Outline The Vision and the Current Reality The Technology The .docx

Outline The Vision and the Current Reality The Technology The
Issues Brave New World
Carbots – Where are We?
Alice E. Fischer
August 30, 2017
Carbots. . . 1/51
The Vision and the Current Reality
The Vision
Current Reality
The Technology
Hardware Technology
Hardware Technology
The Issues
Public Policy
Where are we now?
Brave New World
Cost
Change

Carbots. . . 2/51
Carbots – Where are We?
Alice E. Fischer
The Reality
The
TechnologyThe
Issues
The Dream
First version: June 1, 2016, Updated: July 28, 2017
Carbots. . . 3/51
The Vision
I. The Vision
Carbots. . . 4/51

The Vision
The Dream
1. Everyone will be safer because we will eliminate distracted
driving, drunks, high-speed chases, etc. (Subtext: machines
follow rules, humans don’t do so reliably.)
2. Children, the elderly, and partygoers can all get to their
destinations safely without a competent driver. (Subtext: We
want servants who can take care of the non-productive
members of society.)
3. Our highways will be able to handle more cars, traveling
closer
together at high speeds, because a computer’s response time
is faster than a human’s and can handle smaller distances
safely.
Carbots. . . 5/51
The Vision
The Nightmares
The nightmares are the flip-side of the dreams:
1. It is clear that some people should NOT be driving cars, but

will they be the ones using the carbots? Will we require that?
2. It is not at all clear that carbots will be safer; they are just
different. A carbot may be safer in some ways, but also be
more dangerous in other ways.
3. People will send children and the elderly to their destinations
in carbots. Of course, we already have taxis and Uber for
occasions when the competent adults are busy.
4. Any unexpected emergency might cause a crash. Would this
involve a pile-up of a hundred carbots?
5. When a carbot starts behaving erratically, what next?
Carbots. . . 6/51
Current Reality
II. Current Reality
Emergencies, Accidents, and Crashes
Limitations
Carbots. . . 7/51

Current Reality
Limitations as of August, 2014
1. The latest prototype had not been tested in heavy rain or
snow due to safety concerns.
2. Because the cars rely primarily on pre-programmed route
data,
they do not obey temporary traffic lights or diversions.
3. In complex unmapped intersections. they revert to a slower
“extra cautious” mode.
4. The vehicle has difficulty identifying when objects (trash and
light debris) are harmless, causing the vehicle to veer
unnecessarily.
5. The LIDAR technology cannot spot some potholes.
6. The LIDAR cannot discern when humans, such as a police
officer, are signaling the car to stop.
Carbots. . . 8/51
Current Reality
A Ticket
June 2015:

Google’s prototype carbot was being tested in California, with
safety drivers aboard. Its speed was 25 mph in a 35 mph zone.
As
a consequence, one of the vehicles was stopped by police for
impeding traffic flow. No ticket was issued.
Carbots. . . 9/51
Current Reality
An Accident
June 2015:
A Google carbot and a carbot made by auto-parts maker Delphi
had a near miss, but the cars managed to avoid each other at the
last moment. The people in both cars had “minor whiplash.” The
Google car was just scraped; the Delphi car lost its bumper.
There
was no police report.
Carbots. . . 10/51
Current Reality
Crashes

In July 2015, Google confirmed that its 23 self-driving cars had
been involved in 14 minor collisions on public roads.
I Nine involved being rear-ended at a stop sign or traffic light.
(Sudden, unexpected stops?)
I In two, the vehicle was side-swiped by another driver,
I One involved another driver rolling through a stop sign,
I In one, a Google employee was manually driving the car.
Google maintains that the carbots were not at fault.
Carbots. . . 11/51
Current Reality
Testing, Jan 2016
I Google’s vehicles have driven driven nearly 1.5 million miles
autonomously. They have gone up San Francisco’s Lombard
Street (steep hairpin turns), through city traffic, over the
Golden Gate Bridge, and around Lake Tahoe.
I New data from Google show that autonomous cars are making
progress. There was an overall decline in incidents in which
the technology failed since Fall, 2014.
I The 53 carbots have been in 17 crashes, but were never

considered “at fault” until recently. Most of the accidents
were rear-end collisions.
I Experts cautioned that the company’s reports do not provide
enough information to definitively say whether the technology
is safe.
Carbots. . . 12/51
Current Reality
Some Emergencies
Jan 2016:
Google revealed that during 272 occasions over 14 months,
drivers
took control of autonomous vehicles because the software was
failing.
In 69 other incidents, the test drivers chose to take control of
the
autonomous vehicles to ensure that the vehicles operated safely.
Carbots. . . 13/51

