Ethical Dilemmas Related to Technology

Anonymous Coward writes "I have a relative who will be teaching a college class on the topic of ethical dilemmas brought about by new technology. Unfortunately, he doesn't keep up with technology news, so he's not sure what the most relevant dilemmas are. For example, 'If robots came alive, would we be justified in killing them?' is one that might come up if nothing more relevant were suggested. (OK, it might not be that bad, but you get the idea. He was using Netscape 4.76 on system 9 until last week.) So, what are the most relevant ethical dilemmas brought up by technology? Note that I am looking for ethical dilemmas, e.g. 'Is Activity X moral?' rather than legal dilemmas like 'Is the DMCA constitutional?' Now is your chance to guide the young minds of the future toward stuff that matters."

Comments

Responsibility

[Drunken Coward]

How about the moral responsibility of scientists for the repercussions of their creations? Several things come to mind, the first being the developement of the atomic bomb and the subsequent massive loss of innocent life. And when does biotech evolve from improving genetic flaws to customizing a person as a whole?

But the coming rise of nanotechnology should also not be overlooked. Sure, the grey goo problem is largely hype, but what if something like that really does happen? Should the scientists working in nanotech be held responsible for an epidemic on a massive global scale?

These are all issues I would like to see addressed in a class on ethical dilemmas in technology.

Re:Responsibility

[Zanthany]

But are the inventors of these technologies to blame? Should they be held responsible for inventing Technology X?

By saying these scientists should be held responsible would akin to your atomic bomb argument. Is Einstein more responsible than Truman who ordered the massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians?

I would hope that the answer would be no. Then we'd have civil proceedings where Victim Y would sue the inventor of Technology X because said technology brought bodily harm, even though Perpetrator Z is the actual cause of the incident.

Oh, but wait. We already have people seeking injunctions agains gun manufacturers because they produce a lethal weapon.

Re:Responsibility

[Blue Stone]

"I'm sorry, there is nothing innocent about supporting a regime trying to conquer the world with military might..."

Are you entirely sure you want to be taking this line, right now?

Re:Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

The Japanese people were innocent victims?

Yes. These were cities full of civilians that got nuked, not military bases. Hospitals, schools, kids, grannies, you name it.

I actually understand the reasoning behind nuking them. A brutal demonstration of the Allies' strength quickly forced a rethink from their government.

There is a word used to describe the slaughter of civilians in order to shock the enemy into capitulating. That word is terrorism.

There is nothing innocent about anyone who went along with that regime and supported their cause.

Last time I checked, they were not a democracy. The USA, on the other hand, does not have that excuse to hide behind.

Here's mine:

[Saint Aardvark]

Are Napster et al. moral?

What if the artist encourages it?

What if the artist is pissed off by it?

Is violating the license less morally wrong if it's easy?

What about if the copy is of a lesser quality than the original?

What if it's a license that you like?

Re:Here's mine:

[Dyolf Knip]

Very true, but the tactic of making a scarcity of information so that ordinary property law (or the variation of it that is copyright and patent) can be applied is becoming less and less effective. I agree, not being able to ensure that an originator of an idea is reimbursed is bad, but the alternative (forcing people at gunpoint to pay for something that, from their point of view, costs absolutely nothing) is looking worse. With modern electronics and telecommunications, the old way of handling copyright simply does not work. The sooner The Powers That Be get that through their skulls, the sooner we can find a solution that does work.

Remember, copyrights are themselves a fairly recent invention. They have not always been applied in history and it would be foolish to think that they always will be in the future.

Furthermore, let's assume the copyright holders' worst case scenario. Copyright dies and is buried beneath easy intercontinental copying. Nobody has monetary incentive to invent and anything they do is spread without the author's permission. Sound about right? It is important to note that this situation differs from the classic Tragedy of the Commons or the foolishness of Communism. This is not a building or a piece of land that constantly requires work by people (who of course receive nothing) to keep active and useful. The Information Commons does not suffer during a dearth of fresh blood. As you say, it 'merely' stagnates. Or does it? Industrial R&D would probably suffer (we'd see a dramatic rise in the Trade Secret approach to new products), but pure researchers would likely settle for getting their name stamped on the results. Music, movies, and novels might be added to only by the altruistic, though it's arguable that this is in many respects better than the corporatized version we get today. And there will always be incentive to go to movie theaters and to see live bands; the experience beats the hell out of home systems. Paintings and sculptures, of course, will never lack for artists with visions and people wanting to 'culture up' their homes with the real thing.

Compare that to Valenti's dream scenario, where every work is owned and totally controlled even after it leaves the store. With copyright lengths reaching into the centuries and beyond (forever minus a day?), unless someone is actively printing it, old works will languish in dusty bins and eventually die an ignomious death under the guise of Digital Rights Management. The Commons cannot survive being owned. I'm constantly hearing about people who search high and low for some 80-year old piece of work, but because the author's heir says no, nothing happens.

