Philosophy 371
What is reflective equilibrium?
A process by which we reflect on and revise our beliefs about an area of inquiry. It is a state of balance among a set of beliefs arrived at by deliberation and adjustment among general principles and judgements
What are four ways that a moral judgement can be challenged on the basis of structure?
1) Conceptual confusion in the general moral principle 2) Problems in the factual link 3) Unacceptable implications of the general moral principle 4) Consistency problems
What does Brunk say a new professional ethic in technology should include?
1) Does not leave room for justification of ethical and responsibility isolationism 2) Should encourage professionals to allow their moral reasoning to influence their choices and "infuse the technological establishment itself with a moral contentiousness"
Under what six conditions is it "morally justifiable" to use humans in scientific experimentation?
1) Informed consent is received 2) Community shares that the experiment is required and ethical 3) Conforms to scientific methodology with a respect to accepted principles 4) Investigators have knowledge on the subject 5) Preliminary and animals experimentation has been completed 6) Investigators are qualified
Give an example of the difference between law and morality
A father finds and physically beats another man who had raped his 13 year old daughter within inches of his life. The offender had been prosecuted and served only two years of a five-year sentence and then was released on good behavior. The father has now been handed a 20 year sentence for violent assault.
Give an example of personal opinion vs morality
A man is walking through a park and notices a boy, about nine years old, playing in the sand near a bluff of trees. The man begins to fantasize about taking that boys hand and walking him to the trees to complete sexual acts. As he begins walking towards the boy, he cringes knowing that what he is about to do isn't right - but he can't help what he likes can he?
Give an example of obedience to authority and morality.
A police officer and his commander are chasing a young perpetrator who was just caught breaking into a car for the umpteenth time. This youth has been in and out of assessments centers and juvenile detentions centers his whole post-pubescent life. The police officer corners the youth in a back alley and is about to apprehend him when his commander says "Shoot him! He's going to end up dead living this life anyway and I'm tired of chasing him!" The police officer hesitates, and the commander says, "That's an order."
What three reasons do Anderson and Anderson provide for claiming that AI machines have advantages over human beings in following Act Utilitarianism?
Believe AI is likely better at carrying out this type of ethical thinking because: 1) They are impartial to one outcome or another 2) They are able to consider all possible actions by the way of their programming 3) Much faster than a human
What are normative questions?
Questions of value rather than questions of fact. Eg. Was it morally permissible to use a rat for your experiment?
What are descriptive questions?
Questions that are of mere fact. Eg. Did you use a rat for your experiment?
Why do Anderson and Anderson think that machine ethics 'makes philosophy honest"?
The statement "machine ethics makes philosophy honest" speaks to the relationship between theoretical and actual application. Philosophy, by its nature, is a very abstract and theoretical facet of study, and although ethics is the branch that is most applicable, it too is very theoretical. Machine ethics would put all of the talk to the test and allow the tweaking and shaping required to make them real world applicable, thereby "making it honest".
How can you challenge a moral judgement on the basis of conceptual confusion in the moral principle?
The wording and structure of the general moral principle can leave too much to the imagination and generate many meanings that are not the intention of the individual
What are the differences and similarities between therapeutic and reproductive cloning?
Therapeutic cloning involves the use of embryonic stem cells for the purpose of understanding and developing treatments for disease whereas reproductive cloning has the purpose of copying an organism (animal). In both cases, the nucleus from a cell (usually a skin cell) is removed from an organism and inserted into an enucleated oocyte. The main difference is that in therapeutic cloning, the growth is stopped at the blastocyst which is when stem cells are harvested.
On what basis is therapeutic cloning widely considered to be morally acceptable? Why is it hard to then justify that reproductive cloning is not acceptable?
Therapeutic cloning is widely accepted in 'regenerative medicine' in which the replacement or regeneration of tissues or even whole organs can occur and possibly cure things like spinal cord injuries, liver failure, heart disease, etc. However, policing between the two types of cloning would be quite difficult as the process is much the same for both. The difference is in intention. Despite the purpose of therapeutic cloning being in tissues and not entire cloned organisms/animals, cells still have to be manipulated and cloning still has to occur to provide the amount of cells required to complete research, and even more would be required to produce tissues and organs.
Explain Act Utilitarianism
a teleological theory that concludes that the act which is likely to result in the most net good is the act to proceed with. For each possible course of action it considers all stakeholders, the intensity of pleasure or displeasure felt, the probability that it will be felt and the duration that it will be experienced for each person and chooses the one with the highest (most favorable) numbered outcome.
What reasons does Fried provide for arguing that probationary monitoring can be morally justifiable while electronic monitoring of the general public is not?
Fried discusses the regime of a prison and posits that, although probationary monitoring is intrusive, it is unlikely that it is more intrusive than life in prison. He also suggests that one has the right to choose between remaining in prison and carrying out their sentence or going through with probationary monitoring, so permission has been granted, in a sense, to monitor whereas monitoring of the general public occurs without knowledge and certainly without permission.