Current Reality
The first crash clearly caused by the carbot, February, 2016
I 3:20 p.m. Feb. 14, about three miles from Google’s
headquarters in Mountain View, Calif.
I Google’s car was attempting to make a right-hand turn on red
and moved to the right side of a wide lane to pass traffic
stopped at the light. But as the carbot neared the corner, its
path was blocked by sandbags around a storm drain.
I The carbot tried to go around the sandbags by cutting into
the lane of vehicles on the left. It then struck a metal piece
connecting the two parts of an accordion-style bus on the
other road.
I The carbot was going less than 2 mph and the bus was
moving at 15 mph. There were no injuries in either vehicle
and the crash was described as minor.
Carbots. . . 14/51
Current Reality
Google’s Response !!
I Google’s driver thought the bus would slow or stop so the
Google car could go ahead of it. Google characterized the
crash as a misunderstanding and a learning experience, saying
its cars will learn that large vehicles are less likely to yield than

other types of vehicles.
I “We hope to handle situations like this more gracefully in the
future,” Google said. “We clearly bear some responsibility [!!],
because if our car hadn’t moved [made an inappropriate right
turn on the red] there wouldn’t have been a collision.
I Google said “This type of misunderstanding happens between
human drivers on the road every day”.
Carbots. . . 15/51
Current Reality
The Tesla Crash.
I The carbot marketed by Tesla relies only on visual systems for
road-sense. (No radar, no lidar.)
I In May, 2016, a Tesla car on autopilot crashed and killed the
driver.
I The car hit an “invisible” truck that was crossing the road. It
went under the truck and kept going some distance. The
owner was decapitiated.
Carbots. . . 16/51

Current Reality
Tesla’s Response.
I Tesla markets the self-driving feature as a safety assist, not as
a substitute for a driver. The “driver” was supposed to be
driving, with his hands on the wheel.
I However, during the 37 minutes of the trip, his hands were on
the wheel for only 25 seconds.
I The car’s warning system gave him flasing warnings seven
times, which were ignored.
I So it is not Tesla’s fault, and there is nothing wrong with the
car except that it cannot recognize a truck driving across the
road. (!!!)
I A friend of a friend at Google says that Tesla is giving carbots
a bad name and Tesla is irresponsible for using only a
vision-based system.
Carbots. . . 17/51
III. The Technology
Hardware Technology
Software Technology

Carbots. . . 18/51
Hardware Technology
Hardware Technology.
The LIDAR on top allows the vehicle to generate a detailed 3D
map of its environment. The car combines the 3-D maps from
the
laser system with high-resolution maps of the world, producing
different types of data models that allow it to drive itself.
The system works with a very high definition inch-precision
map of
the area the vehicle is expected to use, including how high the
traffic lights are; in addition to on-board systems, some
computation is performed on remote computer farms.
Is this scalable?
Will a road full of carbots interfere with each other?
Carbots. . . 19/51
Hardware Technology
Hardware Technology.

Different types of cars have been retrofitted with self-driving
equipment, including the Toyota Prius, Audi TT, and Lexus
RX450h.
In May 2014, a prototype of a 100% driverless car was
introduced,
with no steering wheel or pedals.
Carbots. . . 20/51
Hardware Technology
No steering wheel, no pedals. No panic button?
1. The 64-beam laser range finder on top scans 360 degrees.
2. Radar on the front measures the speed of the vehicles ahead.
3. An orientation sensor tracks the car’s motion and balance.
4. A wheel-hub sensor detects the number of rotations to help
determine the car’s location.
5. A processor reads the data and regulates vehicle behavior.
Carbots. . . 21/51

Hardware Technology
Google’s 2016 Patent
Human flypaper, to grab and hold a victim after a crash.
Carbots. . . 22/51
Hardware Technology
Software Technology.
Because the software is a trade secret, we cannot know what is
actually being used. However, these technologies are almost
certainly used:
I Expert Systems.
I Deep Learning.
I Mapping Algorithms.
I Modeling.
Carbots. . . 23/51

