1. Questions
- Go around the room with questions/observations/relevant news items
2. The politics of artifacts: Smartphone
Consequences Increase communication convenience Access many operations at once Smartphone addiction, leading to depression, anxiety, poor mental health
Phone Designers wanted users to stay on their phones App designers wanted users to stay on their apps
Lot of consequences related to social media privacy concerns - what is being done with user data low self-esteem, mental health, etc Screen time usage https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8204720/
Are the politics/consequences intentional or unintentional?
No.
While smartphone inventors were thinking of consumer convenience, they were not attempting cause problems for adolescents.
What role did designers of those artifacts play in the consequences?
They emphasized the convenience of smartphones, which ultimately and unintentionally
Are the consequences different if it works well versus badly? (example: face recognition)
Yes. Bad face recognition could result in wrong people being identified, which in turn could result in bad actors taking advantage. On the other hand, good face recognition could result in increased security. Still, it’s hard to tell. Good face recognition could also deal more harm if used in the wrong ways (like weaponization).
3. Are there technologies you wouldn’t help build?
Military drones, weapons, etc. Spyware, viruses. Illegal technology.
If something has good and bad uses, are you responsible?
To an extent, I believe so. One can design technology for good uses, but if they don’t account for bad uses and disallow or work to disable them if possible, then they are responsible for it as they did so knowingly.
I would define responsibility as knowing what would happen and letting it happen when one had ability to prevent or regulate it. Inventors should care about how their technology is used because of their responsibility.
Assume all technologies will fall into the hands of totalitarian regimes
Does this change your views?
Yes, because inventors know exactly what type of choices the regime would use it for, or that the bad uses are much more likely. Therefore, I would be directly responsible for the effects.
Is there basic science you wouldn’t do?
I wouldn’t create fire and possibly burn down my house or cause harm.
Is more knowledge always better?
No, not always. For example, improved weaponry and a lack of regulation has increased the ease to mass murder. I would say unregulated gaining of knowledge is dangerous, rather than knowledge gain as a whole.
Where do you draw the line?
At negatively harming people’s lives, or doing more harm than good.
Do you have an obligation to do good in your life’s work?
Yes because I am a recipient of the benefit of other people’s goodwill and it is fulfilling.
Is it OK to just make money in something neutral?
No because people should strive to do more good and create more happiness.
Is it OK to do something partly good/bad?
It’s okay but not preferred.
Will this shape your job search?
Yes because I’d like to work at a place where I can do mostly good.
Also, companies care about the people they hire and what they’ve done.
4. Review: Utilitarianism
How are Act and Rule Utilitarianism different?
Act Utilitarianism focuses on specific actions while Rule Utilitarianism creates general moral rules.
Act Utilitarianism specifically weights the net consequences of specific actions and uses that to determine whether an action was good or bad.
Rule Utilitarianism creates general moral rules that if everyone follows will lead to the greatest happiness.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of each theory?
Act Utilitarianism
- Subject to moral luck
- Too much time put into every decision
- Individual beings
Rule Utilitarianism
- strength: don’t have to check each action
- reduces bias through generality
- weakness: too general sometimes, using a single measure to evaluate different kinds of consequences
Happiness is calculated for “morally relevant beings”
What is a “morally relevant being” for you? Why?
A morally relevant being would include all beings that are sentient.
5. Review: Kantianism
Focuses on motive for actions, not consequences. Deontology - duties
What are the two formulations of the categorical imperative?
- Hypothetical Imperative - “if X then do Y”
- Categorical Imperative - unconditional rule that always applies
Which do you think is more useful? Are they useful in different kinds of situations?
I believe categorial imperatives are more useful as they are always moral rules and more general by nature, so more generally applicable.
How do you make a rule in Kant’s theory?
“What would happen if everyone did this?” Treat people as an end rather than a means.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Kant’s theories?
Treats everyone equally. Universal guidelines. Sometimes rules don’t fully represent actions. Also perfect duties are inflexible. Theory would say never lie, but sometimes white lies are better
6. Discussion: the mailing list
You’ve been offered a lucrative consulting job writing membership management software for a non-profit organization you passionately disagree with
Do you take the job?
Yes; initial impressions can be wrong anyway and money is essential.
Does it matter if your code is the same as anyone else’s, or if you can write something more effective than other people’s code?
Coding solutions typically overlap for common problems, so I would say it doesn’t matter if it’s the same. If it’s more effective, then even better.
What more do you want to know about the situation in order to make a decision?
What exactly the management software is for (more specifics about the non-profit, what they do, why).
In what ways do those factors shape your decision?
By knowing more about the non-profit, I can make a decision based on whether I align with their mission and whether I’d like to work for them.
What do the ethical theories we’ve studied so far say about this dilemma?
Act Utilitarianism says that if my need for money (helping people with the money, etc) outweighs the consequences of not liking for whom I work, then it would be a good act. Kant says I shouldn’t see the non-profit as a means for more money, and that I should act from duty.
Now suppose you run a company that sells software online to whoever pays for it
Is this situation the same as the consulting one, or different? In what ways?
It’s different because I would be completely disconnected from knowing what ways my software would be employed. Also, I’d be way more responsible as I am the one running the company.
Suppose a hate group using your software calls asking for tech support. Do you help them? Why or why not?
No because me helping them could result in more hate being perpetuated; therefore, I would indirectly cause harm.