Fried does not think that privacy fits neatly into the category of either being intrinsically or instrumentally valuable, but he does favour a certain version of the instrumentalist conception. Explain his instrumentalist conception of the value of privacy by focusing upon his account of what kinds of morally desirable ends are only made possible by privacy.
Fried explains that privacy is integral to the intimacy required for love, friendship, trust, respect and self-respect. He posits that because privacy is an important part of these, but not the whole of them, it is difficult to give it ultimate significance but equally difficult to award it none. In sum, privacy, although not the only important factor, is integral to experiencing true love, friendship, respect and trust and in giving those as well
Why does Brunk say this second principle should influence the thinking of scientists and technical people?
It should be their professional responsibility to see to it that their technology is used in a socially beneficial way as they are the greatest beneficiaries of that technology and thus must be held to high moral standards.
What four conditions does the Canadian Council on Animal Care say it is justifiable to use animals in research?
1) All other avenues to complete the experiment have been explored 2) The experiment is absolutely necessary 3) The design is as humane as possible 4) Pre and post operative care is at levels consistent with veterinary practice
Of the ethical theories that Anderson and Anderson consider, which account do they believe is "the best approach to ethical theory"
Anderson and Anderson believe that best way to approach machine ethics is with a combination of deontological and teleological theories with several obligations that can be assessed for priority in a given situation. It involves considering the consequences of a given action but also considering our inherent ethical obligations
How do Anderson and Anderson respond to the criticism that machines cannot be ethical because they do not have any of the following: (i) free will or (ii) consciousness or (iii) emotions?
Anderson and Anderson recognize the importance of free will, consciousness and emotions in the ethical reasoning of human beings, but they also consider that which would be synonymous in machines. Free will and consciousness, for example, is necessary to make autonomous decisions in humans, but it is not required to internally make the morally correct action and justify it. In this way, machines could easily be programmed to consider actions and determine the morally correct one based on software. The ability to feel and consider the feelings of others is typically a human trait, but knowing about this trait allows us to apply it in the same way that we apply any other software. It can also be said that emotions actually get in the way of performing during ethical decision making. Humans are naturally self-preserving and partial to a certain decision whereas machines can be completely impartial.
Which branch of moral philosophy does professional ethics fit?
Applied Ethics
How is metaethics different from theoretical normative ethics?
Metaethics deals with the nature of ethics and meaning of the terminology whereas theoretical normative ethics is concerned with the criteria of what is morally acceptable, or not, and the formation of moral rules to guide individuals and institutions
How is metaethics different from applied ethics?
Metaethics is the philosophical basis on which applied ethics is built. It sets out what is meant by terms such as "good" or "bad" and allows practical application of ethics to solve prudent problems (applied ethics).
What is the main difference between moral reasoning and the scientific method?
Science is concrete (eg. Newtons Laws of motion do not change according to circumstance or application) whereas moral reasoning frequently shifts situationally and factorially.
Why does Singer argue that "the human creators and operators of autonomous robots must be held accountable for their machine's actions"?
Singer states that people must take responsibility for the robots because he wants to avoid a situation in which responsibility falls flat - to nobody at all - due to the fact that machine's cannot take responsibility for their actions.
How does Singer employ use his principle of equality for determining when experiments using animals are justifiable? Do you find the principle plausible?
Singer suggests that using animals for experiments when, in a situation where human's language skills and cognitive abilities to understand what is going to happen to them, an animal in the same situation would not understand what was going to happen to them and therefore, would suffer less in that circumstance. I believe the principle is plausible if we apply it equally to each species - which is nearly impossible. Singer follows his position about this particular circumstance with the argument that human infants and/or severely mentally challenged people would have the same understanding of their situation as an animal, and therefore should be interchangeable in this situation. We would never subject a human infant to experimentation, regardless of their cognitive abilities, but why? They have an inherent right to life some might say, and to that I say, so do animals.
What is Applied Ethics?
The branch of ethics that deals devoted to the treatment of moral problems and the practical application of moral considerations. It is the branch responsible for finding acceptable resolutions of moral problems of present urgency. Subsets include medical ethics, bioethics and business ethics.
What is Theoretical Normative Ethics?
The branch of ethics that is concerned with the criteria of what is morally acceptable and not acceptable. It involves the formulation of moral rules that have implications for the actions of individuals and institutions. It is concerned with the content of ethics rather than the nature of it (like Metaethics is)
What is the normative/descriptive distinction?
The distinction between matters of value and matters of fact
Why does the example of the difference between morality and law sit wrong with us?
The law says this is justified, you cannot just go around beating people, that is precisely why we have laws. Why then, do we feel that something is wrong about the situation? Morality is the answer. We know that the father broke the law, but was he morally justified?
Why does the example of obedience to authority and morality not sit well with us?
The policer officer has been taught to respect authority his whole life, and even more so when he entered the force. He knows he should respect his commanding officer's order, but he also knows it does not feel right. His feelings of right and wrong, and respecting his commander are clashing.
What is Metaethics?
The practice of determining what moral terms are understood to mean, such as what we mean when we say words such as "right" or "bad". It is philosophical by nature, analyzing the nature of ethics and morality and the meaning of moral language. It is not a normative system.
