moor, reason, relativity and responsibility in cpu ethics

7/29/2019 Moor, Reason, Relativity and Responsibility in Cpu Ethics

1/8

R e a s o n , R e l a t i v i t y , a n d R e s p o n s i b i l i t y in C o m p u t e r E t h i c sJames H. MoorDartmou th College, Hanover, N H, [email protected] pap er w as original&presented as a keynote address at Ethicorap96 in Ma drid , Spain.

Searching fo r E th ic s in the Globa l Vi l l ageAs computing becomes more prevalent , computer e thics be-com es m ore d i f f i cu l t and m ore im por tan t . As Ter ry Bynumand S im on Rogerson pu t i t ,

We are entering a generationmarked by globalizationand ubiq-uitous computing. The second generation of computer ethics,therefore, must be an era of 'global information ethics'. Th estakes are much higher, and co nsequently considerations andapplications of Inform ation Ethics must be broader, more pro-fou nd and above all effective n h elping to realizea democraticand empow ering echnolog y ather than an enslavingor d ebili-tating one. [1996, p. 135]I h e a r t il y c o n c u r w i t h t h e c o n c e r n t h a t B y n u m a n d

Rogerson express about the global impact of computing. Then u m b e r a n d k i n d s o f a p p l ic a t io n s o f c o m p u t i n g i n cr e a sedram at ica l ly each yea r and the im pac t o f com pu t ing i s fe l ta rou nd the p lane t . The ub iqu i to us use o f e lec t ron ic m a i l,electronic funds transfer, reservation systems, the world wideweb, etc. places millions of the inha bitants o f the plan et in aglobal e lectronic vi l lage. Communicat ion and act ions a t dis -tance h ave never been eas ier. We are def ini te ly in a com-pute r revo lu t ion . We a re beyond the in t roduc t ion s tage o fthe revo lut ion in which comp uters are curiosi ties o f limitedpower used on ly by a few. Now en t ire popula t ions o f deve l-oped co untries are in the perm eation s tage of the revolut ionin which com pute rs a re rap id ly m oving to eve ry a spec t o fdaily life.

The computer revolut ion has a l i fe of i ts own. Recent ly,in nor the rn Ca l i fo rn ia about one s ix th o f the phone ca l l sdidn ' t connec t because of excessive use of the in ternet. Peopleare surging to gain access to c om pute r technology. Th ey seei t as not only a part of their dai ly l ives but a necessary venuefor rou t ine com m unica t ion and com m erc ia l t ransac t ions . Infact, the surge has become so great that America On Line, aprominent internet server, offered i ts cus tomers refunds be-cause the demand for connect ion overwhelmed the company' sown com pute r t echnology a f t er the com pany gave un l im i tedaccess to i ts cus tomers for a f la t fee . The widespread des ireto be wi red should m ake us re f l ec t on wha t awa i t s a s thecomputer revolut ion explodes around the world. The digi ta lgenie is out of the bot t le on a world wide scale .

The prospec t s o f a g loba l v i l l age in which eve ryone onthe planet is connected to everyone e lse with regard to com-

put ing power and com m unica t ion i s b rea th tak ing . Wha t i sd i f f i cu l t to com prehend i s wha t im pac t th i s wi l l have onhuman life. Surely some of the effects will be quite positiveand others qui te negat ive . The ques t ion is to what extent canwe bring e thics to bear on the computer revolut ion in orderto gu ide us to a be t t e r wor ld o r a t l ea s t p reven t us f romfal l ing into a worse world. With the newly acquired advan-t ag e s o f c o m p u t e r t e c h n o l o g y fe w w o u l d w a n t t o p u t t h egenie com plete ly back into the bot t le . And yet given the na-ture of the revolutionary beast, I am not sure it is possible tocomplete ly control i t th oug h we certa inly can m odify i ts evo-lu t ion . Aspect s o f the com p ute r revo lu t ion wi l l con t inue tospring up in unpre dictable ways - in some cases caus ing uscons ide rab le g r ie f . The re fore , i t i s ex t rem e ly im por tan t tobe a lert to what is happening. Because the computer revolu-t ion has the p otent ia l of having major effects on h ow w e leado u r l i ve s, t h e p a r a m o u n t i ss u e o f h o w w e s h o u l d c o n t r o lcom putin g and the f low of information needs to be addressedon an o ngo ing basi s in o rde r to shape the t echnolo gy toserve us to our mutual benefi t . We must remain vigi lant andproactive so that we don' t pillage the global village.

Although almost everyone would agree that computing ishav ing a s ign i f i can t , i f no t a revo lu t iona ry , im pac t on thewo rld, and t ha t ethical issues abo ut applications of this surg-ing techn ology should be ra ised, there is disagreement aboutthe na tu re o f com p ute r e th ic s . Le t m e desc r ibe two pos i -t ions with wh ich I disagree. Both of these pos i t ions are popu-lar , bu t I be l i eve bo th o f them m is lead us abou t the rea lnature o f computer e thics and under cut potent ia l for progressin the f ie ld. The f i rs t view ! wil l cal l the "Routine Ethics"pos i t ion . Accord ing to the Rout ine E th ic s pos i t ion e th ica lp rob lem s in com put ing a re rega rded a s no d i f fe ren t f romethical problems in any f ie ld. There is nothing specia l aboutthem . We app ly e s tab l i shed cus tom s , l aws , and norm s andassess the situ atio ns straightforwardly. So metimes people stealcars and sometimes people s teal computers . What ' s the dif-ference? The second view is usually called "Cultural Relativ-ism". On this view local cus toms and laws determine w hat isr ight and wro ng, but , because compu ting technology like theworld wide web crosses cul tural boundaries , the problems ofcomputer e thics are intractable . Free speech is permit ted inthe Un i ted S tates bu t no t in Ch ina . H ow can we jus t i fy as tandard for or agains t free speech on the world wide web?

14 Com puters nd Society, March1 998


2/8

Rout ine E th ic s m akes com pute r e th ic s t r iv ia l and Cul tu ra lRelat ivism makes i t imposs ible .

