Technology Ethics

1. Technology EthicsTechnology Ethics
Dr.P.Madhu

2. What happened to technology?
• Hyper-specialized
• Globally commercialized
• Tending to be fully owned by corporates
• Tendentious to be autonomously organic!- capabl
e of transforming human sociality & individualie of transforming human sociality & individuali
ty
• De-materialized!

3. • Adorno critically observes technology functioni
ng as an ideology or ideological weapon, and,
as such, once more, as a man's instrument
of domination by man
• Adorno comments on the manipulative character o• Adorno comments on the manipulative character o
f the relations the technology produced

4. • Science and technology is understood as an
instrument and means of power!
• Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolut
ely!

5. • Heidegger holds that technology is neither an i
nstrum-ent nor a means, but a connecting elemen
t and a kind of armour that models and set
s up man according to its measure and necessity
(the technician or the technological individual(the technician or the technological individual
), and at the same time establishes reality as
an instrument (of accumulation) and as a stoc
k (for consumption).

6. Heidegger observes, the technique can not be seen as
potential development of man’s hands anymore, but
Something different, like a potency or an autonomous
power, to which man is nothing but a means or an
instrument, and in which, he is captured as an objectinstrument, and in which, he is captured as an object
or
raw material when he sets himself up in the network of
the technological production of the real

7. • For Heidegger the ultimate un-ethics is the ‘da
-sein’
completely thrown into the status of ‘dasman’-
the un—creative everyday human!

8. as science and technique become autonomous,
generating the predominance of the techno-science
s,
the technique could not be dominated by men; the
n,n,
the spell turns itself against the wizard, … will
install its
kingdom on the devastated earth, amidst docile an
d
domesticated human individuals.

9. History of Technology
3 major phases:
1. Steam Machine
2. Internal Combustion Machine
3. Transistor- Chip Telecommunication
Biotechnology
so far restricted to the material things, showed the
power of extending itself to humans themselves, and of
taking him as the object of its processes

10. • Autonomy of market ensured autonomy of technolo
gy
• Autonomy of technology ensured enslavement of
science to technology and market!

11. • History of science & technology is said to have
under-gone double split:
1. Science is split from morality
2. Technology was split from Science

12. • together with this double split, a deep re-directin
g of
science and technique happened in modern times,
when they got into the market and submitted them
-selves to the business imperatives and to the-selves to the business imperatives and to the
interest of powerful groups
• It was then that the blind forces of the market, th
e regulations of politics and the pressures of the
reason of State (including the ones with war purpos
es), interposed and imposed themselves
upon the ends and ideals of the techno-sciences

13. • It was then that there was the sacrifice of the
scientist's intellectual curiosity and freedom
to think, and the end of the technologist or te
chno-bureaucrat's apparent autonomy, mentioned
by Heidegger, once his capacity for creation anby Heidegger, once his capacity for creation an
d his power to really do things do not belong t
o him, the technologist, but to the capital and
its multiple agents.

14. The result is a third split: the split between sc
ience and technology in face of society as a wh
ole, when they are submitted to groups of inter
est, and are privatised by the market forces, w
hen the sciences - that had generated technologhen the sciences - that had generated technolog
y, which is appropriated by the market, togethe
r with technology - showed themselves entirely
impotent, without the slightest possibility of
reversing this state of things

15. Science exist for technology, and technology for
market and market exist for corporates!
Science has become the salve to technology, inste
ad of a rational or moral engine as it was exp
ected!ected!

16. • While its limitations are passed on to the marg
inalized, its benefits accumulated to the afflu
ent and thus caused a deep social divide.

17. The ethical question!
What should we do toWhat should we do to humanisehumaniseWhat should we do toWhat should we do to humanisehumanise
technique?technique?