What is speciesism?
Unjustified bias in favor of one species over another, or prejudice against a species
How is reflective equilibrium in moral reasoning analogous to the scientific method?
We begin with moral convictions (or data) and generate principles (hypothesis) and apply to non-clear cut cases (future studies)
Why does the example of the difference between economics and morality sit wrong with us?
We know resources in health care are scarce, and funds to support the increasing costs of health care seem to grow by the day, however we cannot go around choosing who gets care and who does not. That would not be morally permissible.
How can you challenge a moral judgement on the basis of consistency problems?
When one's principles change in taking views on different angles of the same moral question. We cannot allow certain things for some and not others
What is an example of a case where reflective equilibrium in moral reasoning is required?
When we have no strong convictions or when our intuitions shift or require a shift
Why do Anderson and Anderson reject the theory of Ethical Relativism as a viable approach to machine ethics?
because it accepts situations that may be heinous, and indeed unethical, so long as the majority agrees.
What are three leading arguments for the development and use of military robots?
1) It is theorized that they would decrease accidental killings via increased efficiency and precision 2) Robots can take risks, enter territory and complete maneuvers that humans cannot. They can get closer and "see" farther 3) They are not subjected to the limitations of the human body, mind and soul
What are the three major divisions in moral philosophy?
1) Metaethics 2) Theoretical Normative Ethics 3) Applied Ethics
What are three principles that Singer argues should guide the development of military robots?
1) Military robots should not be able to carry and use lethal weapons without authorization from a human controller 2) A military robot must be limited in self defense in such a way that self-defense does not override ethical concerns 3) A clear pathway from manufacture to commanders must be established and followed to ensure responsibility falls on the appropriate party in the event of an issue with the military robot
What are the three subbranches of theoretical normative ethics?
1) Moral Axiology - theories of good and evil 2) Virtue Ethics - moral excellence in character 3) Theory of Moral Obligation - What actions are morally permissible and impermissible
What are some reasons that Fried provides for thinking that electronic monitoring of the general public is morally problematic? (5)
1) One is inhibited in what he does due to constant unseen audience 2) Destroys the possibility of gifting intimacy and makes impossible the dynamic of love and friendship 3) Undermines the capacity of trust 4) Leads to second hand exposure to those who choose to be intimate with the person being monitored 5) Denies the sense of self-respect that comes with trust
What are three reasons that Anderson and Anderson provide for the importance of studying machine ethics?
1) There are ethical ramifications to what machines currently do and are projected to do in the future; because they will be capable of acting almost autonomously, they will be capable of harm as well 2) People fear the possibility of machines acting unethically and have made the field of AI quite controversial, therefore, the field of AI could be held back or destroyed indefinitely 3) Machine ethics could advance the field of ethics in general by providing a platform for ethics that require actual and immediate application rather than mounds of theories
Why must we sometimes adjust our initial convictions? (2)
1) They are found to be a product of opinion or prejudice rather than actual moral issues 2) we must change our convictions to fit the principles because we are certain about them
What are two leading challenges of the deontological/teleological combo approach that Anderson and Anderson believe is the best approach?
1) What to do when prima facie duties give inflicting advice 2) Can machines act ethically if they are not conscious creatures - is programming enough
Some people argue that we can separate research and development from application, and put the brakes on a new technology if it is determined through research that it could be harmful. Moor and Weckert claim, in Section 3 of "Nanoethics: Assessing the Nanoscale from an Ethical Perspective," that "when new technology provides us with new tools to investigate and control others, we use them . . . That nanochips will be used for spying and control of others is a practical certainty" (306-307). Can you think of any facts that Moor and Weckert have overlooked in coming to this conclusion?
Although Moor and Weckert provide rational thoughts about the likely increases in privacy invasion and security issues that could come with technology that is so miniscule, they aren't necessarily considering the entire picture as a whole instead of just a piece of the pie. Even today we face privacy and security issues associated with increasing computer technology, and we have safeguards, regulations and consequences in place to stop these things from happening or punish those responsible when it does. It stands to reason that the same would apply to new technology like nanotechnology. With our expanding technology will come new fields and branches of ethics and justice to maintain control and ensure thoughtful consideration is given to the implications of the new technology; In fact, the plethora of scientific literature in the nanotechnology department debating such things in its infancy is proof of the simultaneous nature of growth of technology and reins to harness it.
What does Thomas mean by the Aristotelian ideal of "companion friendship"? What reasons does he present for thinking that digital technology is a great facilitator for communication but not for conversation? Why does he think those considerations severely inhibit the possibility of "companion friendship" in the digital age?