Hardware Technology
Expert Systems.
An expert system solves complex problems by reasoning about
knowledge. It has an inference engine and a knowledge base of
facts and rules. The inference engine applies the rules to the
facts
to deduce new facts and make decisions.
Expert systems were among the first truly successful forms of
AI
software and are widely used today for a variety of applications:
I Chatbots: the ES tries to discern the meaning of the human
input and produce a relevant response.
I Medical diagnosis: the ES correlates symptoms with a huge
database of possible conditions to propose a diagnosis.
I Process control: the ES interprets, predicts, corrects, and
monitors system behaviors.
Carbots. . . 24/51
Hardware Technology
Mapping Algorithms.
3-D mapping hardware/software is a central part of a Google

carbot system. Massive amounts of data coming from the
LIDAR
hardware must be analyzed in real time, mapped onto a model,
and then interpreted.
The interpretation determines whether the carbot continues,
turns,
swerves, or stops. The algorithms for finding edges and objects
are
old and well studied.
Today’s vision systems almost certainly involve both
algorithmic
parts and neural nets (deep learning).
Carbots. . . 25/51
Hardware Technology
Deep Learning.
Deep learning (formerly called a “neural networks” attempts to
model high-level abstractions by using multiple processing
layers,
with complex structures composed of multiple non-linear
transformations.
The goal is to replace handcrafted representation of models with
efficient non-algorithms for unsupervised or semi-supervised
feature
learning and extraction. Success relies on use of extensive
training

cases that cover all the situations needed.
There are various deep learning architectures based on deep
neural
networks. These have been applied with great success to fields
like
computer vision, automatic speech recognition, natural language
processing, audio recognition and bioinformatics.
Carbots. . . 26/51
Hardware Technology
Modeling.
A model is an abstract representation of a piece of reality. It
captures some important features and necessarily ignores others.
In any software system, the quality of the models is critical to
the
quality of the outcomes.
All AI software exists in relation to a model of reality. The
models
guide the training of the AI.
If a concept, situation, or object is missing from the model, it
will
not be identified and interpreted by the AI system.
Example: today’s carbots do not obey a policeman with a stop
sign at a construction site because the site and the human are

not
on the map (in the model). The carbot will “see” something, but
be unable to interpret it properly.
Carbots. . . 27/51
Hardware Technology
A Carbot creates a model.
The models needed to control a car are extremely complex. and
are formed by combining a detailed map of the road with the
output from the lidar system.
Extensive work has been done and driverless cars can usually
navigate around California without having or causing problems.
In the graphic, this completed work is represented by the yellow
and
lavender bands, all built on the red core of preexisting
technologies.
Core hard and soft technologies
Basic driving: Steering, speed regulation, handling
intersections, following a route.
Stop light placement, bicycles, avoiding collisions,
traffic, freeways, night driving.
Rain, fog, snow, ice, mountains, potholes, portable stop
signs, sandbags, predicting other drivers, etc, etc. etc.
Carbots. . . 28/51

Hardware Technology
The Unfinished Modeling / Training / Testing
Google acknowledges that it currently has a varied list of
unsolved
problems. In the graphic, they are colored blue-green.
These problems are less central to the driving and less usual, so
it
has been possible for Google to field a small fleet of driverless
cars
without experiencing a lot of crashes.
The problem is, there are a huge number of unsolved issues
(known unknowns and unknown unknowns). In fact there is an
unending stream of unsolved problems.
Example: we do not know whether a carbot that functions well
in
the daytime in California on a dry day will function safely in
Connecticut in a heavy rainstorm at night.
Carbots. . . 29/51

Hardware Technology
AI’s are Unpredictable
The interaction of this large number of unsolved problems with
deep learning methods is troublesome.
I Each added rule or training case has the potential to cause
novel behavior in previously tested situations.
I As more and more training cases, facts, and rules are added to
the AI, the likelihood of unexpected bad decisions and other
software malfunctions (freezing up) increases.
I Because of the nature of the AI, nobody can know what
caused a bad outcome, and nobody can identify a way to fix it
other than adding more rules and training cases.
I The process of retraining the AI is likely to go on for many
years, with the carbots getting better and better, but never
quite behaving sensibly in untested situations.
Carbots. . . 30/51
IV. The Issues
Cost
Public Policy
Where are we now?
Brave New World

