CSS 153 - Computer Ethics

Week 5
by Ali Baigelenov
Updates
● Moodle: please submit your future assignments to Moodle
○ I am going to start to enforce this, starting from next
reflection, you will lose 20% if you don’t submit
through Moodle, unless you have a valid excuse
● Plagiarism: TurnitIn in Moodle, your similarity score needs
to be less than 20%, or you will receive 0 for plagiarism
○ Some of you are not accepting the TurnitIn End User
License Agreement
○ You need to accept it for TurnitIn to be able to give you
a score (not accepting = 0 for the assignment)
● Grades: some of your grades are up, in Moodle
● Remember the ball rule for discussions
Shame Board
● Reflections
○ I am seeing a trend of your reflections being mostly
just a summary
○ Remember, half (50%) of your reflection should be
your own thoughts and opinions
○ Some of the things that you write as your opinions are
superficial, I can’t really count them as your opinion
● Reflections
○ Another trend is people just not submitting or
submitting very late
■ Deadline is the same for everyone, unless we
made proper arrangements
Case Study 1
Kant’s
Deontology
● The Categorical Imperative
○ Categorical = unconditional, something that applies all
the time
○ Imperative = command, something that you must do
○ Together = principle of morality that applies to
everyone, everywhere, that says what they should and
shouldn’t do
● The Categorical Imperative
○ The Formula of the End Itself: "Act in such a way that you always
treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any
other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an
end."
○ “Never use a person as a mere means” (mere = only)
■ Remember hedonism?
■ Buying bread from a shop, the person selling you the bread
example
■ It is fine to use person as a means, but not as a mere means
○ “To use someone as a mere means is to involve them in a scheme
(type) of action to which they could not in principle consent”
● The Formula of the End Itself
○ “Never use a person as a mere means” (mere = only)
○ With this principle how do you tell if the action is prohibited?
■ Step 1: Figure out the maxim that the action is based on
● Ex: Intention is to make my friend think that I am coming
when I am not actually coming
■ Step 2: Ask whether everyone involved could possibly
consent to behavior based on that maxim
● If the answer is no, then this action is prohibited
● If the answer is yes, then this action is permitted (not
great, but is okay/good enough)
● The Formula of the End Itself
○ “For Kant treating someone as an end involves seeing them as
having a very special kind of value and for that reason meriting a
distinctive form of regard.”
○ “If a person is an end-in-themself it means their inherent value
doesn't depend on anything else - it doesn't depend on whether
the person is enjoying their life, or making other people's lives
better. We exist, so we have value.”
Consent
● The Formula of the End Itself
○ Step 2: Ask whether everyone involved could possibly consent to
behavior based on that maxim
■ If the answer is no, then this action is prohibited
■ If the answer is yes, then this action is permitted (not great,
but is okay/good enough)
■ WHITEBOARD EXAMPLE
Intent
● The Shop employee example
○ First case: you could have given an incorrect change to a child, but
decided not to because if people found out, it will hurt your
business
○ Second case: you could have given an incorrect change to a child,
but decided not to, because it is a right thing to do
Virtue Ethics
Why be moral?
Why should I do
the morally right
thing?
● Aristotle
○ Ancient Greek Philospher
○ Born in 384 BC
○ He thought that you should do the
morally right thing because it will
make you happy
● Aristotle
○ Nicomachean Ethics
■ Dedicated to his son or maybe father
called Nicomachus
○ Happiness/flourishing (developing
successfully) is exercising the virtues (behavior
showing high moral standards)
● “If there is some end of the things we do, which we
desire for its own sake (everything else being
desired for the sake of this), and if we do not
choose everything for the sake of something else
(for at that rate the process would go on to infinity,
so that our desire would be empty and vain),
clearly this must be the good, and the chief good”
○ For the sake of something else -> as a means
(e.g., money)
○ For its own sake -> as an end (e.g., happiness)
● Aristotle says that happiness is something that
everyone wants for its own sake
○ And everyone already agrees with it
○ What people disagree with is what happiness
actually is
What is
happiness?
● Aristotle first starts with things that he thinks are not happiness
○ Pleasure
■ Thinking that pleasure is happiness is suitable for beasts
○ Honour (e.g., good reputation, popularity)
■ It comes from other people and it can be taken away
○ Possession of virtue
■ Having the virtue
■ Being courageous (brave)
■ If there was some kind of situation, you would act brave
○ Wealth
■ Wealth is not desired for its own sake (i.e., as a means
example)
● Aristotle’s answer is exercising the virtues is what
happiness is
○ Not just being courageous or brave, but acting
courageous or brave
So what are the
virtues?
● Aristotle identified and proposed 18 virtues
○ Moral virtues - relating to emotion and desire
○ Intellectual virtues - relating to mind
○ What those 18 virtues are you can research on
your own, we will cover 9 that Aristotle
thought were the most important
● Aristotle’s 9 most important virtues
○ Wisdom (Мудрость)
○ Prudence (Благоразумие)
○ Justice (Справедливость)
○ Fortitude (Стойкость)
○ Courage (Храбрость)
○ Liberality (Щедростьё)
○ Magnificence (Великолепие)
○ Magnanimity (Великодушие)
○ Temperance (Умеренность)
● Aristotle
○ Happiness/flourishing (developing
successfully) is exercising the virtues (behavior
showing high moral standards)
○ How does that compare to Utilitarianism and
Kantian Deontology?
○ What does it tell us that we should do?
■ It sort of flips the perspective a bit
■ A flourishing person exercises the virtues
and is a good person, and such a person
would not do morally wrong things
● Friedrich Nietzsche
○ German Philospher
○ Born in 1844
○ His answer to our previous
question is don’t. Morality is for
losers.
● Nietzsche
○ True/Objective morality (debatable whether
this is exists)
■ God’s morality
■ Nature’s morality
○ Conventional morality (definitely exists)
■ The accepted moral code of a society (e.g.,
Kazakhstan)
■ Nietzsche is criticisizing this
● Nietzsche
○ Criticizing the moral code that is based on
■ Middle class
■ Bourgeouis
■ European
■ Based on Christianity
● Nietzsche
○ People should be
■ Humble
■ Kind
○ Institutions (government, the court, judicial
system) should be
■ Fair
■ Just
■ Democratic
○ Things that are bad
■ Aggression
■ Self-promotion
● Nietzsche Genealogy Morals
○ Where do these dominant morals come from?
○ In the past (e.g., Ancient Rome) powerful
people were (that was considered good)
■ Strong
■ Aggressive
■ Cruel
○ And powerless people (peasants) were
considered bad
■ Being humble, being kind, being gentle
○ But then there was what Nietzsche called a
slave revolt (revolution) (not physical) where
these things switched
Q&A