Aristotle described friendship in the only way he knew it to exist, as in his time, friendship could only exist in one way. There was no instant messages or phone calls, friendship was built on hours of time spent together in which people were companions to each other and even a part of one another. Although technology has allowed magical things to occur, such as keeping in touch with a friend who moved across the country via messages, phone calls and even video calls, it has, in a way, removed the companion portion of friendship. We are virtually available 24/7 via our smartphones to anyone, and yet we are less reachable. Our attention is so swayed by our mobile devices that we are rarely truly giving 100% of ourselves to the present moment. This is exemplified by families on their phones at the dinner table, partners lying in bed playing on phones, and friends gathering to play games only to each be distracted by their devices. We are so used to the constant connection that sometimes it is forgotten that the companion friendships we once had, the friendships built on hours spent laughing and creating, cooking and playing, talking and crying, are an important part of our mental health, our connection with the world, and our connection to ourselves. Conversation cannot be achieved through a device in the same way that it is in person, in the moment. You cannot script, edit, delete, or pause to think about how you want to sound, or who you want to be in real life. You are simply you. Communication via devices has made us forget who we are to a degree. Technology has allowed us to broaden our group of 'friends' while losing our true companions. I agree with Thomas to a certain degree. As I read through these articles and essays, and listen to the Ted Talk, I find myself guilty of a lot of the robotic movements that are described, and having many 'friends' on Facebook, but I also have my core group. I realize it is quite uncommon but I have the same core, close group of friends that I had in grade school. We get together, cook dinners, see movies, have drinks, do craft nights and maintain our true companion relationship. I agree that it is more difficult in this age of technology not to forget that there are real people, real moments, and real emotions right in front of us, but it is not by any means impossible to maintain companion friendship.
Why does Turkle think that our reliance upon digital technology has frustrated not only our social relationships but also our capacity for self-reflection? What kinds of strategies does Turkle suggest we employ for addressing these challenges in the digital age?
As it has been described and discussed by Thomas and the article written in the Globe and Mail, technology has changed the dynamic of social relationships, but Turkle touches on another facet of the effect of communication technology - our connection to ourselves. The ability to constantly be connected has created a situation in which we are never truly alone, and we have forgotten how to be. Our inherent insecure nature has us always looking for validation or a distraction, both of which we can get easily from the smartphones always in our hands and pockets. They are so much a part of us that we feel a sense of anxiety when we don't have them. The time of quiet thought that we would normally get when alone is no longer. We do not reflect, instead we scroll to avoid reflection. Our inability to be alone, to face ourselves and discover who we are without the constant connection of a world in technology is creating damaged human beings who don't even know who they are. Turkle suggests taking small steps to avoid these issues: no phone dinners, family nights without technology, setting aside time for devices instead of for everything else. As with most addictive things, it is a hard feat but not impossible.
Why does Bowring suggest therapeutic cloning is in itself not necessarily ethical?
Because embryos (human life) are repeatedly created and destroyed for the purpose of science
How does Bowring argue that both sex selection and human cloning raise the same ethical issue?
Bowring argues that sex selection and human cloning both select for a specific organism in which expectations about its existence are predetermined. He states that by allowing selection of a certain gender, a culture of expected attitudes, temperaments and behaviors will be nourished and individual biological identities that do not conform to these will be a disappointment and gender stereotypes and intolerance will flare. In the same way, human cloning comes with an expectation that the clone will be an exact replica of the host without considering that human beings are a product, not only of their genetic makeup, but of their experiences, social situations, media influences, family units, etc.
Explain Fried's thesis to someone who has not read it.
Charles Fried's essay relates the significance of privacy to many of the fundamental things and experiences that make up who we are as people. He posits that privacy, although not inherently important, is instrumentally important as a feature of experiences such as love and friendship and in values such as trust and respect. He explains that without some level of privacy, the intimacy given and received in a friendship or with a lover is not truly intimate, and trust cannot be taken seriously if a silent audience is always watching. Although there are many aspects that come together to form these experiences and values, privacy holds a place of vital importance.
What is the difference between customary and reflective morality?
Customary accepts things because its just the way it has been whereas reflective morality requires the exact opposite; reflection of whether we are using the appropriate principles in a given situation or not
What are Diprose's ethical worries regarding the "effacement of difference?" which is promoted, she argues, by the very theory of genetics?
Diprose's ethical concerns are deontological by nature in comparison to Bowrings. Her concerns consider both the consequences of the advancements of genetics and our ethical responsibility to ourselves and each other. One ethical concern she has about losing genetic difference by the hand of science is our manipulation of what is natural, or what was meant to be. By altering genes to select for enhanced function and features, we are sidestepping what nature had intended. Her other concern is a consequentialist concern of removing diversity. If everyone has a similar idea of what 'perfect' looks and acts like, that is what everyone will strive to have their offspring be, thereby removing diversity which is incredibly important to the survival of any species.
What is Singer's principle of equality?
Equality does not mean subjecting different groups to the exact same treatment, but to give them equal consideration and subject them to treatments that allow a similarly favorable outcome for all.
Why does Brunk think a new professional ethic is needed for those working in technology?
He believes that the current professional ethic is consumed by prescribed processes allowing people to absolve themselves of responsibility
Why does Singer think the principle of equality applies to members of other species than our own?
He states that although humans are not all "equal", we are not superior or inferior to one another. We require different things, value different things, experience things differently, have different skills and abilities, BUT - we all feel pain, we all feel hunger, we all require sleep, we all expect freedom. Having different skills or having different needs does not justify difference in amount of consideration each person receives. Singer suggests that to deny these things in the case of animals - a different species - is to be part of the same type of atrocities as racism or sexism.
