Category: philosophy

What does a Code of Ethics Assume?

One primary assumption that needs to be made when defining a Code of Ethics is an assumption that people strive to find ways to agree about what is right or wrong, thus by implication, an assumption that there is a universal morality (either broadly or narrowly defined). This week, we can bring our course discussions full circle to where we started almost 8 weeks ago – that is, the idea behind a universal or moral framework.

 

A Code of Ethics is a set of core values set forth describing a series of appropriate or inappropriate actions one should or should not take towards another human being. As I discussed in an earlier post in this course, like the ideas put forth by C.S. Lewis in his books Mere Christianity and the Abolition of Man, appealing to someone’s sense of right or wrong in a code of ethics assumes that there is a standard in which people can agree upon what is indeed right and wrong, disagreeing on what is right or wrong shows with even stronger veracity an external standard being appealed to.

 

When I write a Code of Ethics that states “It is wrong to steal”, I am asserting, not only that I think that it is wrong to steal something that doesn’t belong to me, but I am asserting it is wrong for anyone to steal something that doesn’t belong to them, and I am appealing (if not just recommending) that the world would be a better place if everyone agreed.

 

Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone is going to agree that “it is wrong to steal”, some might feel that it is right to steal only in certain situations, or right to steal all the time, however, once again, to take a position of opposition, is ipso facto to assume that there is a universal moral framework that can be appealed to.

 

Whether formalized or not, all human beings have a Code of Ethics – How they believe they should treat people, and how they believe people should treat them. Thus, I posit this provides a safe assumption that deep down inside, all human beings understand there to be a true sense of right and wrong; otherwise to write a Code of Ethics is like a breath taken outside on a cold winter day: it may be there for everyone to see, but it’ll last but a second, and have no impact on affecting the surrounding world.

 

 

Information isn’t power… knowledge is power…

While some might say that “information is power”, I think it’s important to make a distinction between “information” and “knowledge”. While the dictionary defines Information as knowledge, I take exception to this definition.

Information is a term that is used to describe a piece of data or fact that hasn’t been applied or used; knowledge on the other hand is applied information. I make this distinction because I believe it is important to the conversation.

Information is potential power; knowledge is power. Information must be internalized, consumed and utilized for it to become truly powerful. This internalization, consumption and utilization this is the key to knowledge.

When a computer stores a piece of information inside of itself, it is just that: information; it is not appropriate to call the data stored inside a computer, knowledge; however, when I have stored a piece of information inside me, it is no longer just information, it is called knowledge.

I can pass this knowledge onto someone else; and in transit, I would refer to it as information; for example, I would say “Hey, I have some information for you!”, but once I have passed that information along, you now have internalized it and this information has become knowledge.

Information is agnostic to ownership; knowledge is fundamentally positioned as requiring ownership.

Therefore; in the context of power, I will state that information is only the potential power; knowledge is the true power.

Is bribery unethical? Well that Depends…

We were presented with the following circumstances in our Ethics & IT Course this week; strangely, so far, I am on the only one who felt that the company would not be wrong to offer this ‘bribe’.  Does this mean that my moral compass has been destroyed by years of working in the dark-side of information security; or does it mean that I have a more critical higher level of thinking than all my other classmates.

Here is the situation:

Company wants to expand into China; The area the company is moving into is controlled by local officials.  Research suggests that providing a ‘payoff’ to the official will all but guarantee the approval for permits, the lack of a ‘payoff’ all but guarantees that the company will be denied necessary permits.  Research shows that all other companies are proceeding by hiring a consultant to “get the job done in anyway possible”; so as to be able to sign disclosure stating they didn’t provide any ‘bribes’; the CEO of the company is concerned that this is unethical, and is concerned they will violate their company principle of integrity and honesty.

 

Here are my thoughts:

 

According to WikiPedia, Bribery, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient (WikiPedia, 2009). And while I am sure that much greater minds have wrestled with this thought; and an answer much more deserving of applaud has been provided; I will take a humble approach at explaining my views on this question of the morality of bribery.

This evening, I took my wife out to a restaurant we frequent a lot; I tipped the waitress well; as I know tipping well and being friendly affords some future luxury when it comes to making reservations and getting seats that we like. I do the same thing when I get a haircut; I give out Christmas bonuses to my Mail-person and to the sanitary workers that collect my trash. All because I know it’s a good feeling to be appreciated, and this small act of kindness will go a long way. In fact, my company does the same thing for me; they give me bonuses when I do good, and they shower benefits (like paid vacation, time off, retirement plans, 401k matches, etc) to encourage me to stay at the company and to work harder.