Carbots. . . 31/51
Public Policy
Urgent: Start Now
I The laws governing human drivers are not adequate.
I We HAVE NO nationally accepted public policy regarding
standards for or regulations governing carbots.
I Such policy needs to be in place before we begin to convert
our present way of life to a very different one.
I The problem is that nobody in power has yet begun the
necessary national exploration of these questions: not
government, not industry, not techies.
I The legislators who are going to make fundamental decisions
in this case are not well informed about the realities.
I The scientists and ethicists who should inform the legislators
have not been identified.
Carbots. . . 32/51

Public Policy
Missing: the Three Laws of Carbotics
We need to formulate the “three laws of carbotics”. We need an
accepted, general, national idea of the limits within which these
vehicles will operate and the goals they should strive to
achieve.
It is not enough to have a patchwork of laws, failing to cover
the
whole picture and differing from one state to the next.
For example, in an emergency situation, who should the carbot
seek to protect first?
I The unprotected pedestrian with a stroller?
I The occupants of the carbot?
I The physical integrity of the carbot?
Carbots. . . 33/51
Public Policy
Oversell.
I “Only one accident in 1,500,000 miles of autonomous driving”
was caused by the carbot. The question is, how many of the
other accidents that DID happen would have been avoided by

a human being?
I . . . And what about the 341 times that the “safety” driver
intervened to avoid a crash
I . . . And what about the incidents that were unreported
because they involved only minor property-damage?
I We simply lack the information to know how good a driver
the Google carbot actually is.
Carbots. . . 34/51
Public Policy
Oversell.
I “Safer than humans”? Some humans yes, and others, no.
I This promotional slogan has had the bad effect of making
many educated people believe that the problems are all solved.
I My husband and I have been driving for 2 times 59 years at
about 20,000 miles per year (2.36 million miles). Our record:
11 collisions. Two were trivial were not reported. Four
happened while we were stopped at a light. Once we hit a
possum on the road at night. Once we were sideswiped by
someone passing on the right. Once we were hit by a car
coming out of a parking lot. If we were Google, only two of
these incidents would have been reported to the police.

I If you compare our record to the record of the Google car,
Google is not impressive.
Carbots. . . 35/51
Where are we now?
The Invisible Truck.
This happened on Rte. 15 in Meriden, a road that is very
familiar
to me. I was a passenger in the front seat.
I I noticed that there was something strange about the road
ahead. I saw road, trees, and sky, but the picture did not
match my memory of that place.
I I paid closer attention, trying to figure out what I was seeing.
Soon, the image made sense. The “sky” was the side of a tall
white truck, turning onto the road, and momentarily
broadside to the direction of traffic.
I We slowed down, the truck continued its turn, and everything
was normal.
This is clearly what happened to the Tesla car before the fatal
crash. The difference? The Tesla did not recognize that
something
was abnormal.
Carbots. . . 36/51

Where are we now?
A human can often avoid an accident.
These situations did not result in an accident, primarily because
of
human perception and comprehension.
I (I-95)
My view ahead was limited by traffic. I saw person walking
along the shoulder in the wrong direction and knew something
unusual was happening. Seconds later, the traffic cleared and
I saw an extension ladder across one lane and extending into
my lane. I was able to veer and only clipped the corner of the
ladder.
I (I-91)
Approaching a construction zone, I saw a car going too fast
toward a construction zone. I watched as it hit a parked truck
and the truck began to roll across all four lanes, on a collision
course with me. I accelerated a bit and it passed behind me.
Carbots. . . 37/51
Where are we now?
Case study.

While driving on Ridge Road last week we saw a pedestrian
approaching us at the edge of our travel lane, pushing a
shopping
cart.
I Mike pulled gently across the center line to give him a wide
berth. (There was no oncoming traffic.)
I But what if there was, and there was no space for two vehicles
and a cart to pass? What should happen?
I Mike says that he would stop. This protects all of the people,
but risks a rear-end collision. Should a carbot be expected to
stop instead of veering?
Carbots. . . 38/51
Where are we now?
People Understand Other People; Carbots Don’t
Sometimes a warning is small, like a bouncing ball in the road:
I (State Street)
Mike glimpsed a car on a side street briefly before the view
was occluded by a stopped bus.
I Out of sight, the car reached the corner and turned right,
around the bus, which filled much of the southbound travel
lane.