18. The solution may be something related to the thre
e splits mentioned before:
1. Science’s split from morality
2. Technology’s split from Science
3. Technology splitted away to accommodate corpor3. Technology splitted away to accommodate corpor
ate interests

19. • Re-link Science with (secular) morality
• Re-link Technology with Science
• Re-link technology to human autonomy (by de-lin
king it from the corporate interests)

20. • The ethics we talk about cannot be just that of
an heroic individual- rather it can be a system
ic and collectivist ethics!
• Because science is no-longer and activity at th
e backyard of a scientist!e backyard of a scientist!
• Nor, Technology happens at the backyard of a te
cnologist!

21. • Ethics is no longer competence of a heroic individual,
rather, it is always redefined collectivist endevour
• Because science and technology is a collectivist activ
ity!

22. • As for the re-linking between science and techn
ology, it will demand the scientist to be activ
ely engaged with technology, and he, together w
ith the technologist, beyond the market forces
and the world of business, will be responsibleand the world of business, will be responsible
for defining the courses of technique and scien
ce themselves.

23. i.e. Technology ethics demands a P2P(?) world!

24. • It is not the ‘Individual’ or the ‘society’ bu
t collective effervescence that constitute ethi
cs!
• An ethical world de-mythifies both the ‘individ
ual’ and the ‘society’, and founds co-operativual’ and the ‘society’, and founds co-operativ
ely working collective praxis!- an egoless prax
is!

25. Typology of ethics

26. Phenomenology vs positivism
For those ethicists that can be called
phenomenologists, what is good is given in
the situation, derived from the logic and
language of the situation, or from dialogue
and debate about "goodness" per se.
Positivists, on the other hand argue that we
should observe the real world and
inductively derive ethical principles

27. Rules vs. Consequences (deontologists
vs. consequentialists).
Ethicists that are in the deontological
camp believe good actions result from
following the correct rules of behavior,
which generally are thought to be universal
and applicable to all.
These rules are based on religious beliefs,
intuition, or aesthetic belief.

28. Consequentialists, in contrast,
believe that general rules are
not specific enough to guide
action, and feel instead that weaction, and feel instead that we
must look to the consequences
of our actions, and take those
actions which produce the best
results or consequences

29. Individuals vs. Collectivities
(micro vs. macro levels).
Ethicists differ on the locus of moral
authority even as they agree individual
decision making is the proper subject of
ethicsethics
moral authority is located in the
individual who through selfanalysis and
reflection comes to develop a set or rules,
or engages in an analysis of selfinterest.

30. Others argue that moral authority must be
located in larger collectivities -- the
organization, society or polity
The former allows individuals to set their own
rules, their ethics, regardless of society.
The latter introduces a potential moral
relativism of a different sort: whatever the
group believes is best becomes the rule.

32. Collective phenomenologists
From this perspective answer:
"Should I throw beer cans on the road as I
drive along,““
“Is it OK to hack a software”
“Is it OK to tap a telephone conversation”

33. Individual- phenomenologists
This school argues that individuals shall come to know what is right by looking inward to
universal and timeless rules derived from their religious belief, intuitions about "rightness,"
and self analysis
From this perspective answer:
"Should I throw beer cans on the road as I drive along,“
“Is it OK to hack a software”
“Is it OK to tap a telephone conversation”

34. Collective Consequentialists
Utilitarian
“Is it OK to hack a software”
“Is it OK to tap a telephone conversation”
"Should I throw beer cans on the road as I
drive along,“

35. Individual Consequentialists
From this perspective answer:
"Should I throw beer cans on the road as I drive along,“
“Is it OK to hack a software”
“Is it OK to tap a telephone conversation”
“I want unobstructed freedom, but I will obstruct yours”

36. Most classical and contemporary ethicists argue,
for instance, that ethics involves the choices of
fiee people, who are informed and rational.
All agree that under these conditions, individualsAll agree that under these conditions, individuals
are responsible, accountable, and liable, and that
a good society is one in which due process obtains,
that is, there is a fair and impartial process
exists for determining responsibility,
accountability and liability

37. Individual Vs collective ethics!
"formal organizations are not moral persons,
and have no moral responsibilities, they have
no moral rights" (Ladd, 1970)
Now, more than individuals theNow, more than individuals the
‘corporations’ decide life! Then, there can
be no moral order?
Is personal ethics still relevant?