I bel ieve that both the views of Rou tine Ethics and Cul-tural Relativism are inco rrect particularly wh en used to char-a c t e r i z e c o m p u t e r e t h i c s . T h e f o r m e r u n d e r e s t i m a t e s t h ec h a n g e s t h a t o c c u r i n o u r c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e w o r k a n d t h ela t ter underes t imates the s tabi l i ty of our core human values .The problems of com puter e thics , a t least in some cases , arespec ia l and exe r t p re s sure on our unders tand ing . And ye tour fundam enta l va lues , based on our com m on hum an na -tu re , g ive us an oppor tun i ty fo r ra t iona l d i s cus s ion evenam on g cu l tu res wi th d i f fe ren t cus tom s . The purpose o f th ispaper is to explain how it is possible to have both reason andrela t ivi ty in computer e thics . Only with such an unders tand-ing is global responsibi l i ty in computer e thics poss ible .Logical Malleability and Informational EnrichmentC o m p u t e r s a r e logically malleable. This i s the fea tu re tha tm akes com pute rs so revo lu t iona ry . They a re log ica l ly m a l -leable in that they can be ma nipulated to do any act ivi ty thatcan be cha rac ter i zed in t e rm s of inpu t s , ou tpu t s , and con-nec t ing log ica l ope ra t ions . Com pute rs can be m anipu la tedsyn tac t i ca l ly and s em ant ica l ly . S yn tac t i ca l ly , a com pute r ' sperformance can be changed through al tera t ions in i ts pro-gram. An d sem antical ly the s ta tes o f a compu ter m ay repre-sen t any th in g one chooses f rom the s a le s o f a s tock m arke tto the traje ctory of a spacecraft. Co mp uter s are general pur-pose m achines l ike no o the rs . Tha t i s why they a re nowfou nd in a lmost every aspect o f our l ives and that is wh y acomputer revolut ion is taking place.

Computers are a lso in3~rmationally enriching. Because oftheir logical malleabi l i ty comp uters are pu t to ma ny uses indiverse activities. Once in place computers can be modifiedto enhance capabilities and improve overall performance evenf u r t h e r . O f t e n , c o m p u t e r i z e d a c t i v i t i e s b e c o m einform a t iona l i ze d , i. e ., the p roces s ing of in fo rm a t ion be -comes a crucia l ingredient in performing and unders tandingthe activities themselves. When this happens both the activi-t ie s a n d t h e c o n c e p t i o n s o f t h e a c t i v it i e s b e c o m einform a t iona l ly enr iched .

The process o f in form a t iona l enr ichm ent i s g radua l andis more manifes t in some act ivi t ies than in others . What iss tr iking is how often and the extent to which i t does occur.In a typ ica l s cena r io a com pute r i s in t roduced m ere ly a s atool to perform a job or to ass is t in an activity. Gradual ly thecom pute r becom es an e s sen t ia l pa r t o f the m e thod ology ofdoing the job or performing the act ivi ty. To do i t properly isto use a com puter. Over t im e the job or act ivi ty is viewedinc reas ing ly as an in form a t iona l phenom enon so tha t in for -mation process ing is taken as a sa l ient or even defining fea-tu re .

C o n s i d e r s o m e e x a m p l e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n a l e n r i c h m e n t .At on e t ime in the U nited States mon ey was backed by gold.Th ere was an exchange o f paper bills , bu t the bills were mere ly

coupons tha t cou ld , a t l ea s t in p r inc ip le , be redeem ed forgold or perhaps s i lver. For sometime the United States re-mained on the gold s tandard so that paper bi l ls were mark-ers for money. Monetary transactions were grounded in gold.Then the gold s tandard was dropped and the paper bi l ls be-came the m oney. To have mon ey was to have the paper pre-s u m a b l y b a c k b y g o o d f a i t h a n d t r u s t i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t .No w paper has been augm ented with credi t cards and debi tcards that can be read by computers . Of course , these cardsare not the real money because one can a lways exchange thecredits for paper money. But, it is likely that the use of papermo ney will decrease an d the e lectron ic tokens on the cardsor in a bank' s computer wil l become the money. Some cardsnow have chips embedded in them so that they can be loadedwith e lectronic money which is then t ransferred as informa-t ion to a merch ant a t the po int o f sa le . We are headed for ac a s h l e s s s o c i e t y . M o n e t a r y t r a n s a c t i o n s a r e i n c r e a s i n g l ygrounded in in form a t ion . Money m ay com e to be conceivedas an e labora te com putab le func t ion am ong people . In thec o m p u t e r a g e t h e c o n c e p t o f m o n e y i s b e c o m i n ginform a t iona l ly enr iched .A s a n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f i n f o r m a t i o n a l e n r i c h m e n t c o n -sider the evolving n atur e o f warfare. Traditionally, in warfared i f fe ren t s ides s end people in to ba t t l e who f igh t wi th eachother a t c lose quarters unt i l one s ide has ki l led or capturedso many tha t the other s ide surrenders . O f course, inform a-t ion has a lways been important in warfare , but now, givena d v a n c e s i n c o m p u t i n g , t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n i sove rwhe lm ing . The ba t t l ef i e ld is rap id ly becom ing com put -erized. The s teal th bomber used by the United States duringthe G ul f War was the re su l t o f com pute r ized eng inee r ing .Com puters designed the shape of the a ircraft so that i t wou ldbe nearly invis ible to radar. The a ircraft ' s des ign deprivedI ra q o f i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e G u l f W a r w as a b o u t i n f o r m a t i o nand the lack of i t . Bombs were dropped and guided by lasersand computers. Missiles were launche d from ships and soug httheir targets by reading the terra in us ing computer guidancesys tems. The f i rs t object ive of the armed forces under Gen-e ra l H. Norm an S chwarzkopf ' s com m and was to e l im ina tethe abi l i ty of Iraq to communicate among i ts own forces orto use i ts a ircraft detect ion sys tems. Sc hw arzkop f remark edafter the war that i t was the f i rs t t ime an enemy was broughtto h i s knees by den ia l o f in form a t ion . As war becom es in -c reas ing ly com pute r ized i t m ay be l e s s neces sa ry o r des i r -able to send men and women into the bat t lefie ld. Wars ul t i -m a te ly wil l be about the des t ruc t ion o f in form a t ion or thei n t r o d u c t i o n o f m i s l e ad i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . O n e s id e s u r re n -ders when i t is not able to obtain and control certa in kindsof in form a t ion . Th i s m ay no t be a bad re su lt . Be t t e r tha tdata die , than people . Perhaps the "gun s tandard" wil l fadeaway jus t as the gold s tan dard d id. In any event , as warfarebecomes increas ingly comp uterized, o ur con cept of war be-com es in form a t iona l ly enr iched . The in form a t ion process -ing model is se iz ing the high ground.