After a second trip to a third world country, I learned that the customs officers know and trust certain people that work in the airport; I’ve made friends with one of the guys and I tip him well; as a result; he helps move me right through customs without having to wait in a long line or have my stuff dug through. I have also had a friend who once experienced sitting in an Ethiopian airport for almost a week waiting to be released; because she was with a group of people whose leader refused to pay the official to let them go (apparently this unofficial payment was an expectation).

I know in some countries where I have done business it is standard procedures for officials to take payments for their services, above and beyond what the official payments are to the governmental office in which they work.

Apart from all of these anecdotal views of the question of bribery; we were also asked to comment on another organizations way of dealing with this same type of situation. Whenever the idea of bribery comes up, the first organization I think of is the United States Government. I always find it a bit ironic that while our country of the United States makes bribery illegal, our entire governmental legal process is built on bribery – except; it is given a more politically correct name: lobbying. And by changing the name, we can continue to condemn the act in other governments and other parts of the world that we so readily take part in ourselves. Strange, isn’t it?

So what really is a bribe? What are the moral restraints of bribery? When is bribery acceptable and when is it not. What makes a ‘bribe’ immoral or unethical?
I would offer the following simple guideline to determine when bribes (payments) are immoral or unethical:

  • Are the bribes being used to facilitate an action that is itself morally questionable or illegal
    • For example; bribing someone to look the other way while a law is broken

In the case presented in our course room for discussion; given the little bit of information provided; that is, this organization will be approved for their expansion if they lobby the zoning official, and they will likely be denied if they do not; the question of morality comes from, not the act of lobbying itself; but what is the purpose and reason for lobbying (I guess you could say it’s a teleological argument).

Does the organization have to lobby because the law states that they can’t expand for the protection of the people (pollution, environmental, etc), or is the lobbying merely an expedient way to get someone who is on good terms with the government to put in a good word for them to all but guarantee their approval.
From what I have read about this situation, this “payoff” as described sounds nothing more than a zoning fee exacted by local officials on top of any government fees already being subscribed to. There is nothing in the reading that provides a reasonable belief that the act of this “payoff” will lead to a violation of a moral or ethical principle; additionally, there is nothing in the values of the organization that stands against the question of paying fees to government officials to get work done in a fast and efficient manner.

<Some part of conversation omitted>

References
WikiPedia. (2009, August 06). Bribery. Retrieved August 13, 2009, from WikiPedia, the free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribe

Plagiarize this!

Plagiarism is bad.

Do you know how many people I just plagiarized, by writing “Plagiarism is bad”?

I understand the idea behind plagiarism, and I agree that the intentional misrepresentation of the authorship of work is disreputable; however, I have to ask, in a day and age of digital communications, when has my exact thoughts not been thought of before, when have my exact words not been used?

As a poet, I think it may be easier (perhaps?) to pen a unique vision of the sublimity for any particular subject given the flourishing ability within language to use it in new and unique ways; however, when discussing in academia a common subject from a pragmatic perspective such as “breathing”, or “sailing”, or “bicycles”; it is hard to envision that after almost 6,000 years of spoken and written language, someone, somewhere hasn’t thought the same thing in the same way. So where do we stop?

In saying this, I can’t help but think that the increased use of tools such as online plagiarism scanners will cower creativity creating individuals scared to say single lines of prose without cross-referencing, annotating and indexing every single word.

Could you imagine the illegibility and annoyance of reading a paragraph such as this:

Stones are round (author, 1756). Stones can be used for shaping tools (another author, 1845). Stones can come in many different colors (third_author, 1935). Purple stones are often a type of stone called amethyst (scientist, 1878). Some stones are made up of compressed earth (again_another_author, 1967).

And yet, universities and academia have spread so much fear of reprisals around charges of plagiarism, that we, as students are almost afraid to open our mouths and speak, knowing that the very breath we expulse will exude, even unwittingly, plagiaristic tendencies.

Apart from all these concerns around the stifling of creativity and the fear of unknown and unexpected plagiarism accusations when the entirety of the world-wide-web becomes the standard in which plagiarism is judged; there is also the concern of privacy. Id Est: just what are these sites doing with my papers that I’m submitting? Are they keeping them, are they indexing them, are they annotating them, giving me credit for my combination of sentences that have never yet been seen? And if not, who is protecting my original cerebral outpouring from being plagiarized?

It was once said that “great minds assimilate” (and no, I couldn’t find any Google references to someone actually saying this, so please note, that this idea is mine now, make sure you reference me when using it in the future!). So in this future of watchers, great minds – I urge you to keep a notepad and pen handy and anytime and anywhere you hear an idea that sounds striking to you, do not hastily absorb it into your own thinking, for in fact, if at some point in the future, you find that you cannot remember where this novel idea came from in your own mind, to present it to anyone as an idea of your own will damn you to the hells of literary purgatory.

