From Awareness to Action - Page 3 of 20
1.1 Theoretical Foundation for Ethics Education
Teachers and philosophers have long recognized that it is difficult, if not impossible to "teach" someone ethics. Granger and Artz provide a useful way to characterize computer ethics[12, p. 8]:
"Computer ethics addresses voluntary actions in which a computer is a major component. Because it is not always easy to define ethical behavior, it is often problematic to convey concepts to ethical behavior to students of computer science… Ethical issues involving computers have three unique characteristics:
1) New concerns are rapidly emerging. Because no established rules exist, individuals must rely on their own sense of right and wrong when making decisions;
2) Computer ethics presents a continuous stream of new situations. Therefore, any general rules of ethical behavior developed for a given situation may be of limited value in future situations;
3) Due to the complexity of computerized information systems, it is often difficult to know the consequences of individual actions. Therefore, it is difficult to apply rule-based consequentialist theories toward the resolution of individual ethical dilemmas."
Typically courses that deal with computer ethics and social impact attempt to make students at least aware of the issues. They may also provide some opportunities for discussion of case studies and ethics codes. Generally, however, they have not been based upon theoretical principles of moral education for which there is a rich literature and much empirical data [8, 22]. This may be due to the newness of the emphasis on computer ethics education and the fact that most theories about moral education typically address younger children. However, research has demonstrated that two major theories in moral education can provide a useful pedagogical foundation for teaching ethics and social responsibility in computer science [12]. They are Values Clarification, developed in the late 1960’s by Raths, Harmin, and Simon [8], and Kohlberg’s Cognitive Development of Moral Reasoning approach developed in the early 1970’s [22].
Values Clarification was a very popular approach for moral education the 1970’s, but fell into disfavor in the 1980’s, because it does not prescribe values, but helps people to clarify and understand their own value systems[22]. Despite its controversial roots, it can provide a useful starting point for ethical discussions. Kohlberg’s work on the role of cognitive development in moral reasoning was based upon Piaget’s earlier cognitive development theory. The six stages of moral reasoning proposed by Kohlberg were Stage 1) punishment and obedience orientation, Stage 2) instrumental relativist orientation, Stage 3) interpersonal concordance of good/bad orientation, Stage 4) law and order orientation, Stage 5) social-contract legalistic orientation, and Stage 6) universal ethical principle orientation. Kohlberg and his colleagues demonstrated empirically that individuals move from one stage of moral development to the next as a result of unresolved conflict. A significant finding in their research, that has implications for computer ethics education, was that students can only advance one stage at a time, and each stage must be fully achieved before moving on to the next[8]. Taken together, these two theoretical approaches to moral education provide a strong rationale for developing a staged and integrated progression to any curriculum dealing with ethics and social responsibility[12].