Computers and Society, Ma rch1 998 '15


3/8

Informat iona l enr ichm ent can a lso a ffec t e th ica l and le -ga l prac t ices and concepts . Cons ider the concept of pr ivacyas it has evolved in the United States as an example [Moor,1990] . Pr ivacy is not expl ic i t ly ment ioned in the Declara-t i on o f Inde pe nde nc e o r i n t he C ons t i t u t ion o f the U n i t e dSta tes though there a re port ions of these documents whichimp l i c i t ly su ppor t a no t ion o f p r iva c y as p ro t e c t ion f romgovernmental intrusion, particularly the physical invasion ofpeople 's houses. The notio n of privacy has been an evolvingcon cep t in the Uni ted States. For instance, in the 1960's and70 's the legal co ncept of pr ivacy was expand ed to inc ludeprotection against government interference in personal deci-sions about contracept ion and abort ion . Today, the conceptof pr ivacy inc ludes these ear l ie r e lements b ut increasinglyfocuses on informat iona l pr ivacy This sh i f t in emphasis hasbeen brought about because of the deve lopment of the com-puter and i t s use in col lec t ing la rge da ta bases of persona lin fo rma t ion .

The computer , or ig ina l ly v iewed by many as l i t t le morethan an e lec t ronic f l ing cabine t , rapid ly revea led i t s poten-tial . Once data is entered into a computer i t can be sorted,searched, an d accessed in extraordinarily easy ways that pa-per files cann ot be - at least in practical amo unts of t ime.The ac t iv i ty of s tor ing and re t r ieving informat ion has beenenhanced to the extent tha t a ll of us now have a legi t imatebasis for concern a bou t the imp roper use and release of per-sona l informat ion through computers . The computer iza t ionof c redi t h is tor ies and medica l records for use in normalbusiness provides an ongoing possibili ty for misuse and abuse.Because of the widespread appl ica t ion o f computer technol-ogy ou r c onc e rn a bou t p r iva c y toda y goe s f a r be yond theorigina l conc ern about the physica l in t rusion o f governmen-ta l forces in to our houses. Now concerns about pr ivacy a reincreasingly about the improper access, use , and manipula-t i on o f pe rsona l i n fo rma t ion by the gove rnme n t a nd ma nyothers who have access to computer ized records. The or ig i -na l c onc e p t o f p r iva c y in t he U n i t e d S ta t es ha s be c om einformat iona l ly enr iched in the computer age .

Even concepts tha t begin as informat iona l concepts canbe informat iona l ly enr iched. As an example consider the le -gal conce pt of copyright. L egislation protecting the prod uctsof authors and inventors i s authorized b y the Const i tu t ion ofthe United States. Early copyright laws were passed to pro-tec t l i te ra ry works and pa tent laws were passed to protec tinvent ions. Copyright laws in the U.S. have been amendedover the years to extend the length o f protec tion to authorsand to p rotec t a wider and w ider range of materia ls inc lud-ing music and photographs. But unt i l the computer age theunderly ing concep t ion of copyright was a lways the protec-t i on o f i te ms w h ic h c ou ld be r ea d a nd und e r s tood by hu -mans. F or example, in the ear ly par t of the Twent ie th Cen-tury an a t tempt to protec t p iano ro l ls by copyright was de-nied on the grounds that piano rolls were not in human read-able form.

In the 1960 ' s p rog ra mme rs be ga n to submi t c op ie s o fp r in tou t s o f the i r p rog ra ms fo r c opy r igh t p ro t e c t ion . Theprin touts were in human readable form. But what program-mers wanted to protec t was not the pr in tou ts o f programsbu t t he p rog ra ms a s t he y e x i s t e d on c ompu te r s . H ow e ve r ,t he p rog ra ms , a s t he y e x i s t e d on c ompu te r s , w e re no t i nhuma n readable form. I f the human readable pr in touts wereto count as surroga tes to protec t the machine versions ofprograms, copyrigh t law had to be s t re tched. Moreover , i fmachine readable programs were protec table by copyright ,then i t would seem tha t programs as instant ia ted on com-puter chips might be protectable by copyright as well. Copy-r ight protec t ion was so extended. Through the deve lopmento f c o m p u t i n g t h e c o n c e p t o f co p y r i g h t h a s b e c o m einformationally enriched. Copyright extends not only to com-puter languages, but computer languages in forms readableonly by machines. Indeed, what is copyrightable today some-times looks more like an invention than a li terary work.

I have used the concepts of money, war, privacy and copy-r ight as examples of inform at iona l enr ichm ent . T here a remany more . I t i s d i f f icul t to th ink of an ac t iv ity now be ingd o n e e x t e n s i v e l y b y c o m p u t e r s t h a t h a s n o t b e e ninformat iona l ly enr iched. In some cases th is enr ichment i sso sa l ient tha t our concepts sh i f t somewhat . They too be-come informat iona l ly enr iched. In the computer age we l ivein a different world.T h e S p e ci al N a t u r e o f C o m p u t e r E t h ic sI mainta in tha t com puter e th ics i s a spec ial f ie ld of e th ica lresearch and appl ica t ion . Le t me begin by descr ib ing com-puter ethics and then making a case for i ts special nature.

Co mp ute r e th ics has two par ts: ( i ) the ana lysis of thenature and social impact of comp uter technolog y and (ii) thecorrespo nding formu la t ion and just i f ica t ion of pol ic ies forthe e th ica l use of such technology. I use the phrase "co m-puter technology" because I take the subjec t mat te r o f thef ie ld broadly to inc lude computers and assoc ia ted technol-ogy including software, hardware, and networks. [Moor, 1985]

We need thoug htful analyses of situations in which com -puters have an impact, and we need to formulate and justifypolicies for using them ethically. Although we need to ana-lyze before we can formulate and justify a policy, the processof discovery often com es in the reverse order. We kn ow thatcomput ing technology is be ing employed in a g iven si tua-t ion , but we are puzz led how i t should be used. There is apol icy vacuum. For example , should a supervisor be a l lowedto read a subordinate 's e-mail? Or should the government beallowed to censo r info rma tion on the internet? Initially, theremay be no c lear pol ic ies on such mat te rs . They never a rosebefore . There a re pol icy vacuums in such si tua tions. Some-t imes i t may be sim ply a mat te r of establ ish ing some pol icybut often one must analyze the situation further. Is e-mail inthe w orkp la c e more l i ke c o r re sponde nc e on c ompa ny s t a -t ionary in company f i les or more l ike pr iva te and persona l

16 Computersand S ociety, Ma rch199 8


4/8

phone conversa t ions? Is the in te rne t more l ike a passivemagazine or more like an active television? One often findsone se l f i n a conceptual muddle. The issues a re not t r iv ia lmat te rs of semant ics . I f someone 's hea l th s ta tus i s d iscov-ered through e-mail or an impressionable child is exposed todist ressing mater ia l on the in te rne t , the consequences maybe significant. Obtaining a clear conception of the situationon which to formulate ethical policies is the logical first stepin ana lysis a l though chronologica l ly one 's uncer ta in ty aboutthe appropria te pol icy may precede and mot iva te the searchfor conceptual clarification. Given a tentative understandingof the s i tua t ion one can p ropose and eva lua te possib le pol i -cies for proper conduct. The evaluation of a policy will usu-a l ly require a close examina t ion and perhaps re f inement ofone 's va lues. Such pol icy eva lua t ion may lead one back forfur ther conceptua l c la r if ica tion and then fur ther pol icy for-mulation and evaluation. Eventually, some clear understand-ing and justifiable policy should emerge. O f course, with thediscovery of new consequences and the appl ica t ion of newtechno logy to th e situation, the cycle of conceptual clarifica-t ion and pol icy formula t ion and eva lua t ion may have to berepea ted on an ongoing basis .