I The turning car went well over the yellow line and headed
directly toward Mike.
I Mike was already slowing down and squeezing right because
of the brief warning.
I There was no head-on collision.
Carbots. . . 39/51
Where are we now?
Trust.
Google projects having the technical issues fixed by 2020 and is
lobbying now to allow the sale of carbots.
I Google is saying “trust us. Is that a reasonable request?
I How well can you trust anything that is not open to public
scrutiny?1
I Google has not been fully open and honest about the track
record of their cars.
1This question about carbots has an analog in the ongoing battle
over
voting machines and online voting.
Carbots. . . 40/51

Where are we now?
Security.
How safe are these systems from takeover by hackers? Of
course,
we don’t know.
I The public deserves to be informed about the security
measures that have been implemented.
I A segment on “60 Minutes” (2015) featured a reporter losing
control over her cars horn and brakes as a hacker clicked away
on a nearby laptop.
I WIRED magazine staged a takeover demonstration in July
2015. The zero-day exploit let hackers send commands
through the internet to the Jeep;s entertainment system, then
to its dashboard functions, steering, brakes, and transmission.
The hackers were miles away and the driver was completely
helpless.
Carbots. . . 41/51
Where are we now?

Liability Law.
When the first death happens, who will be legally liable?
I We HAVE NO definition of who will be responsible when a
carbot crashes and injures someone.
I The ordinary driver liability laws do not apply.
I At least one state has a law that exempts the original
manufacturer of the car from liability after it has been
retrofitted to be driverless.
I The nature of possible sanctions is unclear: You can’t just
revoke the license of a carbot after an accident – there are
presumably hundreds of others just like it.
I The nature of possible remedies is unclear.
Carbots. . . 42/51
Where are we now?
Legislation
Public road testing of driverless cars is legal in California,
Michigan, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, North Dakota, Tennessee,
the
District of Columbia, and Utah. (Updated 23 Mar 2016)
I In California, all cars must have licensed drivers, whether or

not they are driving.
I In Michigan, GM built an entire small town as a test set for
carbots.
I Lobbying by Google in the US Senate is underway to change
the national law. Google is pushing Congress to give the
NHTSA new powers to grant it special, expedited permission
to sell cars without steering wheels or pedals.
Carbots. . . 43/51
Where are we now?
Lobbying
Currently, states are being pressured one at a time to allow
testing,
and they are passing idiosyncratic laws.
“Google 2 expected the California Department of Motor
Vehicles to release precedent-setting regulations regarding
driverless cars in January 2015, allowing the company to
give public access to the prototypes. However, as of
November 2015, the DMV still has not done so.
Google - and other companies - are not ready to share
trade-secret safety data, although they continue to push
for the publication of California regulations.”
2California’s Red Tape Slows Google’s Self-Driving Roll,

www.yahoo.com,
Retrieved 2015-11-16.
Carbots. . . 44/51
Where are we now?
California is not Sold.
In December 2015, the California Department of Motor Vehicles
issued long-awaited proposed regulations governing
autonomous
vehicles and invited public comments on the draft regulations.
If adopted, they would require self-driving cars to have a
steering
wheel and pedals, and a human driver onboard who holds an
“autonomous vehicle operator certificate”. They would also
hold
the occupant responsible for accidents and violations of traffic
laws, whether or not the driver was at the wheel.
The DMV stated, “Given the potential risks associated with
deployment of such a new technology, [we believe] that
manufacturers need to obtain more experience in testing
driverless
vehicles on public roads prior to making this technology
available
to the general public.”
Carbots. . . 45/51

Cost
Equipment Cost.
Last year, Googles cars cost about $320,000, including the basic
Prius, a $70,000 LIDAR system, a $10,000 radar system, and a
$200,000 GPS array. This does not include the cost of the
underlying car.
Decreases in the cost of the technology are predicted. For
example,
Velodyne has introduced a new, smaller LIDAR system that
costs
only $5000.
One estimate is that the equipment will add $7000 to $10,000 to
a
cars sticker price in 2025. This puts a carbot out of the reach of
most citizens.
Carbots. . . 46/51
Cost
Social Cost