Describe the difference between economics and morality.
Hospitals in Canada are becoming overwhelmed with patients in long term care - people who are only being kept alive with hard drugs and machines - and require resources for everyday emergencies and situations. Some of these people are in a coma and have been for months, some are quite old, and others are clinically 'brain dead". In order to free up resources, the hospitals are instructed to stop providing care to those who are terminally ill and what happens, happens. This would provide money and resources to go towards patients without terminal diagnoses - the others are going to die anyway, right?
On what grounds does Bennett-Woods argue there is reason to be concerned about uses of nanotechnology for biological enhancement, even if these possibilities are mostly science fiction?
Human being have the incessant need to know more, have more and be more. It is in our nature, once achieving something, to take it further or apply it in new ways. Bennett-Woods considers this in her writing on the ethical concerns of using nanotechnology for biological enhancement. She states that the line between using this technology for medical intervention and simply for enhancement is a difficult one to draw and that we could, as a species, lose a lot of the things that make us human people if taken too far. Her approach is deontological in nature in that it considers our obligations and inherent rights to remain people and converses on exactly what point that change would occur. She also considers our roles in society, community and autonomy that could be altered as a result of this technology.
In the first reading for this unit, an ex-Google executive is quoted as saying: "It's Homo sapiens minds against the most powerful supercomputers and billions of dollars . . . It's like bringing a knife to a space laser fight . . . We are going to look back and say, 'Why on earth did we do this to ourselves'?" Explain this comment by tying it into the research that is presented concerning the human proclivity for novelty bias, insecurity, and addiction. What kinds of abilities, if any, do human beings have for mitigating against these forces? Do you think emerging technologies have enhanced or frustrated those abilities? Why or why not?
Human beings have always had a fascination with the 'new', whatever that new might be. This was the basis for survival in times when there were animals, berries, fungi's and land formations that could kill you - new things must be focused on and explored thoroughly to understand. This novelty bias continues as part of our nature, but in very different (and often damaging) ways in a society that is always grasping for the next best thing before we even realize what that possibly means. If there is new information, we must grab it, if there are new emails, we must look at them, if we have new likes on our photos, we need to see who liked it or how many we are at. The novelty bias, coupled with an inherent insecurity we as human beings have created a world in which we have created a monster that we can no longer fight effectively. We are addicted to the idea of never being alone, the idea that someone is always listening, and we are addicted to the attention (however meaningless it is) that we get by always being connected. The quote above compares a knife to space lasers, I would equate it to walking uphill on ice - it is possible, but it is hard, and if we don't start soon, we will be walking alone, uphill on that ice, in the dark. We as humans have the ability to fight, with our knives, against the lasers, but we have to be light-footed, we have to be disciplined, and we have to be committed. The brigade of new and emerging technology makes this battle even harder - now you are dodging rocks on the uphill ice walk - however it is still possible to set boundaries for ourselves, learn to be alone, and learn to stop seeking meaningless attention from others and to love ourselves.
Do you agree with Fried's thesis?
I agree with the basic concepts that Fried puts forward, and in many cases I believe that it would be true. I put myself in a position with my friends and then place a microphone in the room with someone listening and I am certain that I would not act or speak the same as if we were truly alone, and in that way I believe that Fried is correct in saying that our personhood and identity is threatened. I also agree that trust would be difficult to achieve if some authority figure was constantly monitoring you as this inherently portrays distrust. On the other hand, monitoring of the general public does not occur to watch and listen to one's every word and move; it is there in the event of need and has been the source of useful evidence in crimes countless times. I also believe, like in the case of the convict being let out with monitoring, human beings have largely broken the trust that would allow them to go without monitoring. They have earned that mistrust and would have to show that they were worth trusting again before being granted that freedom.
Is the speciesism a violation of the principle of equality in the same way sexism and racism is?
I believe that in some ways, we do violate the principle of equality in performing testing on animals - perhaps not in the same way as racism and sexism - but in a way that it is equally as unacceptable. When it comes to undue suffering, animals have as much of an inherent right not to suffer as humans have, and to suggest otherwise is borderline antisocial.
Do you agree with Dirpose's claim that the driving force behind human genetic research is an impulse to mass produce or objectify human beings?
I do not agree that mass production of human beings or the objectification of human beings is the drive behind, or the direction in which cloning research is going. I believe that the drive behind cloning research is still positive at heart in attempting to better the lives of human beings and provide treatments and cures for diseases to increase their quality of life. Part of the drive could also be from pure curiosity or the need of human being to advance their knowledge. Mass production does not have any favorable outcomes that I can think of that would outweigh the consequences of completing such a task.
Apply Fried's analysis of the significance of privacy to the Facebook case study that opened Unit 6. On what grounds might Fried allege that Facebook's data sharing "threatened our very integrity as persons"? How might a Facebook representative respond to such an allegation? Explain, with reasons, whose side you would defend, and present possible alternatives for mitigating Fried's concerns.
