation system is entirely dependent on the consequences of their actions. The intentions or opinions of the engineers have no effect on their culpability, so, with the Utilitarian framework in mind, this question is equivalent to, “Will more job automation increase the net happiness of the world?”.
To answer this question, one must consider the three stakeholders listed above. Employers will likely gain immediate and long-term happiness from job automation. More automation means more profits, which equates to more happiness for most employers. The question gets more interesting when considering the employees and the government. In the short term, both groups will lose happiness. The employees will face the stress and struggles and being laid off and needing to find a new source of income. The government will be faced with higher unemployment and the challenges of regulating automation. Utilitarianism does not just consider the short-term though. Jobs that can be replaced by automation are often low-skilled, unfulfilling jobs, like cashiers and drivers. If automation creates a world where people who work these jobs can transition into more fulfilling jobs, that could bring more happiness into the world. If someone can go from a job they hate to a job they love, with a some hardship in between, a Utilitarian would likely support that decision. Also, in a world with enough automation, perhaps not everyone would have to work. In this scenario, there are two sides to consider. People who do not work can spend more time with their families, but there is also the belief that humans need to have a job and work to feel satisfied. In this case, a Utilitarian might be indifferent, as both viewpoints seem valid. The government would face the short-term unhappiness of dealing with higher unemployment numbers, but in the long term, the government could have a society of the future, with automation improving and helping all of its citizens. Overall, in the long term, job automation could benefit everyone, and as such, a Utilitarian would support it. To bring the question full circle, the engineers designing the job automation system are causing a net increase in happiness in the world, so they are not at fault.
Analysis of job automation
Job automation brings a lot of exciting prospects to the table when it comes to productivity and quality of living. The most obvious is the cost-cutting effect of replacing human workers with machines. For example, in the healthcare industry, new technologies are lowering costs, making medical treatments more accessible and affordable. This is not just seen in healthcare, but in the production of any goods in which the manufacturing process is automated—cheaper production leads to cheaper goods for the consumer. However, the positive effects reach even deeper, especially when considering a post-work society. The Atlantic article mentions that labor doesn’t correlate directly with social good, since there are other things that produce good but go unpaid, such as fostering strong relationships and caring for children. Without work, these duties could be fulfilled more effectively, allowing a sense of pride to emanate not from career achievements, but from relationships. People who desire a sense of productivity could turn to hobbies, or, as mentioned in the article, dedicate time to artistic creation, forming a productive, artisanal society. This would provide some sort of routine and sense of purpose that a job normally would have had, but in an environment that allows people to pursue their passions rather than doing a job simply because they have to. Additionally, college could be restructured to center around cultural education rather than preparing students for a career, allowing for greater personal enrichment.
Despite these positive potential outcomes of automating jobs, there is some cause for concern. Many argue that while job automation does eliminate jobs, it also replaces them with jobs in other sectors, particularly in technology. However, the numbers indicate otherwise, with 30 percent of manufacturing jobs taken over by machines, and only five percent of new job growth being in the technology sector. Additionally, contrary to the idea that a lack of work could provide more time for meaningful social interaction and aide in building stronger relationships, evidence seems to point to the fact that this is unlikely; today, the retired and unemployed spend most of their leisure time not on hobbies or socializing, but on browsing the internet, watching TV, and sleeping, and it is difficult to say whether this would be any different in a post-work society. Jobs also provide a routine and a sense of achievement that are difficult to find elsewhere. Without these benefits of a job, even if the job is dull, there can be a lack of a sense of purpose, especially if a person is not the artisanal type or does not find a new outlet for pursuing goals. Such a drive is necessary for the happiness and thriving of both individuals and society as a whole, so the void caused by a lack of jobs could be detrimental.
As mentioned in previous posts, the Utilitarian framework is concerned with consequences. Thus, our response to whether job automation is good or bad depends on the outcome of job automation, which, depends on the extent of job automation in the coming years. We will take a look at two post-automation worlds, both are considered likely results from job automation.
The first scenario is an optimistic world. This is the world described by the “post workists” in the “A World Without Work” Atlantic article. These post workists welcome the end of labor. They envision a world that is full of social goodness because people spend more time finding pride in their relationships than in their career. The post workists describe a modest utopian world where people spend more time with their families, befriending neighbors, and finding pride in their relationships. Certain changes to tax laws and government provisions would allow people to live without laboring and people could go to school and university for leisure. This is an optimistic outcome of job automation. If this does end up being the result of job automation than the Utilitarian framework would endorse job automation. Because, in this ideal world, everyone would, theoretically, be much happier than they are today. People would not be frustrated with their every day, boring jobs and could spend more time with family and friends. Thus, since the happiness of many, many people would increase, Utilitarianism would endorse job automation for this optimistic outcome.
