Object Oriented Analysis and Design COP 3331 Ethics

Object Oriented Analysis and Design COP 3331 Ethics 1 Slides by Daniel Chang Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang

Ethical Theories (Caveperson 101) • ethical theories To set a baseline context for our discussion, let us try starting at the very beginning As one story goes, way back when there was one caveperson. As a caveperson you were born free, free to do whatever you want. So in the middle of empty nature, what do you want? Well whatever makes you happy. What would make me happy would be my HDTV (High Definition Television), but in that situation lets settle for starting a fire. Unfortunately, not too long afterward a second caveperson was born free. Since this caveperson can do whatever she wants to do, as it turns out she wants to come beat you up and take your firewood. So now what you want is revenge. So you go and hit the gym and a few weeks later you go back to caveperson #2, whereas you lay down the smack and you steal back your firewood. Well, monkey-see monkey-do, and eventually both of you start going through cycles of buffing up and then stealing each other's firewood. Of course, the entire time your little soap opera has been going on, a few more cavepersons are born free, and pretty soon your poor little pack of firewood is making its rounds through a whole caveperson thieving community Realizing this is not very productive, you all sit down and talk. Yes, everyone has the right to do whatever they want, and we all want to be happy but in the end we’re not getting anything done here, so we're not happy. So how about we all enter into an agreement We will limit ourselves to doing whatever we want only up to the point that it does not interfere with someone else. In effect, we are giving up some of the right we were born with in exchange for life within a group that is a little more orderly and predictable. Thus we have the birth of government, society, and law. general classification: deontological - based on rules teleological - based on consequences Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang

• Ethics Foundations • Individuals vs. Groups – The Story of the Caveman • Society – Group of people organized under a system of rules – Members cooperate to promote the common good – Members compete to divide limited resources • Morality – Rules of conduct within a society – Describe what ought and ought not to be done in various situations • Ethics – Branch of philosophy that studies Morality – Rational examination of moral beliefs and behavior in a Society – Use of reason and logic to determine why conduct is right or wrong • Application to Technology – New technologies and their application must be categorized as "good" or "bad" – Existing moral guidelines may not address new technology – What are the existing moral guidelines? Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang

• Relativism – Theory that there are no universal moral norms of right and wrong – Different individuals or groups may have different views of a moral problem, and both are "right" • Subjective Relativism – Each person decides "right" and "wrong" – Based on the principle that reasonable minds can differ – Makes no moral distinctions between individuals and actions – Does not require decisions to be based on reason • Cultural Relativism – Theory that right and wrong are dictated by a Society's moral guidelines – Based on the principle that different societies (at different times) demand different moral guidelines – But how do individuals determine moral guidelines of a society • Divine Command Theory – Theory that good actions are dictated by a religious Diety – However, there are many religions and many holy texts and they disagree – Divine command is not known for all moral problems – "Good" exists outside of a Diety – Based on obedience, not reasoning Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang

• Kantianism – Proposed by Immanuel Kant – "Good will" is doing what one "ought to do", ignoring what one wants to do – Comes from dutifulness, which compels a person to act out of respect for moral rules – Which moral rules are "good"? • Categorical Imperative • Rationality – Moral rules can be derived from logical reasoning • Universality (First Formulation) – Act only from moral rules that can be rationally applied as universal rules – If a rule, when applied universally, creates a logical contradiction it is wrong – Does not rely on good or bad consequences • Humanity (Second Formulation) – Act so that you always treat people as ends in themselves, and not only as a means to an end – It is wrong for a person to "use" another – All people must be respected as rational beings, desiring information and capable of using it Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang

• Value of Kantianism • Pros – Kantianism is rational and universally applicable – All persons are treated as equals • Cons – Difficult to identify applicable rules, depending on the characterization of a given situation – Rules may conflict – No exceptions allowed Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang

• Utilitarianism (Act Utilitarianism) – Proposed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill – An action is good if it benefits someone, and bad if it harms someone – Benefit and Harm are measured by the Principle of Utility • Principle of Utility – An action is right to the extent that it increases total utility – "Utility" is the satisfaction of individual needs, establishment of well-being in life, the absence of pain – Production of "Happiness", very specifically defined – Calculation of Utility is in the aggregate for any given action – Motives are not significant, only the consequence of the action – Utility applies to "beings" • Weighing of Benefits and Harms – – Intensity - the magnitude of the experience Duration - how long the experience lasts Certainty - probability experience will actually occur Propinquity - how close the experience is in space and time – Fecundity - ability of the experience to produce more of the same – Purity - extent to which experience is not diluted by the opposite effect – Extent - the number of people affected Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang

• Value of Utilitarianism • Pros – Focuses on benefit to individuals – Practical and pragmatic, based on reasoning – Takes into account all aspects of a given situation • Cons – Calculating total Utility can be subjective – Calculating total Utility takes a long time for each single action – Calculating total Utility can be difficult or impossible – Ignores principles, obligation, and dutifulness – Subject to Moral Luck, where consequences are not fully under control – A single measure is used to evaluate different kinds of consequences – Distribution of Utility is not considered Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang

• Rule Utilitarianism – Theory that general moral rules, are good if, when followed by everyone, they increase total Utility – Do not depend on Utility of individual actions – It is understood that some rules, when universally applied, will increase total Utility – However, rules are not absolute, only total Utility • Pros – Utility calculations are simpler, focusing on generality and long-term consequences – General rules can be used in most situations instead of case-by-case analysis – Rules focus on general results, obviating problems with extreme individual situations or Moral Luck • Cons – Same as above – Rule Utilitarians may break rules if total Utility will be served Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang

• Social Contract Theory – Proposed by Thomas Hobbes, expanded by Jean-Jacques Rousseau – In order to live in a society individuals form a Social Contract – The Social Contract establishes moral rules governing relations among individuals and a government to enforce the rules – Rules that are good are those which rational people all agree to accept for the common good of society • Rights and Duties – Social Contract supposes that all morally significant beings have certain inherent rights – Rights then impose Duties on others not to violate those rights – A Negative Right is one that calls for others to simply not interfere in individual actions – A Positive Right obligates others to actively provide for an individual – Moral problems are evaluated from the point of view of moral rights Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang

• Principles of Justice (John Rawls) – Each person may claim a "fully adequate" number of basic rights, so long as these claims allow all others the same rights – Any social or economic inequalities must • be associated with positions in society that everyone has equal opportunity to attain • overall provide the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (Difference Principle) Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang

• Value of Social Contract Theory • Pros – Based on rights – Justifies action outside of self-interest – Provides basis for analyzing relationship between individuals and government • Cons – None of us signed the Social Contract – Characterization of actions can be subjective – Rights may conflict – Does not account for those who cannot uphold their side of the "contract" Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang

• Ethical Theories Generally • Deontological – Based on rules or principles • Teleological (Consequentialist) – Based on consequences or results • Theory Distinctions – The motivation for taking a particular action in response to a moral problem – The criteria used to determine whether an action is right – Focus on the individual or the group Theory Motivation Criteria Focus Kantianism Dutifulness Rules Individual Act Utilitarianism Consequences Actions Group Rule Utilitarianism Consequence/Duty Rules Group Social Contract Rights Rules Individual Copyright August 2004, Daniel Chang