Because compu ters are logically malleable, they will con-tinue to be applied in unpredictable and novel ways generat-ing nume rou s po l i c y va c uums fo r t he fo re se e a b le fu tu re .M ore ove r , be c ause c ompu te r i z e d s i t ua t ions o f t e n be c om einformationally enriched, we will continue to find ourselvesin c onc e p tua l mudd le s a bou t how p re c i se ly t o unde r s t a ndthese situations. This is not to say that we can't achieve con-ceptual clarity and that we can't formulate and justify reason-able policies. Rather i t is to poin t ou t that the task o f com -puter ethics is, if not Sisyphian, at least ongoing and formi-dable. No other field of ethics has these features to the de-gree tha t computer e th ics does. Computer e th ics i s not s im-ply ethics rotely applied to computing. Typically problems incomputer e th ics require more than st ra ightforward appl ica-t ion of e th ica l pr inc ip les to s i tua t ions. C onsiderable in te r-pretation is required before appropriate policies can be for-mula ted and just i f ied . Of course , to say tha t computer e th-ics is a special field of ethics does n ot mean that every ethi-ca l problem involving computers i s unique or d i f f icul t tounde rs t a nd . S t e a l ing a c ompu te r ma y be a s imp le c a se o ftheft. A straightforward app lication o f an ethical principle isappropriate. In such a situation there are no policy vacuum sand no concep tual muddles. An d to say that com puter ethicsis a special field of ethics does not mean that other fields ofapplied ethics do no t have some instances of policy vacuum sand conceptua l confusion. Medica l technology ra ises ques-tions about what policy to follow for brain dead patients andconceptual questions about what counts as l ife. What is spe-cial about computer ethics is that i t has a continually largenumber of evolving si tua t ions which a re d i ff icul t to concep-tualize clearly and find justified ethical policies. Doing corn-

puter ethics is not impossible, but doing it typically involvesmuc h m ore than ro te appl ica t ion of exist ing norms.

I have argued that computer ethics is special but is thesubjec t mat te r unique? The a nsw e r de pe nds upon w ha t oneme a ns by " the sub je c t ma t t e r ". I f by " the sub je c t m a t t e r"one means "comput ing technology" then computer e th ics i sunique , for comput ing technology possesses unique proper-ties [Maner, 1996]. I believe their most imp orta nt p rope rtyis logically malleabili ty which explains the ongoing wave ofre vo lu t ion a nd ge ne ra t ion o f e th i c a l p rob le ms . I f by "thesub je c t ma t t e r " o ne has i n mind the oc c u r re nc e o f somenovel ethical issues, then computer ethics is not unique be-cause o ther f ie lds of e th ics somet imes consider novel s i tua-t ions which require revisions of conceptua l f rameworks andnew policy formulation. If by "the subject matter" o ne means"the overall range, depth and novelty of ethical issues gener-a ted by a technology" then com puter e th ics is unique . Noother technology, as revolut ionary as i t may be for a g ivenarea, has and will have the scope, depth, and novelty of im-pac t tha t com put ing technology has and wi ll have . There isn o m y s t e r y w h y c o m p u t e r e t h ic s h a s a p r o m i n e n c e t h a ttoaster ethics, locomotive ethics, and sewing machine ethicsdo not .

In summa ry , w ha t i s un ique a bou t c ompu te r e th i c s i scomp ut ing technology i t se lf and what makes com puter e th-ics d i f fe ren t as a f ie ld of e th ics i s the scope , dep th , andnovel ty of e th ica l s i tua t ions for which concep tua l revisionsa nd po l i c y a d ju s tme n t s a re r e qu i re d . De bora h Johnso n inher exce l lent in t roduct ion to computer e th ics avoids takingsides on the issue of the uniqueness of comp uter ethics andsuggests that ethical issues surrounding computers are "newspecies of old moral issues". Johnson goes on to say ,

The metap hor of spec ies and genus encompasses the e l-e me n t o f t ru th o n e a c h s ide o f the de ba te i n t ha t a ne wspec ies has some unique charac te r is t ics making i t d i f fe rentfrom any other species, but at the same time, the species hasgeneric or fundamenta l charac te r is t ics tha t a re common toall mem bers o f the genus. [19 94, p. 10]

Perhaps, the ambiguity in the question about the unique-ne ss o f c om pu te r e th i cs sugge s t s t h i s midd le g ro und a p -proach. But I be l ieve tha t Johnson 's ch arac te r iza t ion of aproblem of compu ter ethics as just anoth er species of a fixede thica l genus is somewhat misleading because the concep-tua l unc e r t a in ty ge ne ra t e d by some p rob le ms in c om pu te re th ics a ffec ts not on ly our under standing of the par t icula rsituation but also the ethical and legal categories that applyto it . As I have suggested, ethical and legal categories, suchas pr ivacy and copyright , can shi f t in meaning as they be-come inform at iona l ly enr iched. Th e no vel ty of the spec iessome t ime s in fe c t s t he ge nus . W he the r o r no t one r e ga rdscomputer e th ics as unique , computer e th ics i s def in i te ly ademanding f ie ld of eth ics which requires more than rout ineappl ica t ion of pr inc ip les.