As for the idea of bettering the approach of checking all written documents against all world-wide-digital-media for any iota of a hint of possible plagiarism; my response is: “All hope abandon, ye who enter here (Alighieri, 1892).”

References

Alighieri, D. (1892). The Vision of Hell. London: Cassell & Company.

No standard for morals?

Should you argue about morality with someone that doesn’t believe in Morality?

if you ever meet up with someone who holds to the philosophical idea that we don’t really exist except in our mind (like the ideas of George Berkeley) – what point is there in even arguing (except for sophistry which is indeed fun).

In the same vein, if you find someone that doesn’t believe in a standard of morality they have nothing to offer in any discussions on morality, for all they can offer is the idea that there is no such thing as a standard for morality; which is indeed a statement of a standard for morality, and therefore it is self-defeating.

It’s like saying out loud "There is no such thing as sound"…

Can there be a universal morality

In my course of Ethics and Technology; and in my previous blog; i note that many ethical frameworks are coming to the conclusion that ethics in Information Technology are based on individualistic morals (due to the nature of technology), and that in order to have a governing ethical framework in technology, there must be universals (not unlike in real life). 

The question was asked “How does one find the standards for the universal” – I can’t answer that question in a 250-500 word essay; therefore – I provided only hints to my answer, without giving my answer.

C.S. Lewis writes in book one of Mere Christianity:

“Everyone has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant… They say things like this: ‘How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?’ – ‘Come on you promised.’ People say things like that every day, educated … as well as uneducated… children… [and] grown-ups.”

“Now what interests me… is that the man who makes [these statements] is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not … please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard… and the other man seldom replies: ‘To hell with your standard.’” (Lewis, 2009, p. 257)

Lewis later states:

“Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature… because people thought that everyone knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it… I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature … is unsound… but the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later… if you try breaking [a promise] to him, he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair’ (Lewis, 2009, p. 285).”

On the idea of whether or not there are universal laws, Lewis concludes:

“It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong (Lewis, 2009, p. 300).”

For me, I agree with Lewis, as he continues further on in book one: that in order to come to a conclusion of a universal set of right and wrong; one must find a standard to measure against. This standard must also exist necessarily outside of oneself in order to be appealed to universally. Therefore, I believe one of the most important decisions that can be made to help move towards a global view of Right and Wrong must first start with a common standard.

This of course, is where the difficulty begins; as all discussions of morality begin in trying to lay a foundation of moral framework (i.e. what is the standard to be considered right or wrong). Some more common frameworks are deontological, utilitarian and existential, all of which have their supporters and their oppositions.

As this topic is very complex; and cannot be addressed by anything short than a doctoral thesis; I will briefly say that I would have to state that a good starting point is the “Golden Rule”: Treat others as you want to be treated. This, I believe, at least points us in the right direction.

References

Lewis, C. S. (2009). Mere Christianity. HarperCollins e-books (Kindle Edition).

How to give children a moral compass in Cyberspace

Within cyberspace where people roam with little to no immediate governing restrictions, how does one impress on the youth and young adults that are developing their moral compass what is acceptable from a moral and ethical perspective?

Nancy Willard points out in her article Moral Development in the Information Age that the framework of the Internet has been designed such that it is disconnected and decentralized. As a result; no one agency can effectively police and dictate morality and ethical responsibility, therefore decisions are widely left up to individuals (Willard, 1997).

Because of four key factors that Willard points out in her article, namely: a) Lack of affective feedback; b) reduced fear of risk of detection; c) New environment requires new rules; and d) perceptions of social injustice (Willard, 1997), it seems that it is difficult for individuals to make the transition between the “real world” and the “digital world”. And because morality and ethics in cyberspace are driven mainly off of individual decisions, it becomes even more paramount that these issues be address during the growth and development of today’s youth (Willard, 1997).

As a result; I believe that first and foremost in order to expand morality and ethics into the Information Age, there must be an agreement to the ideals of universal propositions, like those defined by Turiel: concepts of Justice, rights and welfare (Willard, 1997).

Apart from this central foundation, according to further studies by Hoffman and Baumrind, in order to teach internalized moral responsibility, it is imperative that parents, teachers and other influential men and women begin to help children and young adults focus on the consequences of their actions based on these universals, rather than focusing on the responsibility to follow a set of rules (Willard, 1997).

By means of this approach, we prepare the future generation to mature in their own idealizations of what is morally acceptable and unacceptable even in a world where boundaries are largely determined by individualistic principles (Willard, 1997), and where unexplored moral challenges present themselves frequently.