38. Such organizations are told by their
mentor gurus: "there is one and only one
responsibility of business. ... to
increase its profits Friedman, 1965; 1970
These large organizations gradually own
every technology! They thus act as
individuals! – Owner individuals with
special rights.

39. What is the moral significance of such statements :
"Computers flatten hierarchies“
"Computers eliminate the need for middle managers“
“It is a computer error”
Is computer a moral agent?

40. An ethics of information
systems is impossible
without an understanding of
how informationhow information
technologies affect human
choice, human action, and
human potential.

41. Technology, in other words, does not stand
"outside" of society, acting upon it, but instead
technology--its manufacturers, benefactors, users-
-is a social phenomenon itself subject to all the
constraints of other social actors.constraints of other social actors.
Among these constraints is the notion of social
responsibility: you can and will be held
accountable for your actions.

42. But- who are YOU? In the corporate world? Do you have
an agency power? Or just a pon in the corporate
games?- where the corporate is not a person!
Are the corporates emerge into uncontrollableAre the corporates emerge into uncontrollable
‘organisms’?
Can there be any collective democratic action to
demand corporate ethics? Technology ethics?

43. Can deliberate democracy be
possible in technology management?
If not possible, it makes ethicsIf not possible, it makes ethics
impossible in technology!
What can be done?

44. five major constellations of issues i
n IT ethical space
(1) information rights and obligations,
(2) property rights and obligations,
(3) system quality,
(4) accountability and control, and
(5) quality of life.

45. 4 significant levels where ethical is
sues arise
Individual
Organization/ corporate
Polity
Society
( note: this classification is becoming unrealistic! The corporate
‘organism’ is swallowing the rest!)
For the time being let us assume they exist with equal strength- just
to think about a possible ethical order!

46. Local variant
of the macro-
contract!
Manufactured
consent?
Will of the
Leviathan?
A contract is possible
only when signatories
of the contract
willfully agree upon
the contents of the
contract!

47. Bad ethics 1: Infringe on privacy
Because information technology
creates new opportunities to
deny privacy and inhibit
access to information, ethical
deny privacy and inhibit
access to information, ethical
questions are posed to
individuals and larger
collectivities

48. Bad ethics 2. Denying right to inform
ation
Can a closed source
software be ready
to respect itsto respect its
users right to
information?

49. Bad ethics 3: Property rights
Does the new technology infringe on
individual property right? Right to
alter, modify, share?...
Are the “trade secret, copyright, andAre the “trade secret, copyright, and
patent law” ethical?
Both ‘for’ and ‘against’ arguers cry
fowl!

50. Bad ethics 4: no one is accountable!
Who is responsible if a software caused
injury to some one?
new information technologies are
challenging existing liability law and
social practices for holding individuals
and institutions accountable

51. The mother of all bad ethics:
turning human
beings intobeings into
bare-life!

52. About the content of IT!
• Intercultural Information Ethics (IIE)
• It deals with the impact of information and com
munication technology (ICT) on different cultur
es as well as with the discussion on ICT from d
ifferent cultural perspectives.ifferent cultural perspectives.

53. • IEE concerns are
• privacy,
• Piracy
• Cyber crime
• intellectual property,• intellectual property,
• online communities,
• governmentality,
• gender issues,
• mobile phones,
• health care,
• and the digital divide

54. IEE concerns
• How the computers work the same way everywhere
though they are embedded in different cultural
and moral contexts which means that there is no
t such a thing as a neutral technology.
• the mutual influence between culture and techno• the mutual influence between culture and techno
logy at an inter- as well as at a trans-cultura
l level