Computers and Society, March1 998 17


5/8

R e a s o n s w i t h i n R e l a t i v e F r a m e w o r k sI have been a rgu ing aga ins t unde rs tand ing com pute r e th ic sin terms of Routin e Ethics because the ap pl icat ion of com-p u t i n g t e c h n o l o g y r e g u l ar l y p r od u c e s p o l i c y v a c u u m s a n dinform a t iona l enr ichm ent which prom otes concep tua l sh i f t si f no t ou t r igh t concep tua l m uddles . Com pute r e th ic s is no tro te . But , the re jec t ion o f Rout ine E th ic s l eaves m any un-com for tab le , I f e th ic s i s no t rou t ine , how can i t be done a ta l l? Retreat ing to a pos i t ion of Cultural Relat ivism wil l notsolve the problem. According to Cultural Relat ivism ethicali ssues m u s t be d ec ided s i tua t io na l ly on th e bas is o f loca lcus tom s and l aws . Two prob lem s im m edia te ly conf ron t uswi th such a pos i t ion wi th rega rd to com pute r e th ic s . F i r s t ,because computing act ivi ty is global ly interact ive appeal ingto local cus toms a nd laws wil l not in general provide us w itha n a n s w e r t o w h a t w e s h o u l d d o w h e n c u s t o m s a n d l a w sconf l i c t . On the wor ld wide web in form a t ion f lows wi thou tregard to part icular cus toms. Which cus toms should we ap-ply in regulat ing i t? To pick the cus toms of any one cul tureseems arbi t rary. Do w e pick the cus toms o f the cul tu re inwhich i t appears on the computer screen or the cus toms ofthe cu l tu re f rom which i t o r ig ina te s o r the cus tom s o f thecul tures throu gh w hich i t passes? Second, a l l of the diff icul-t ies with Routine Ethics cont inue to apply. A pol icy vacuumm ay occur fo r eve ry cu l tu re . A com p ut ing s i tua t ion m ay beso novel that there are no cus toms or laws es tabl ished any-where to cope with it. Initially, an appeal to Cultural Relativ-ism may seem l ike a sophis t icated and plaus ible a t tempt toescape the parochial l imits of Routine Ethics , but on c loserinspect ion i t has the l imita t ions of Routine Ethics and more.

T h e s h o r t c o m i n g s a n d d i f fi c u lt i e s w i t h R o u t i n e E t h i csand Cultural Relat ivism may make one caut ious about doingappl ied e th ic s a t a l l. I f peop le d i f fe r in the i r e th ica l judg-ments , how can disagreements be avoided or resolved? I t isfor this reason, I think, that computer sc ient is ts and othersa re som et im es re luc tan t to t each com pute r e th ic s . E th ica lissues seem to be too elusive and vague. But a safe retreat toa realm o f pure facts where everything is black or w hite , t rueor fa l se , wi th ou t any co ns ide ra t ion o f values is neve r pos -s ib le . Eve ry s c ience , inc lud ing com pute r s c ience , re s t s onva lue judgm ents . I f , fo r exam ple , t ru th i s no t t aken a s anim p or tan t va lue by s c ien t is t s the en te rpri s e o f s c ience can-no t beg in .

My pos i t ion i s tha t a l l in te re s t ing hum an en te rpr i s e s ,i n c l u d i n g c o m p u t i n g , a r e c o n d u c t e d w i t h i n f r a m e w o r k s o fvalues . Moreover, these framew orks can be ra t ional ly cri t i -c ized and adjus ted. Sometimes they are cri t ic ized external lyf rom the van tage po in t o f o the r f ram eworks and som et im esthey a re c r i t iqued in te rna lly . S om e va lue f ram eworks , suchas those in an emerging science l ike computer sc ience, un-d e r g o r a p i d e v o l u t i o n . O t h e r v a l u e f r a m e w o r k s a r e m o r estable. Value frameworks provide us with sorts of reasons weconsider re levant wh en jus t i fying part icular value judgmen ts .Hum an va lues a re re la t ive , bu t no t s im ply in the sha l low

sense of Cultural Relativism. Our most basic values are rela-t ive to our hum anity which provides us with a shared frame-work in which to conduc t reasoned a rgum ents about wha twe ought to do .

My in ten t i s no t to s ea rch fo r a way to e l im ina te va luedisputes altogether, which I do not think is possible, but toshow how som e reasoned d i s cus s ion about va lue i s sues i spossible even when customs may be absent or in conflict. Tosay that values are relative means that they are not absolute;i t d o es n o t m e a n t h e y ar e r a n d o m o r u n c o m m o n o runcri t ic izable . Perhaps , reflect ing about reasoning with re la-tive values is like thinking about swimming for the first time.I t s eem s im poss ib le . Why doesn ' t one s ink to the bo t tom ?How can one m ove i f the wa te r m oves when pushed? Whydoesn' t one drown? But , swim ming witho ut drow ning is pos-s ible and so is reasoning with re la t ive values . In fact , notonly is it possible; we do it all the time. Given the relativityof values is there any hop e for ra t ion al discuss ion in com-puter e thics . Absolute ly!

My presentation will be in two steps. First, I will discussthe ubiqu i ty of non-ethical values and emphasize their use ine v e r y a s p e ct o f h u m a n a c t i v i ty - w e c a n n o t e s ca p e v a lu edecis ion mak ing even i f we wan ted to do so. I wil l use com-pute r s c ience i ts e l f a s an exam ple th oug h an y in te re s t inghuman enterprise could serve as an i l lus tra t ion. And second,I will discuss the u se of values in m aki ng ethic al decisions.M y p o s i t i o n i s t h a t a n a c c o m m o d a t i o n b e t w e e n r e a s o n e dargu m en t and re la t iv i ty o f va lues is poss ib le. We can ac -knowledge the difference in values among people and amongcul tu res and s t i l l engage in ra t iona l d i s cus s ions about thebes t pol ic ies for us ing computer technology.

Let me begin with emphasiz ing the ubiqui ty of values inour l ives . In every reasonably complex human act ivi ty deci-s ions are made which require value choices a t leas t implic-i t ly . Cooks m ake va lue dec i s ions about wha t cons t i tu te s agood meal. Business people make value decisions about goodinves tments . Lawyers make decis ions about good jurors . Allof these endeavo rs ut i l ize facts , but th e facts are a lways inthe escort of values. Each discipl in e has i ts ow n clus ter ofvalues which members of the discipl ine use in making deci-s ions . Even scient is ts , who pride themselves in es tabl ishingfacts, must utilize values at least implicitly. In order to gatherthe facts, scientists must know what counts as good evidence,wha t counts a s good m e thodology , and w ha t counts a s goodexplanat ion. Values permeate our l ives . I am not speakinghere prim ari ly of e thical values. Rathe r these are the valuesof daily activities th at m ake ou r activities purpo seful. Valuesare so muc h apart o f wha t we do that we often don ' t reflecton the fac t tha t va lues a re a t work when we m ake ord ina rydecis ions . Value judgments cannot be escaped by any of usin wo rk or play. Values saturate our decision mak ing and arenecessary for the flourishing of the activities of life.