Large-volume sales will be necessary to bring the price down to
anything an ordinary worker can afford.
There is some hope that gradual market penetration and
large-scale production will reduce that cost to $3000 or $5000
in
2030 to 2035. This will be a problem for many people who now
own cars: these cars will be substantially more expensive to buy
and to maintain.
The added safety that people expect carbots to bring, will only
happen when no traditional cars are on the road with human
drivers. Until then, the carbots and the humans will endanger
each
other in new and untested ways.
Carbots. . . 47/51
Change
Cars vs. Carbots
Assume that someday it becomes legal to sell carbots.
I Some people will resist giving up their cars. The greatest
resistance will come from the poor.
I Aggressive drivers will also resist the change. (I know a
person
who routinely drives 80 mph on freeways.)

I There are people who will never trust robots. Maybe rightly.
I Dangerous drivers will still be on the road unless the courts
revoke their licenses.
I At least a carbot won’t direct road-rage against others!
I The question is, will they be a magnet for the road-rage of the
most dangerous class of drivers?
Carbots. . . 48/51
Change
The Weather
“If you don’t like the weather in New England now, just wait a
few
minutes.” – Mark Twain
I I ride daily in a car that has “eyesight” connected to the
brakes. It will slow down if you get too close to a car ahead.
I When it was new, 18 months ago, it would suddenly stop
working in the middle of the trip. Two firmware updates seem
to have fixed this. (There were no recalls, though.)
I Now it works well as long as there is no fog or heavy rain. It
can’t “see” under those conditions.
I I would not want to rely on a machine that fails as soon as
the going gets rough.

I Suppose a carbot checks weather conditions on the internet,
sees that they are bad, and decides not to go. What then?
What if it is an emergency and the risk is warranted?
Carbots. . . 49/51
Change
This is a disruptive technology.
It will change many aspects of life for ordinary people.
I Getting a driver’s license is a rite of passage for our youth. It
is the first time they have had total responsibility for their
own safety and that of others. It is the first way in which a
teen becomes like an adult.
I These high-tech cars are expensive – extremely so. Car
ownership could become just one more thing that the poor
and the middle class cannot afford. Would they then call
taxis? This would continue to exacerbate the imbalance of
power between the 1% and the 99%.
I How will radar and lasers in continuous use affect health?
I The advantages of carbots will not be realized as long as they
share the roads with cars. At some point, the right of an
individual to choose to own an ordinary car may be at risk.
Carbots. . . 50/51

Change
Resources
Many thanks to Wikipedia and several news media for the
articles
from which this information was gleaned:
I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_learning
I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system
I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_self-driving_car
I http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/17/autos/google-self-
driving-car-injury-accident/index.html
I http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/02/google-self-driving-car-
strikes-bus-in-california/
I California’s Red Tape Slows Google’s Self-Driving Roll,
www.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2015-11-16.
I https://www.yahoo.com/tech/can-hackers-really-take-over-
your-car-110827803044.html
My apologies if I have omitted some of the sources.
Carbots. . . 51/51
The Vision and the Current RealityThe VisionCurrent
RealityThe Technology Hardware TechnologyHardware
TechnologyThe IssuesPublic PolicyWhere are we now?Brave
New WorldCostChange

ENG 115
ASSIGNMENT 3: STANCE ESSAY
Due Week 10 and worth 230 points
Congratulations! You made it to your final assignment, and you
have learned so much along the way.
• In the personal essay, you learned how to write with a strong
personal voice.
• In the informative essay, you learned how to write objectively
and support your points with credible sources to
inform the audience.
Now in your final assignment, you will combine these writing
techniques to write a stance essay. A stance essay takes a
position on a topic and argues and supports that position with
evidence. Consider your topic:
• What possible positions/arguments are there?
• What position resonates with you? (Which position do you
believe is correct?)
• What are your main points?
• What are the counterpoints? Are you ready to dispute them?
• Do you have enough evidence to effectively support your
argument?
For the stance essay, your personal voice (your perspective)
should come through. This is just like assignment 1, except
you should maintain a formal tone. And just like assignment 2,
you will need to support your points with credible sources.
You’re ready to take a position on the topic you have been
writing about and to be persuasive!
INSTRUCTIONS:

