Consequences of Computing:
A Framework for Teaching

Principles and Skills Underlying the Social and Ethical Dimensions - Page 22 of 36

There are a variety of questionable naive approaches to ethical reasoning. Some of them can, with care, be transformed into thoughtful systems of ethics, but the more simplistic varieties are likely to lead the beginning ethical thinker astray:
  • Naive Relativism. The belief that all moral choices are relative to the situation and the culture makes it easy to get along in polite conversation with others, since it requires no confrontations. But when difficult choices have to be made, naive relativism gives little guidance since there are a variety of cultures and constructions of the situation that can make almost any decision look reasonable.

  • Naive Egoism. The simple belief that selfishness is the best guiding principle can make it convenient to ignore one's duties and one's neighbors while concentrating only on one's own profit. But it rapidly becomes difficult to order one's life this way in an organization of any more longevity than a few weeks. This approach also conceals a fundamental dishonesty, since its naive form suggests that everyone else should still follow ethical norms.

  • Naive Agency. Surrendering all moral authority by claiming to be a simple agent of some other entity (e.g. your employer) has its own clear problems. In the end, even the legal system requires individual responsibility, and military codes of conduct require soldiers to disobey some orders. Responsibility is not this easily disposed of.

  • Naive Legalism. The equation of ethicality with legality is a tempting way to shorten ethical reflection. Students should certainly be aware of the legal issues that will confront them. But assuming that "if it is legal, it is ethical" is asking more of the law than it can provide, and denies the legitimacy of principled disagreement with the law.

    All of these simplistic approaches have significant flaws as reasoned attempts at ethical decision making. Students need guidance in recognizing these weaknesses. Such guidance can best be provided in an in-depth course that focuses on ethical reasoning. But it can also be provided by simply questioning the easy approaches when they occur during ethical discussion in technical classes.