Even if one agrees that n on-ethica l values cann ot be es-caped in doing ordinary act ivi t ies , there is s t i l l the concern

"18 Computersand Society, March 1998


6/8

tha t the relativity of values makes it impossible to have rea-soned disputes . After a l l , cooks , bus iness people , lawyers ,and s c ien t i s t s d i s agree am ong them se lves . To exam ine theproblem of re la t ivi ty of values le t ' s use the act ivi ty of com-pute r s c ience a s an exam ple . In do ing com pute r s c ience ,l ike o the r sophis t i ca ted hum an ac t iv i t i e s , one m us t m akedecisions and these decisions utilize, often implicitly, sets ofnon-ethical values. These are the values of the discipline. Forins tance , a com pute r s c ien t i s t knows wha t m akes a com -p u t e r p r o g r a m a g o o d p r o g r a m . H e r e I a m u s i n g " g o o d "primari ly in a non-ethical sense. A good computer programis one that works, that has been thoroughly tested, that doesn' thave bugs , that is wel l-s t ructured, that is wel l-documented,that runs efficiently, that is easy to maintain, and that has af r i end ly in te r face . Al l o f the p rope r t i e s o f a good programreflect values . They are the features that make one computerp r o g r a m better than ano the r . Moreover , th i s s e t o f rela tedva lues, tha t con s t i tu te s a s e t o f s tanda rds wi th in c om p ute rscience, is widely shared am ong co mp uter sc ient is ts . Giventhese s tandards ra t ional discuss ions can be conducted abouthow to im prove a pa r t i cu la r com pute r p rogram . Moreover ,pol ic ies regarding good programming techniques can be rea-sonably justified relative to the set of standards. For instance,one m igh t a rgue fo r a po l i cy o f us ing ob jec t o r i en ted p ro-gram m ing on the g rounds tha t i t l eads to fewer bugs andcomputer code that is eas ier to mainta in.

Co m pu ter scientists like everyone else can have disagree-ments including disagreements about the s tandards . But dis -agreements which might appear to be about values are some-t im es m ere ly d i s agreem ents about fac t s . I f the re i s a d i s -agreement about the jus t i f icat ion of the pol icy to use objecto r ien ted p rogram m ing , the rea l d i s agreem ent m ay be aboutwhe the r o r no t ob jec t o r i en ted p rogram m ing rea l ly l eads tofewer bugs and code that is eas ier to mainta in. Such a dis -pute might be put to an empirical tes t . In this s i tuat ion i t isnot a dispute about the importance of bug free , eas i ly main-ta inable code, but about how well object oriented program-ming achieves these valued goals . Thus , disputes that ini-t ia l ly may s tr ike us as i rreconci lable disputes about valuesmay real ly be disputes about the facts of the matter subjectto em pi r ica l ad jud ica t ion .

Na tura l ly , com pute r s c ien t i s t s can a l so d i s agree aboutthe values that make up a good computer program as well .S om e m ay rank docum enta t ion a s e s sen t i a l and o the rs m aytake i t to be a l e s s im por tan t op t iona l fea tu re . Dependingupon the rank ing of the different values different judgm entscan be made regarding which programs are bet ter than oth-e r s a n d w h i c h p o l i c i e s a b o u t c o n s t r u c t i n g c o m p u t e r p r o -gram s a re the m os t im por tan t . Wha t I want to em phas ize ,however, is the degree of consensus that exis ts among com-puter sc ient is ts about 'what const i tutes a good computer pro-gram. The specif ic rankings may differ somewhat from per-son to person b ut a pat tern o f agreemen t emerges abou t thetypes o f p rogram s tha t a re the best . N o com p ute r s c ien t is t

regards an ineffective, untested, buggy, unstructured, undocu-m ented , ine f fi c ien t , unm ain ta inab le code wi th an unf r i end lyin te r face a s a good program . I t jus t doesn ' t happen . In asense the sha red s tanda rds de f ine the f i e ld and de te rm ineswho is qual i f ied and indeed w ho is in the f ie ld a t a l l . If oneprefers to produce buggy, "spaghet t i code" programs, one isnot doing serious computer sc ience a t a l l .

Discuss ions of the re la t ivi ty of values sometimes engagein the Many~Any Fallacy.This fa l lacy occurs when one rea-sons from the fact that many al ternat ives are acceptable tothe c la im that any a l ternat ive is acceptable . There are manyacceptable ways for a travel agent to route someone betweenBoston an d Mad rid. I t doesn 't fol low that any w ay of sendingsomeone between these cities is acceptable. Traveling throughthe center of the Earth and go ing via the North S tar are notinc luded . Many d i f fe ren t com pute r p rogram s m ay be goodbut no t jus t any com pute r p rogram i s good .

To summarize, n on-e thical values play a role in o ur deci-s ion m aking in a l l in te re s t ing hum an ac t iv i t i e s , inc lud ingcom put er sc ience. N o escape to a safe realm of pure facts ,even in science, is ever possible. The standar ds of value of adiscipl ine may be w idely shared, im plic i t , and go unno ticed,bu t they a re a lways the re . Moreover , eve ry d i s c ip l ine hassuffic ient agreement upon what the s tandards are to conducti t s bus ines s . Wi thout som e consensus on wha t i s va luab leprogress in a discipline is impossible.C o r e V a l u e sGiven tha t som e consensus about va lues wi th in com m uni -t i e s wi th sha red pre fe rences ex i s t s , i s the re any bas i s fo rconsensus about va lues am ong com m uni t i e s? E th ica l judg-ments are made bey ond the narrow boun ds of specia l inter-e st com m uni t i e s . Given d i f fe rences am ong com m uni t i e s , l etalone differences among cultures, how is it possible to groundethical judgments? Ethical judgments about computing tech-no logy m ay seem even m ore du b ious . Because com put in gtechn ology generates pol icy vacuums, i .e . , creates s i tuat ionsin which there are no es tabl ished pol ic ies based on cus tom,law, or re l igion, we are confronted with the diff icul t task ofjus t i fy ing e thical pol ic ies abo ut nove l appl icat ions of com-put ing t echnology even wi th in one com m uni ty .