I'm not suggesting the false dichotomy that we will eventually be forced choose between these scenarios. The future will almost certainly be something in between, or even something wierder. But I say that if we were to have to choose one, life with excessive freedom is _infinitely_ superior to the alternative.

Re:Here's one for you...

[paradesign]

unfortunately i used all my mod points up today...

...but I have to agree, how can you teach something without an intimate knowledge of subject? If the teacher isnt passionate about the subject, how is he going to get the students to be. I hope theyre not paying for this crap! I wouldnt.

And i certainly wouldnt trust the /. crowd with any sort of moral question, but thats just me.

Indigenous vs. introduced

[Spyffe]

It is a truism in ecology that it is good to preserve ecosystems from invaders. This argument has been used against genetically modified crops and introduced predators.

Somewhere down the line, we are going to run into a situation where we have a completely new life form, engineered by humans, that is competing with existing species.

Is humanity obligated to value existing organisms over new ones? Should scientists live in fear of upsetting the established "order of nature?" Why?

Re:Replacing people with machines

[tang]

Exactly, I've been proposing for awhile that we move to non-motorized machinary, and square wheels. With square wheels, it will take 10x the amount of people pulling a heavy wagon, providing jobs for many more people! If we take every simple machine, and make it 10x as inefficient, it will give everyone a job!

I had this discussion with my parents...

[StArSkY]

I had this discussion over a large quantity of red wine with my Parents and a group of their friends. I have a degree in IT and work in the industry, and they see me as a guru because I know how to connect to the internet an fix their email and that kind of thing. The ethical issues they came up with were: 1. When the only way to access a service is via technology (eg internet), are we creating a class of people who are denied access to services because they don't have or understand the technology involved? Particularly of relevance to government services. Disclaimer: i don't want to buy into the pc's in libraries debate, this is about the ability to use the tecnology, not just have access to it. 2. Why do computers use so much electricity? In terms of pollution are computers to the 21st century what cars were to the 20th century, amazingly transforming society but at what cost? This is not just the electricity, but the lack of recycling, the use of polluting products in manufacture etc. 3. Will a child be denied equal access to education because they don't have a PC at home?

Re:If I could send 1000000 Emails for free, should

[Jaeger]

Actually spammers do act ethically. ... They proactively increase the level of pain in the Internet community. This brings forward the day when some kind of solution is put in place. So they are making the world a better place.

I could moderate you today, but I'm feeling like responding, even if you are trolling.

The ends justify the means? Whether I agree with that depends on the ends, and the means; in this case, I don't agree with you. The ends, in this case, will be a more restrictive Internet and an e-mail system more hardened against spam. The solution won't fix anything more than spam itself. Why should I have to put up with spam now if the only solution spam causes is its elimination?

I use to feel similar, but now I think otherwise.

[Ted_Green]

Technology doesn't have any unique attributes that give it more privlidge than any other subject matter.

Congress, as a whole, doesn't know that much about farming or road work, or labor unions or pretty much anything.

Congress often *cant'* be the expert on subject matter X that any given group wants it to be. There are just too many laws and too many subjects.

So what congress does instead is listen to intrest groups and their constituants. Indivdual members/groups then write and sponser a Bill dealing with the concerns raised.
Each Bill is there for everyone in the nation to read and learn about (http://thomas.loc.gov) and if they do have a problem then it's their right to call up their congressman and say so. It's even their right to go to DC and address the subject matter. They can even start their own lobying group to try and changes things or pass laws addresing their own concerns.

It's just about who has money and who doesn't (though it would be naieve to think money doesn't help). Groups like the AARP have huge sway in congress. And there are thouslands of other such .orgs (eff, aclu, etc) who w/o have done just as much as the big bad corperate wolf.

And the real beauty of the system is that even if you say, "I don't like the system it's croupt and doesn't work as well as it should," you can go out and try to change it.

The only thing that never does any good is to complain about the state of things and not try to change it or even offer an alternative.

In short, it's our job to try to educate congress and others to the issues we feel strongly about.

How about...

[Lurgen]

How about the responsibility of our educators to actually know their material? Surely nobody thinks it appropriate for a college lecturer to be teaching a subject about which he quite obviously knows nothing?

And yes, I realise that most college lecturers are borderline useless, but why encourage it?

My advice to your "friend" would be simple - bugger off and learn your material. When you know more than your students, THEN you can consider teaching.

What happens if something passes the Turing test?

[sllim]

What happens if a computer passes the Turing test? Furthermore what happens if it can pass an audio (speech synthesis/voice recognition) Turing test?

If a computer can fool you into thinking it is alive, which is the basic premise of the Turing test, and then it makes the argument that turning it off, or dissasembling it is like killing it, well where does that place us?

Consider this, many people consider the basic difference between people and machines (or animals as some would argue) is self awareness. How do you define self awareness?

I am sure that PETA people would say that killing anything self aware is wrong.
Well...?