A "SlideShare Lecture" on how to teach Ethics to Computer Science Students

1. ETHICS
A presentation of Ethics as seen from Computer Games
Or, How to teach Ethics to Computer Science Students
Per A. Godejord
Senior Lecturer
ICT Pedagogical Centre
Nord-TrondelagUniversity College

2. Two perspectives
Child
Perspective
Adult
Perspective
Egocentrical perspective
Critical perspective

3. What perspective do YOU take?
• Ethical maturity involves accepting full responsibility for
one's ethical choices and their consequences. An ethically
mature person obeys her or his own, inner authority (or
conscience), rather than an outside authority figure.
- Ethics - Ethical, Person, Stage, and Children - JRank Articles
http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/223/Ethics.html#ixzz3RzXtetP8

4. Ethical theories and value systems
• Utilitarian point of view: I will not “pirate” software,
because it might put programmers out of work
• Kantian point of view: I will not “pirate” software,
because that is stealing, and stealing is wrong
“Pirating software” is one of the “classical” examples used
when teaching ethics in computer science, and in my
experience it is such a boring case that it is impossible to
capture the “harts and minds” of the students. So let’s
move to something more interesting…

5. The killing fields of computer
games
“Killing games”
Fair games Unfair games
Ghost Recon Postal
Rule of Engagement/ No
rules
Code of conduct
SWAT 4 Manhunt

6. And the verdict is…
• Utilitarian: Its wrong to kill people
• Kantian: Its illegal to kill people
Both “fair” and “unfair”
games are equally unethical
if we base our verdict on the fact that we have to kill in order to
achieve the games objectives

7. And War Games?
• In war it is allowed to kill people – that is; soldiers. Non-
combatants is off limits, as often shown in military
shooters like Ghost Recon 1 (Civilian casualty ends the
game)
• So that makes it’s a bit less unethical if viewed from an
Kantian?

8. Some more theories
• Normative ethics:
- Virtue theories
- Duty theories
- Consequentialist theories

9. Virtue theories
• Good habits of character:
* Virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance, justice,
fortitude, generosity, self-respect, good temper, sincerity
* Vices: cowardice, insensibility, injustice, vanity

10. Duty theories
• Morality is based on principles of obligation
• Some absolute duties:
- Avoid wronging others
- Treat people as equals
- Promote the good of other
• Right theory:
Other persons right not to be harmed by you
• Kant`s categorical imperative:
Treat people as an end, and never as a means to an end

11. Consequentialist theories
• An action is morally right if the consequences of that
action are more favorable than unfavorable
• So if the good consequences are greater, then the action
is considered morally proper. If the bad consequences are
greater, then the action is morally improper

12. So what?
• Let us have a quick look at two games; one “unfair” and
one “fair”:
• GTA 3
• Ghost Recon

13. GTA 3
• The Hooker Cheat
• The action: Pick up a prostitute, have sex to gain extra
health, then kill her when you are finished and steal her
money, so as not to have financial loss.
Let us have a look on the theories again

14. The Hooker Cheat as our point of evaluation
• Virtue:
• It is difficult to argue that there are any good virtues in this specific
behaviour
• The behaviour might be viewed as both cowardice, unjust and
insensible
In the game it is a logical thing to do if you want to win, and you
may do it as often as you want to

15. The Hooker Cheat as our point of
evaluation, continued
• Duty:
• In this case your action is wronging the prostitute
• You certainly do not treat her as an equal
• No promotion of her good
• You violate her rights not to be harmed by you
• You treat her as a means to an end; i.e. to win the game

16. The Hooker Cheat as our point of
evaluation, continued
• Consequence:
• The consequences of the action is favorable to you, but very
unfavorable to the prostitute
Let`s pause here for a moment…

17. Consequentialism revisited
• Three ways of looking at this
• Ethical Egoism: It is morally right if the consequences of that action
are more favorable than unfavorable only to you.
• Ethical Altruism: It is morally right if the consequences of that
action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except
you.
• Utilitarianism: It is morally right if the consequences of that action
are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.

18. The Hooker Cheat as our point of
evaluation, continued
• Egoistically speaking the action involved in the Hooker
Cheat is ok (it enables you to win the game), but naturally
not if viewed in the light of altruism or utilitarianism
• So, what do YOU think?