To addres s these cha l l enges we m us t beg in by a sk ingwh ether we share any values as hu ma n beings. W ha t do wehave in common? I believe that there is a set of core valueswhich are shared by m ost , i f not a l l , humans . Th ey are famil-iar to all of us. Life and happiness are two of the most obvi-ous such values. At the very least people want to avoid deathand p ain for themselves. O f course, in som e situations peoplegive up their l ives and suffer pain to accom plish certa in ob-ject ives. B ut , general ly speaking people do not intent io nal lyhurt and kill themselves for no reason. There is a prima facieva lue on l i fe and happines s fo r hum ans . Othe r core va lues(or core goods) for humans include abi l i ty , freedom, knowl-edge, resources, and security. These values are articulated in

Com puters and Society, Ma rch19 98 "19


7/8

differ ent ways in differen t cultures bu t all cultures place im-por tance on these va lues to som e ex ten t . Obvious ly , som ecul tu res m ay d i s t r ibu te these goods unequa l ly am ong the i rmembers, but no culture disregards these values completely.No cul ture or individual human could cont inue to exis t anddis rega rd the core va lues en t i re ly . Hum ans need nour i sh-men t an d cul tures nee d to ra ise their young to survive. Thesek inds o f ac t iv it i e s requ i re a t l ea s t som e ab i l i ty , f reedom ,knowledge, resources and securi ty Th e fact that h uma ns sharesom e bas ic va lues i s no t su rpr i s ing . These va lues p rov idesome evolu t ionary advantages. Individuals and cul tures thatcompletely neglect the core goods will not exist for very long.

The core values provide s tandards with which to evalu-ate the ra t ional i ty of our act ions and pol ic ies . They give usreasons to favor som e courses o f ac t ion ove r o the rs . Theyprov ide a f ram ework o f va lues fo r judg ing the ac t iv i t ie s o fo the rs a s we l l . As we becom e acqua in ted wi th o the r cu l -tures, differences ofte n strike us. Th e m emb ers of other cul-tures eat different meals, wear differen t do thin g, and l ive indifferent shel ters . But a t a more abs tract level people areremarkably a l ike . Ini t ia l ly, we may find the habi ts of othersto be strange, silly, or bizarre, bu t after investigation we d on' tf ind them to be uninte l l igible . Act ivi t ies that may appear a tf i r s t to be random or purpose le s s a re in fac t o rde red andp u r p o s e f u l . T h i s d o e s n ' t m a k e t h e p r a c ti c e s o f o t h e r sunc r i t i c i zab le , any m ore than our own a re unc r i t i c i zab le ,bu t i t does m ake them unders tandab le .

Discussions o f relativism in ethics often includ e examplesof the Man y/A ny Fallacy. Man y different cus toms exis t, and,so it is argued, an y custom ma y exist. N ot so. Some possiblepract ices are ruled out and other pract ices ( in some form orother) are required i f a cul ture is to exis t. Core hu ma n val-ues are art icula ted in a m ult i tude of del ightful ways but theya lso co ns t ra in the rea lm of pos s ib i l it i e s . Aga in , " re la t ive"doesn ' t m ean " random " .

To say that we share the core values is only a first step inthe argument toward grounding ethical judgments . The mostev il v i l la in and the m os t co r rup t soc ie ty wi l l exh ib i t corehu ma n values on an individu al bas is . Possessing core hum anvalues is a sign of being rational but is not a sufficient condi-t ion for being e thical . To adopt the ethical point of view onemust respect others and their core values . All things beingequa l peop le do no t want to suf fe r dea th , pa in , d i s ab i l i ty ,interference, dece pt ion , loss of resources , or intru s ion.

If we respect the core values o f everyone, then we havesom e s tanda rds by which to eva lua te ac t ions and po l ic ie s .The core va lues p rov ide a f ram ework fo r ana lys i s in com -puter e thics . By us ing the core value framework some pol i-c ie s fo r app ly ing com pute r t echnology can be judged to bebetter than others. Let's consider a set of possible policies forthe activities o f a web browser as an example.

Possible PoliciesJbra V~b Site1. Destroy information o n the user ' s hard disk by leaving

a t ime bomb on the user ' s hard disk.2 . Rem ove in form a t ion f rom the use r ' s ha rd d i sk wi th -

out the user ' s knowledge.3. Leave a "cookie" ( information about the user ' s prefer-

ences) o n the use r's ha rd d i sk wi t hou t in form ing theuse r .

4. Leave a "cookie" on the user ' s hard disk and informthe user.5. Do not leave or take any permanent information from

the user's hard disk.6. Give the user the information and abi l i ty to accept or

dec l ine cookies .If we respect others and their core values , i . e ., tak e the

ethical poin t of view, then these pol ic ies can be ranke d atleast roughly. Policies 1 and 2 are clearly unacceptable. No-body contacts a web site wishing or expecting to have his orher hard disk erased or information s tolen. The informationfound on a hard disk is a resource of the user that requiresrespect and protection. Policy 3 is better than I or 2. Peoplem ay bene f i t f rom hav ing the i r p re fe rences recorded so tha tthe web site can tailor its responses more effectively the nextt ime i t is vis i ted. Y et , inform ation is being left on the user' sha rd d i sk wi thou t the i r knowledge . S om e decep t ion m ay beinvolved . Pol icy 4 is bet ter th an 3 in th at th e user is in-formed about the activity. Policy 6 is better still in that theuser has both th e knowledge and th e ability to allow or refusethe cookies. Given these advantages, policy 6 is better than5 though 5 would be a perfectly acceptable policy in that noharm is being caused to the user.

This analysis of the comparative strengths and weaknessesof these po l i c ie s cou ld be e labora ted bu t enough has beensaid to make several points. People may not agree on exactlyhow to rank these pol ic ies . Some may bel ieve that the theftof information is worse than i ts des truct ion and so pol icy 2is worse than pol icy 1. Some may bel ieve that pol icy 6 cre-ates some risks because of possible misun ders tandin gs abou twhat is being placed on a hard disk and so pol icy 5 is bet terthan po l icy 6. But no bod y wou ld argue from an e thical poin tof view that pol icy 1 or 2 is acceptable . Most w ould agreethat some of the other pol ic ies are acceptable and that someare bet ter than others . Moreover, even when there is dis -agreem ent about the rank ings , the d i s agreem ents m ay haveas much to do with factual matters as with value differences.As a matter of fact does the loss of information cause moredamage than i ts des truct ion, and as a matter of fact do mis-unders tand ings about wha t i s o r i s no t l e f t on a ha rd d i skoccur? Apparent value differences may be open to empiricalre so lu t ion .