The second scenario is a more pessimistic world. And, according to the “A World Without Work” Atlantic article, this is the world that we are already seeing with the extent of today’s automation. The Atlantic article describes how today’s jobless do not spend time socializing with friends and families and picks up hobbies like the optimistic post workist world. Instead, according to time use surveys, today’s jobless spends time watching TV, browsing the Internet, or sleeping. Even the older, retired population was found to spend 50 hours a week watching TV - which seems high for a population that should have the most amount of time to socialize and work on relationships. What’s more, today’s jobless are much more susceptible to mental and physical ailments as well as the loss of income. In short, the Atlantic article claims that the post workist world described in the last paragraph is unrealistic because today’s jobless are socially isolated and sad rather than happy relationship cultivators. The Atlantic article extrapolates that this trend will only grow as more and more people are replaced by job automation. Thus, in this post automation world, people are more likely to be sad with more pain and frustration. This is similar to the world that the author of the Atlantic article experiences when he visits Youngstown, Ohio. The author states that after the steel company left Youngstown, depression, spousal abuse, and suicide became much more prevalent. This describes an outcome of job automation that would make Utilitarianism opposed to job automation. In this world, the pain and frustration of many people would increase and thus, Utilitarianism would be opposed to job automation, if the result was this pessimistic world.
An analysis of self-driving cars
With the invention and application of self-driving cars within the last five years, a lot of talk has been raised about the ethical nature of them, and the trade-off between efficiency and safety. There are many positive points to be made about these cars, but also many negatives. The first and most important reason that self-driving cars would benefit society is that in the long run, vehicle related deaths are projected to drop. However, a negative that is directly correlated with this point is that in order to get to that point where deaths drop, more people have to die so we can learn from the automated cars’ mistakes. Another proponent of self-driving cars is that consumers will be able to choose from different systematic versions of these cars. They can choose from systems ranging from cars that maximize good for all, to those that protect the driver at all costs. Also, automated cars will create more efficiency on roads. There will be less traffic and less distracted deaths, and ultimately no street signs will be needed. Ideally, every intersection would have an “intersection manager”, which is a machine that sense approaching traffic and effectively communicates to oncoming cars whether they should pass or slow down. These autonomous intersections would have an environmentally friendly effect as well. They would produce 20-50% less carbon dioxide because of less of the constant starting and stopping when cars are idle at an intersection.
However, with all these proponents come oppositions. As previously mentioned, to get to the future point where accident related deaths drops, we have to experience more road deaths to get all of the bugs out of these self-driving vehicles. Another issue is in terms of liability. In an automated vehicle related death, who is to blame? You could make an argument that the owner of the vehicle, the manufacturer, or the insurer should be held liable. Another question that is raised is whether police should have the authority to pull over a self-driving car, and what the process for that would entail. Aside from legal issues, there would be infrastructural changes that would need to be made. For example, widespread adoption of self-driving cars would require road upgrades, GPS system updates, changes to surveillance and privacy, and many more. Lastly, there could be issues with the relationship between self-driving cars and their human passengers. If a car is not doing its job, the person in the front seat still has to be responsible to take over, which somewhat defeats the purpose of these cars and could put the human in a difficult position. Also, sitting in a self-driven car could be very terrifying for people, and they might not want to do that. From a visual standpoint, a city without stop lights or street signs would look barren and odd. Overall, there are many proponents as well as oppositions to self-driving cars.
From the point of views of utilitarian ethics, self-driving cars are completely judged by their overall utility among society. In the analysis above, many proponents, as well as oppositions of self-driving car, has been proposed. Now we can combine the utility of those possible effects brought by self-driving car so that the overall utility could indicate whether the self-driving car is an ethical technology advance.
The most obvious and indisputable positive utility brought by mature self-driving technology includes unprecedented safety due to the dependability of the driving system, the fact that people could be freed from the labor of driving, efficiency improvement in the transportation system due to predictable and rational driving and much lower cost in logistics and transportation due to less human resources required. These positive changes could immensely benefit most societies. While it is clear that some negative utility would company this technology as well. For example, professional drivers would lose their jobs, the testing process might pose a great danger to people and the self-driving systems might be hacked. But one can argue that these negative utility, when compared to the positive utility, is quite insignificant. Besides, all these negative utilities could be avoided or limited. From the analysis above, It seems to be sensible to support self-driving cars since the potential positive utility it would bring. However, the utility analysis would fail once human life is involved since we cannot calculate the utility which is demonstrated in the famous Trolley problem. The self-driving car is a technology affecting human life directly and thus utilitarian ethics would undoubtedly.