19. Ghost Recon
• In this game there is no specific “cheat” as in GTA 3.
• In the Ghost Recon 1 series civilians where milling about,
and any killing of them ended the game
• In the later series, like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
2 (GR3), there are no civilians at all
Let`s have a look at that

20. The lack of civilians
• Ghost Recon was claimed, at least originally, to be aiming
towards training soldiers
• In GR3 you are involved in urban warfare, something that
means that you, in RL, are “surrounded” by civilians
• So is it ethical to portray this sort of warfare as free of
civilians and all that it pertains as for decision making and
quick reactions?
Think about it!

21. Killing the enemy – a simple view
• Virtue:
• Your actions in the game might both be courageous (attacking an
equal strong enemy in frontal assault) or cowardice (sniping them
from behind and from distance)
• They might also be a sign of insensibility (no feelings for your
opponent)

22. Killing the enemy – a simple view,
continued
• Duty:
• Your action is wronging your opponents
• No promotion of their good
• You treat them as a means to an end; i.e. to win the game

23. Killing the enemy – a simple view,
continued
• Consequence:
• The consequences of the action is favorable to you, but very
unfavorable to your opponents
Go back to Consequentialism

24. Killing the enemy – a slightly more
complicated view
• The ethics of war:
• Jus ad bellum – When it`s justified to go to war
• Jus in bello – Acceptable conduct in war
• Just post bellum – Actions within the termination of war
Let`s keep our focus on the actions, i.e what
you do in the game…

25. Jus in bellom
• You may attack any military objective
• The action must have the defeat of the enemy as the
intention
• You are to have your weapons visible
• You have some limitation as to what weapons are allowed
against personnel
Aha! Weapons!

26. Jus in bellom, continued
• In both GR1 and GR3 you have the possibility of using the
.50 cal. Sniper rifle.
• The International Red Cross want to have the use of this
rifle against personnel banned, because of its power and
the “explosiveness” of the projectile
• The Norwegian Government have instructed that the use
of the rifle shall be strictly anti-material capacity only
• The US Government view the rifle as usable against all
targets

27. Jus bellom, continued
• No chance of surviving a hit by a 50 cal.
• Is it fair to kill your opponent from 1500 to 2000 meters?
To use this gun against persons is ok from the US point of
view, not ok from other points of view.
In the game, it`s YOUR choice…

28. Another view on the killing
• Is military first person shooters training our kids to kill?
• And if so, is that ethical?
What do YOU think?
If it is true that games are training our kids to kill, they would eventually
loose their ability to make proper moral choices…wouldn't they?

29. Lets have a look at some ethical
choices made by gamers…..
(From Amanda “AJ” Lange‘s “Difficult Choices in The Walking Dead”)

30. 1) What to do about Ben
A game character have been a lot of bother
throughout the game. Finally, you are in a situation
where you hold him by an arm over a space filled
with zombies.
A) Do you let go of him?
B) Do you save him?

31. Walking Dead

32. 2) I have been bitten
You have been bitten by a Zombie.
A) You keep it quiet from your friends and
allies
B) You tell them

33. Only 20% of those playing Walking
Dead choses alternative A!
Computer Games are corrupting our
kids?..... perhaps not?

34. 3) The stranger
You encounter a stranger who points a gun at
you.
A) You threaten the person
B) You try to reason with him

35. Walking Dead

36. 4) What to do about Lily
A game character is difficult and unpleasant
throughout the game and ends up shooting and
killing a friend during an argument, in cold blood
A) You leave the person to her fate
B) You take her with you

37. Walking Dead

38. 5) The father
A game character has a son who is bitten by a
zombie, but refuses to recognize what is about to
happen. He begins to break down and are / can be
a problem.
A) You knock some "sense" into him
B) You try to talk to him an calm him down

39. Walking Dead

40. Situation Numbers choosing
alternative A
Numbers choosing
alternative B
1 8 8
2 1 15
3 2 14
4 15 1
5 7 9
A quick survey done with my
students in 2014

41. Gamers are good guys
• My students where indeed good guys, and the only
variation from the results shown in Amanda “AJ” Lange‘s
“Difficult Choices in The Walking Dead” at TAP-
Repeatedly, was that the majority of my students did not
want to save Lilly, and that it was a 50-50 as for dropping
Ben.

42. A conclusion?
• All actions that involve killing and maiming others are
unethical
• So computer games that include such actions, might be
said to be unethical
• The spreading of such games to kids might be unethical;
i.e. it might desensitise them, make them more
aggressive and violent, and so on.
BUT it doesn't really seems like computer games are
desensitise our kids, does it?

43. There are no facts, only interpretations
- Friedrich Nietzsche