The s i tua t ion i s para l le l to the eva lua t ion o f com pute rprogram s . Com pute r s c ien t i s t s have subs tan t i a l agreem entthat some computer programs are terr ible and some are verygood . There a re d i s agreem ents about the rank ings o f som e

20 Computersand Society, March 1998


8/8

in the middle . Often reasons can be given about why someare better than others. Similarly, some policies for using com-puters are eth ically no t acceptable w hereas others clearly are.People may have different rankings , but these rankings , as-suming an ethical point of view, will have significant positivecor re la t ion . Moreover , peop le can g ive reasons why som epolicies are better than others. The core values provide a seto f s t anda rds by wh ich we can eva lua te d i f fe r en t po l i cie s .They te l l us what to look for when making our assessmentsabout the benefi ts and harms of different pol ic ies . They giveus the reasons for preferring one pol icy over another. Theysuggest ways to mo dif y policies to m ake th em better.Responsibility, Resolution, and ResidueThere are man y levels of re lat ivi ty in value judgm ents . Som eof our va lues are re lat ive to our be ing hum an. I f we wereangels or creatures from another dimension, our core valuesm ig ht be d i f fe ren t . And the n , o f course , d i f fe ren t cu ltu resa r t i cu la te the core hum an va lues d i f fe ren t ly . An d d i f fe ren tindividuals within a cul ture may differ in their assessmentsof values . Indeed, som e values o f one individual ma y changeover time. I have been arguing that such relativity is compat-ible with ra t ional discuss ion of e thical issues and resolut ionof a t l ea s t som e e th ica l d i spu tes . We a re a f t e r a l l hum anbeings , not angels or creatures from another dimension. Weshare core values . This provides us w ith a se t of s tandardswith w hich to assess pol ic ies even in s i tuat ions in w hich n oprevious pol ic ies exist and with which to assess other valuef ram eworks when d i s agreem ents occur .

Ethical responsibi l i ty begins by taking the e thical pointof view. W e m ust respect others an d their core values . If wecan avoid pol ic ies that resul t in s ignif icant harm to others ,tha t would be a good beg inn ing toward re spons ib le e th ica lconduc t . S om e po l ic ie s a re so obv ious ly ha rm fu l tha t th eyare readily rejected by our core value standards. Selling com-puter software which is know n to m alfunct ion in a way whichis likely to result in death is an obvious example. Other poli-c ies eas i ly meet our s tandards . Building computer interfaceswhich facilitate use by the disabled is a clear example. Andof course , som e polic ies for mana ging com puter techno logywil l be disputed. However, some o f the e thical polic ies u n-der dispute may be subject to fitrther rational discussion andreso lu t ion . The m a jor re so lu t ion t echn ique , which I havebeen emp hasiz ing, is the emp irical inves t igat ion of the ac-tual consequenc es of propo sed pol icies. For ins tance, somepeople m igh t p ropose a l im i ta t ion on f ree speech on theinternet on the grounds that such freedom would lead to anunstable socie ty or to severe psychological damage of somecitizens. Advocates o f free speech mi gh t appeal to its useful-ness in t ransmit t ing knowledge and i ts effect iveness in cal l -ing a t t en t ion to the f l aws of gove rnm e nt . To som e ex ten tt h e s e a r e e m p i r i c a l c l a i m s t h a t c a n b e c o n f i r m e d o rd i s conf i rm ed which in tu rn m ay suggest com prom ises andm odi f i ca t ions o f po l i c ie s .

Anothe r re so lu t ion t echn ique i s to a s sum e an im par t i a lpos i t ion w hen eva lua t ing po l ic ie s . Im agine y ourse l f a s anouts ider not being benefi ted or harmed by a pol icy. Is i t afa ir pol icy? Is i t a pol icy wh ich y ou w ould advocate i f youwere suddenly p laced in a pos i t ion in which you were a f -fected by the pol icy. I t may be tempting to be the sel ler ofdefect ive software , but nob ody w ants to be a b uyer of defec-tive software. And finally, analogies are sometimes useful inre so lv ing d i s agreem ents. I f a c om p ut ing profess ional wou ldn o t a p p r o v e o f h e r s t o c k b r o k e r w i t h h o l d i n g i n f o r m a t i o nfrom her ab out the volat i l i ty of s tock she is cons idering buy-ing, i t would seem by analogy she should share infor matio nwi th a c l i en t about the ins tab i l i ty o f a com pute r p rogramwhich the c l ient is cons idering purchas ing.

Al l o f these t echn iques fo r re so lu t ion can he lp fo rm aconsensus about accep tab le po l i c ie s . But when the re so lu-tion techniques have gone as far as they can, some residue ofdisagreement may remain. Even in these s i tuat ions a l terna-t ive pol ic ies may be avai lable which a l l part ies can accept .But , a res idue of e thical difference is not to be feared. Dis-pu tes occur in eve ry hum an endeavor and ye t p rogres s i sm ade . Com pute r e th ic s i s no d i f fe ren t in th i s rega rd . Thech ie f th rea t to com pute r e th ic s i s no t the pos s ib il i ty tha t ares idue of disagreements about which pol ic ies are bes t wil lremain after debates on the issues are completed, but a fa il -ure to debate the e thical issues of com putin g techn ology ata ll . I f we na ive ly rega rd the i s sues o f com p ute r e th ic s a srout ine or , even worse , as unsolvable , then we are in theg r e at e st d a n g e r o f b e in g h a r m e d b y c o m p u t e r t e c h n o lo g y .Responsibi l i ty requires us to a dopt the e thical poin t o f viewand to engage in ongoing conceptual analysis and policy for-mu lat ion an d jus t i f icat ion with regard to this ever evolvingtechnology . Because the com pute r revo lu t ion now engul fsthe en t i re w or ld , i t i s cruc ia l tha t the i s sues o f com p ute rethics be addressed o n a global level. Th e global village needsto conduct a global conversation about the social and ethicalim pac t o f com put ing and w ha t shou ld be done about i t. F or -tunately, com puting m ay help us to con duct exact ly that con-versation. R Yencg$Bynum , Terrell, and Simon Rogerson. [1996] "Introduction and Overview : GlobalInformation Ethics". Scienceand Engineering Ethics,2 (2): 131-136.Johnson, Deborah. [1994] ComputerEthics.2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:Prentice Hall, Inc.Maner, W~lter. [1996] "Unique Ethical Problems in Information Technology". Science

and Engineering Ethics, 2 (2): 137-154.Moor, James. [1985] "What is Computer Ethics?". Metaphilosoph316 (4):266-275.Moor, James. [1990] "Ethic s of Privacy Protection". Library Trend~,39 (1 & 2):69-82.Thanks to D eborahJohnson and Keith Millers~r helpfid suggestionsabout thispaper

Computers and Society, Ma rch1 998 2'1

moor, reason, relativity and responsibility in cpu ethics

Documents