Consequences of Computing:
A Framework for Teaching

Principles and Skills Underlying the Social and Ethical Dimensions - Page 23 of 36

Important Skills from Ethical Analysis [ES]

[ES1] Arguing from example, analogy, and counter-example. Much moral argument in the common tongue (and in philosophical discourse) takes place by the use of examples and counter-examples or by use of analogies. These methods help to clarify issues and to point out the incoherencies and difficulties in ethical positions. The analogy of breaking and entering is often used for "cracking". The manufacture of physical objects is often used as an analogy for the creation of software code. Cases such as the Challenger incident are used to draw conclusions about what should be done in situations of whistle-blowing. Three Mile Island is often used as an example of the failure of the consideration of social context in an implementation, and is used to draw lessons about current technological implementations. Ethical argument moves from intuition about the right or the good, to explicit reasoning, and then is tested by being compared to these concrete examples and analogies (and also to other considered ethical positions, see ES4). We may then cycle among these to try to come to a reasoned basis for decision making. Since these are the main tools of ethical reasoning, computing professionals need practice in both creating examples and analogies, and in evaluating their adequacy.

Such practice can best be had in concentrated courses where students can take the time to move from their own intuition, to specific reasons, to concrete cases and back again, or start with concrete cases, and move to reasons and intuition. This can be done in a short period of time in case presentations in technical courses, but it can only be done in the depth required by taking the time to make the connections.

[ES2] Identifying ethical principles and stake holders in concrete situations. When considering a particular implementation of a technology, or reasoning about one's position on an ethical issue, a common mistake is to accept a simple definition of who the relevant affected parties are. It is only afterwards, and too late, that we realize some important parties were not considered or consulted. In addition, we too often stop reasoning about a particular decision when we have found one good reason to act or to refrain from action. Only in hindsight do we determine that other important ethical issues were also at stake. Both of these failures of careful thought are usually the result of time pressure. Practice in identifying ethical principles and stake holders will at least give the practicing computer professional a chance at more foresight.

This practice can be done equally well in both the concentrated course and in modules in technical courses. One of the first activities in approaching a case study can be the listing of relevant stake holders and principles. All that is necessary is creativity to generate a reasonable list. Faculty with practical computing experience can help sharpen these initial lists by using their experience to suggests ways that a technology can be used or ways that it can fail.