I think that Fried would definitely say that this threatened out very integrity because it took away the option of bias in order to make a decision (with the election stuff). The advertisements and the way that they would have swayed this information is taking away the option for the individual to decide themselves and do their research, mainly because most people believe what they see on Facebook. Facebook does have privacy policies that promise information is safe and giving it away or selling it for any reason could be viewed as morally wrong and unjustified; however, I believe that once you put information up for the public to view, it cannot be considered only yours anymore. One should only put things online that they would not be afraid to say in a town square or shout to the world, because once things are online, they are shared. Finding a way to ensure people actually read the privacy policies before checking 'yes' might help mitigate issues in the future.
Do you think armed and autonomous military robots should be developed?
I would prefer that we did not have to create technology to help fight wars, but when it comes down to it, this is the reality we face as much as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is a reality. I believe that the use of military robots can be quite beneficial in a lot of the ways Singer suggests as well as others: 1) Less accidental casualties due to precision and accuracy 2) More success and less accidents in riskier situations 3) Less risk for human soldiers 4) Possible financial savings due to efficiency 5) Less requirement for soldiers I do believe, however, that we should avoid attempting to go completely virtual. I think the best situation is a marrage between humans and technology so as to maintain that the ultimate choices remain in the hands of humans and are only aided by robots.
Critically analyze one of Bowring's moral arguments against human reproductive cloning. Indicate the type of ethical reasoning he is using and why.
In Bowring's conversation about designer babies, he speaks about the fine line between required treatments and unnecessary enhancement in a similar matter as the "slippery slope" he describes between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. He states that at some point if medaling with the human genome becomes acceptable, parents will begin selecting for traits which increase physical attractiveness those that would be attributed with greater success. It will then be a disappointment to the parents if their progeny does not live up to the standard that they have created for them. Like sex selection, the individual's identity will essentially be chosen for them and they will not have the same autonomy as a child that is a complete surprise to its parents. In this argument, Bowring takes a teleological approach to moral reasoning. He speaks about the consequences that could occur if we were to go forward with rampant reproductive cloning, but he does not speak about the inherent wrongness of predetermining a child's genome for the sake of anything but medical intervention, or our moral responsibility to preserve genetic variation in the human species.
How does James define whistle-blowing? When does he think it is justified?
James defines whistle-blowing as the attempt on an employee to make others aware of something the company is doing that the individual considers wrong or immoral. He believes whistle-blowing is justified when the situation involves actions that are illegal and/or immoral and have the capability to harm others (in any number of ways, not just physically). He encourages those considering whistle-blowing to ensure that they are not about to do so according to personal feelings or opinions, but rather based on real moral or ethical issues.
What policies does James think corporations and institutions should adopt to make whistle-blowing unecessary?
James suggests that laws protecting whistle-blowers from being penalized or dismissed in retaliation for whistle-blowing would create an environment in which it would be an unnecessary risk on the part of the corporation or institution to commit immoralities that would call for whistle-blowing consideration, as employees would not fear bringing those issues to light: *rewarding people to use internal channels to report wrongdoing *appoint individuals in the company whose primary obligation would be to investigate and eliminate organizational wrongdoing *certain kinds of records be kept *assessing larger fines for criminal activities *holding the executives and other professionals personally liable for filing false reports, market dangerous products, or failing to monitor how policies are being implemented.
Why does the example of the difference between morality and prudence sit wrong with us?
Janet could really use the pay increase as her daughter needs braces and they are very expensive, but she knows her foreman needs his job too. Firing him will not affect her negatively but still the situation feels wrong. Morality is at play.
Give an example of the difference between prudence and morality.
Janet is a supervisor at a construction company. Her boss pulls her into his office and tells her he does not want to pay both her and her team's foreman but if she fires the foreman, she will get a good wage increase.
How do Moor and Weckert argue that there are ethical concerns with using nanotechnology to extend the human life-span indefinitely? Is their argument teleological or deontological?
Moor and Weckert argue various reasons to be ethically concerned about the use of nanotechnology in the longevity of human life, and all are consequential, or, teleological in nature. They speak about the issues with overpopulation that we already face being amplified, the possibility of a lack of young people in comparison to adults or elders and the lack of fresh ideas and perspective that could accompany that, and the expansion of life of bad people who, in the past, have only been stopped by death. They also consider what the consequence of indefinitely extending human life would be to those who do not consider life happy and worth living.
Explain the general structure of moral reasoning.
Moral reasoning is a form of reasoning in which there is a structure of moral decision making that takes the form of a logical argument: 1) You have a general moral principle 2) You make factual claims to support it 3) You derive a moral judgement
Why does the personal opinion and morality example not sit well with us?
Morality requires justification while taste or preference does not. They are two different entities. One can like something while simultaneously thinking is immoral.
What is reflective morality?
Morality that is derived from reflection of the moral principles that guide or govern the actions of an individual, particularly when those actions involve the rights and interests of sentient beings or the integrity of the agent.
How can you challenge a moral judgement on the basis of problems with the factual link?