References

Willard, N. (1997). Moral Development in the Information Age. Retrieved July 30, 2009, from http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/articles/willard.html

Digital Rights Management… who should be protected?

I received an email from Amazon this evening saying they were refunding a series of books I had purchased by George Orwell on the Kindle.

I called them to ask them why they were refunding the books; because I had never requested the refund.

They responded in saying that they were very sorry, they had no idea why the books were being refunded, but they needed to remove them off my kindle.

I told the representative that I wasn’t so much concerned about the book & the money; I knew I could buy it again in other formats; but I was definitely concerned about the fact that Amazon at any time could decide to remove books that I had purchased off of my kindle; and they’re only requirement was to refund my money (did they really even have to do that?).

What happens when the government decides to outlaw certain books; or certain publishers decide that they want to pull all books of the book shelf (like Oceania in 1984, many organizations have done this in the recent past to erase and rewrite their own history).

This is why I have no problem circumventing DRM (when possible).  I bought the book; I own the book.  Amazon should have no ability to “steal” my purchased book back from me; even if they wanted to refund my money.

The world is a changing place… prepare yourself!

Information Ethics.. an interesting discussion

 

Where does one actually draw the line of what is right and wrong in technology ethics, and how does one make the decisions.  Are things really black and white?

What if, let’s say, you were asked by your employer to steal data from another organization to give it a competitive advantage?  I think most of us would say that it is unethical.  Now, what if your employer is the NSA or the CIA and you’re a covert operative, and you are being asked to steal information from an enemy that can give your country a competitive edge, or protect the safety and welfare of your country. 

Now, in this case, and in many respects, we’re starting to get into territory that isn’t as black and white, I think many more people would be divided over this question than the original one.  But what is so different between the two scenarios that makes one so different than the other?

For example, in my job sometimes I am asked by an organization to execute penetration tests against their own organizational body.  So when when executing a risk assessment through penetration testing I call up the company, get a sweet gal on the other line of the phone, I make up some fictitious name, fictitious problem, and basically lie to her to deceive her into giving me secret and protected information. 

In so doing, I then build a report that outlines to the members of the organization where their weaknesses are, so that they can protect their systems against real hackers that would be out to deceive and retrieve real data for real harm.  But in this case, was it o.k. that I was lying and deceiving and breaking laws to prevent other bad people from lying and deceiving and breaking laws?

These questions in ethics aren’t necessary tied to Information Technology either; what about policemen that speed down the road so that they can get to the speed trap and catch speeders that are speeding down the road?

The intrigue of all these types of discussions is what so tightly draws me to questions of Information Ethics, and ethics as a whole.

The existential question of matmatics…

In our Discrete Mathematics University course, there was a discussion on the Knapsack problem (as it is called).

The problem goes like this:

A U.S. shuttle is to be sent to a space station in orbit around the earth, and 700 kilograms of its payload are allotted to experiments designed by scientists. Researchers from around the country apply for the inclusion of their experiments. They must specify the weight of the equipment they want taken into orbit. A panel of reviewers then decides which proposals are reasonable. These proposals are then rated from 1 (the lowest score) to 10 (the highest) on their potential importance to science… It is decided to choose experiments so that the total of all their ratings is as large as possible (Otto, Spence, Eynden, & Dossey, 2006).

After this outline, we’re asked to examine algorithmic variations that would allow us to postulate the most efficient experiments out of the 4096 possible variations that come about from the 12 possible experiments.

Isn’t it interesting how a mathematical question can become an existential question? While theoretically, one could evaluate the knapsack equation from a logical perspective, and get the ‘biggest bang for the buck’, one also has to wonder (if this were a real scenario) who assigned the rating values for these experiments, and what type of objective/subjective approach did they take?

For example: what if we had two experiments, one that would give us more information about cancer and one that gave us better insights to obesity. Most people might be inclined to include the research on cancer, as the rate of death directly attributed to cancer in the world is typically thought to be much higher than those attributed to obesity. However, what if the probable outcome of the research on cancer might move us a few years ahead in our research, but the research on obesity has a probable end goal of realizing the end of obesity within just a few years. What about all of the secondary causes of death that are indirectly linked to obesity. How does one decide the rating mathematically?

This seems to show that even while our capabilities of solving complex algorithmic variations using state machines can increase the efficiency of mathematical computation; the answer to Alan Turing’s fundamental question of whether or not a computer can ever make ‘human’ decisions seems to lie outside of the realm of algorithmic efficiencies!

References

Otto, A. D., Spence, L. E., Eynden, C. V., & Dossey, J. A. (2006). Discrete Matmatics – Fifth Edition. Boston: Greg Tobin.