One can mistake a normative question as a descriptive one and just accept it as fact when it may very well not be, or it can contain information that is false or questionable
What is the main reason that those involved in this area are concerned with arming military robots?
One of the main concerns regarding weaponization of military robots is the placement of responsibility. In the case study, it is fairly easy to identify the National Guard pilot as at fault in that particular scenario. He saw lights and jumped to a conclusion without any regard for other possibilities of what they could be, and sought no communication from his commander. That being said, in the event that this incident had occurred with an unmanned drone, for example, the blame (or rather, placement of responsibility) would be less clear. Who is responsible for the drone? The pilot? The creator? The commander? Or a combination of all of them. I think that responsibility placement is truly situational, as is most considerations in ethics.
In the play In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer, how does the character of Oppenheimer argue that, although he was responsible for developing the atomic bomb, he was not responsible for the decision to use it to inflict mass destruction? Do you think that Oppenheimer did anything that was morally wrong?
Oppenheimer attempts to avoid taking any responsibility for the destruction caused by the atomic bomb he created by both reserving himself to neutrality and placing the focus on others. He states that he only scientifically advised where, when and how the bomb should be detonated, not necessarily that it should be. Oppenheimer states that those decisions were "military" and "political" not scientific. Oppenheimer also states that he set forth arguments both for and against the bomb and that he was "undecided" internally on its use which indicates that his approach to avoiding responsibility was to not take an approach at all. If I were to put myself in the position of Oppenheimer, if I was aware of the purpose of the research I was conducting, I likely would not have been conducting it at all. I believe there are those that are so passionate about their work that they may lose track of the end goal (which in this case was extremely destructive), however, when he was asked which "target" would be the best for the detonation of the bomb, I believe that is when an undeniable decision was made whether it was explicitly stated or not. If you put a plate of food on a table in front of someone seated at that table, it is implied that you are offering them the food whether you say it or not. The implications of giving "scientific" advice on where to drop a bomb suggests that in some way, you are giving the go ahead for the detonation. I, personally, would never provide information of that nature whether it meant my job or not. At one point Oppenheimer seems to try to gain favor suggesting that the bomb was the way to end the war quickly and stop more bloodshed, however, I believe it is no persons choice to take the lives of tens of thousands of civilians without ever giving them the slightest chance.
Explain how Brunk's principle of Conscientious Professionalism could apply to In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer.
Oppenheimer's response would depend on whether he truly thinks himself not responsible in any way, or if he took that stance as a way to liberate himself from his accusations. If the ladder were true he would likely see some truth in Brunk's principle, but if genuinely believed that his role in the organization was so compartmentalized so as to assume no responsibility, he would very likely argue Brunk's principle. Considering Oppenheimer truly thinks himself not at fault in any way, he is the kind of man that forgives himself of wrong doings by finding logic in the blame of others. He makes a moral decision by not making it and demands that this absolves him of blame and responsibility. He would likely respond to Brunk by agreeing that science must be a part of decisions but that science and scientists are not ultimately the ones who make the decision.
Fried draws a distinction between understanding privacy as intrinsically valuable (an end-in-itself) and as instrumentally valuable (a means-to-an-end). Explain this distinction with respect to the values of "wealth" and "happiness." Do you think privacy is better characterized as intrinsically valuable or instrumentally valuable?
Regardless of whether we think privacy is important just because it is (inherently) or an important part of many other concepts and relationships in our lives (instrumental), there is a consensus that is it indeed very important. The extent to which we value privacy is situational, and therefore explains why it is difficult to grasp its inherent importance, and much easier to grasp speaking in terms of certain values. Wealth, for example, is not inherently important. It gains value by being instrumental in other facets of our life such as our well-being (from having our needs met) and happiness. Without the situational characteristics of our materialistic society, it would lose meaning. A mound of currency in the 1600's would provide no happiness if one could not hunt and gather to stay alive. The same is true for privacy. We do not hide our pins at the bank machine because we don't want anyone to know the number; we hide it for fear of our money being stolen from us.
Do you think this claim is something that Anderson and Anderson would agree with, even though they claim that AI machines should be considered "moral agents"?
Robots are a creation of humans and therefore it seems reasonable enough that humans should be responsible for them, to a point. Although it seems that these moral dilemmas are new as the technology is, they really aren't. If an adolescent boy assaults a woman is it his fault? Is it the fault of his parents and the method of his raising? Is it the fault of some mutation in his genetics? It could be any of these or all of these. Is the programmer who's neighbors were fighting all night and kept him awake and made him slightly foggy the next day really to receive the consequences of 100 counts of manslaughter? Unfortunately, saying "people must be responsible for robots" is not enough to cover this issue.
Give an example of the difference between religion and morality.
Steve is getting ready to go to church with his family. He is 17 years-old and has been going to his Christian church with his family his whole life. Steve enjoys church and the Christian religion; however, he believes he is gay and wants to tell his family. He tells his mom and she shuns him - tells him he's an abomination and that God does not love gay people. Steve is crushed.
Why does the example of religion and morality not sit well with us?
Steve's mom is practicing customary morality and believing something is morally impermissible simply because her parents and grandparents have passed this view down with their Christian religion. Is Steve really wrong to feel the way he feels? Is Steve's mom wrong to feel the way she feels? Morality and religion are clashing here.
What is the difference between teleological and deontological theories?
Teleological theories: hold that the moral value of an action is a function of the consequences Deontological theories: considers that consequences are not the entirety of moral value of action and that other things must be considered
Drawing upon both the P.W. Singer essay and the Kipperhardt play, discuss the scope and nature of the moral responsibility of scientists working in the military for the outcomes of their work. Do you think scientists are in no way morally culpable for harmful outcomes, or are they in some sense morally responsible for such outcomes?
The P.W. Singer essay and the Kipperhardt play both discuss military technology with the potential for harm, but on two wildly different levels of severity. I believe that scientists have a moral responsibility to themselves, their coworkers and the public as much as, and probably more so, than anyone else doing their respective job. I say more so because financial, political, societal and safety impacts are usually more at a professional level. We aren't talking about bad customer service, we're talking about the health and safety of many people. In "Whistle Blowing: Its Moral Justification" by Gene G. James, the challenge of continuing with work that could develop dangerous technology was visited and it surfaces again and again, including this play. The truth is, most technology can be taken advantage of and used for devious things, but we cannot simply stop progressing because of this. In the case of the S.W. Singer essay which describes many different types of drones, this point is highlighted for us. The company that has created, and continues to create robots for the military first made a robotic vacuum. Drones themselves are used for a number of positive things that aid humans in their efficiency including farmers checking crops and cattle without ever leaving the truck, forestry collecting footage of a possible logging location and road construction workers obtaining photos of a rock slide over a highway. I would not consider myself morally responsible for the death of civilians if someone took a drone and put a gun on it and killed an entire village. This, however, changes if you begin putting guns on drones to sell for military purposes, or if you develop nuclear technology into a package specifically for the purpose of causing great damage, harm and death. There is a significant difference between developing technology that can be repurposed for negative use and simply developing something for mass destruction. In any sense, everyone has a moral responsibility to ensure that the least amount of harm befalls society and cannot be compartmentalized to avoid that responsibility. I think the saying goes "ignorance is bliss" but in the case of morals and ethics, there is no bliss in ignorance.
What steps did the employees in the Challenger case take to try to avert the disaster?
The employees as part of the Challenger case took multiple steps harmonious with what Gene James suggests employees should do when they think that their organization could cause harm to others. The employees kept physical record, identified an issue and pressed the issue to be appropriately researched. Although they were not necessarily provided with the appropriate resources to complete their research thoroughly, they pushed over and over again its importance and the requirement that the issue be resolved before subsequent launches took place. They risked their careers, professional status and reputation to fight against the decision to launch Challenger essentially until it was launched. These employees exemplified both Jame's and Brunk's principles expressed in their writing in that they took serious moral and ethical responsibility for their part in the whole system, and taking all steps possible to put a stop to the harmful activities.
How can you challenge a moral judgement on the basis of unacceptable implications of the moral principle?
The general moral principle can be too broad and imply that we must take unreasonable measures to achieve the moral judgement
What is Customary Morality?
To be directed by traditional or customary rules or practices without stopping to examine or criticize those rules or practices or customs.
What second moral principle did Brunk identify that should be part of the ethic of Conscientious Professionalism ?
With great power comes great responsibility
What role should informed consent play in research ethics involving humans and is it sufficient in covering all cases?
a) Informed consent and two-way communication are vital in research involving human subjects. Informed consent, in my opinion, is more than just reading the fine print; it is an information packet, an opportunity to ask questions and have them answered in real-time, it is clarification in circumstances where things are not exactly clear, and finally, it is a real, uncoerced choice. People should always be aware of the methodology, possible outcomes if they complete the trial, and if they do not, and the possibilities of adverse reactions. Informed consent, as described in this writing, may be sufficient for most cases, however, it may mean different things in different circumstances. For example, "comprehending" consent may not be achieved in the same way for all groups of people. Things such as language barriers, educational barriers, or comprehension barriers might change the way this is achieved. All efforts must be made to actually achieve comprehending consent. In cases such as children, as Roy, Williams, and Dickens point out, the traditional concepts of "informed consent" becomes tricky. A child cannot possibly comprehend the gravity of what they are being subjected to, and yet, childhood illnesses require attention as much as any other disease or illness. In this case, informed consent as it is described, is not sufficient.
Do Roy, Williams and Dickens employ a teleological or deontological approach to research ethics on humans?
a) Roy, Williams, and Dickens employ a deontological approach to research ethics on humans. Their writings suggest many considerations in determining whether an experiment involving humans is ethical or not other than the positive or negative consequences of the experiment. They discuss the beliefs and values of the community that the experiment is taking place in; the conditions, knowledge, opinions, and consent of the individuals of the experiment; and providing safe and effective treatments with plenty of pre-human research, not just to avoid negative repercussions, but because it is the responsibility of the investigator to morally and ethically respect the subjects.