Compose a three-four (3-4) page paper in which you do the
following:
1. Use third person point of view (POV) and the appropriate
voice and tone throughout your paper.
a. Did you use third person pronouns? (he, she, they, their)
b. Does your personality carry over in your writing? Are your
word choices personal and consistent?
c. Is the tone formal? Does it express your atitude about the
topic?
2. Write an introduction paragraph, which includes your thesis
statement. It is suggested that this paragraph contain 5-7
sentences.
a. Does your introduction include solutions or approaches on
the topic?
b. Does your thesis statement include three supporting reasons
that clearly express your stance on the topic?
c. Is your thesis statement clear and concise?
d. Does your introduction provide a preview of the rest of your
essay?
3. Write a supporting/body paragraph for each of the three (3)
points/reasons from your thesis statement. It is suggest-
ed that each paragraph contain at least 5-7 sentences.
a. Do your body paragraphs support each point of your thesis
with relevant examples or statistics?
b. Do you address the opinions or concerns that your audience
might have?
c. Did you paraphrase, quote, or summarize properly to avoid
plagiarism? Did you comment on each quotation?
4. Write with logic and with transitions throughout your paper.

a. Are your ideas consistent and well-organized, i.e.,
chronological order or order of importance?
b. Do your ideas flow from one sentence to the next and one
paragraph to the next, in the order presented in your
thesis statement?
5. Write a conclusion paragraph. It is suggested that this
paragraph contain 5-7 sentences.
a. Did you paraphrase or restate the thesis in a new way?
b. Did you leave a lasting impression, so that your readers
continue thinking about your topic after they have
finished reading?
6. Apply proper grammar, mechanics, punctuation and APA
formatting throughout your paper.
a. Did you check your grammar?
i. The way words are put together to make units of meaning:
Sentence structure, pronoun-agreement,
etc.
b. Did you check your essay for mechanics?
i. All the “technical” stuff in writing: Spelling, capitalization,
use of numbers and other symbols, etc.
b. Did you check the punctuation?
i. The “symbols” used to help people read/process sentences the
way you want them to be heard and
understood: Periods, question marks, commas, colons, etc.
d. Did you format according to APA style? (See requirements
below.)

APA FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
Your assignment must follow these general APA formatting
requirements:
• Be typed, double-spaced, using Times New Roman font (size
12), with one-inch margins on all sides. It should
also have a running header, short title headers, numbered pages,
indented paragraphs, and a References List
with hanging indent(s).
• Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the
student’s name, the professor’s name, the
course title, and the date. Note: The cover page is not included
in the required assignment page length of
three-four (3-4) pages.
• In-text citations follow APA style, using attributive tags and
signal verbs.
• Did you cite at least four (4) sources (no more than two (2) of
the provided sources in the webtext)? Are your
sources credible?
• Refer to the Soomo webtext or check with your professor for
any additional instructions.
Points: 230 Assignment 3: Stance Essay
Criteria Unacceptable
Below 60% - F

Meets Minimum
Expectations
60-69% - D
Fair
70-79% - C
Proficient
80-89% - B
Exemplary
90-100% - A
1. Point of View
(POV), Voice, and
Tone
Weight: 10%
Did not use third
person POV at all
in the paper. Voice
is inconsistent
and lacks person-
ality or identity
throughout the
paper. Tone is not
formal and atti-
tude is unrecog-

nizable throughout
the paper.
Uses third person
POV in a couple
sentences of the
paper. Voice may
be inconsistent
and lacks person-
ality or identity
throughout most
of the paper. Tone
is mostly informal
and attitude is
mostly unrecog-
nizable throughout
most of the paper.
Uses third person
POV throughout
some of the paper.
Voice is somewhat
consistent and
personality or iden-
tity is somewhat
evident throughout
the paper. Tone is
fairly formal and
attitude is some-
what recognizable
throughout most of
the paper.
Uses third person
POV throughout
most of the paper.

Voice is mostly
consistent and
personality or
identity is evident
throughout most
of the paper. Tone
is adequately
formal and attitude
is recognizable
throughout the
paper.
Uses third person
POV throughout
the paper. Voice is
consistent and per-
sonality or identity
is evident through-
out the paper.
Tone is completely
formal and attitude
is easily recogniz-
able throughout
the paper.
2. Introduction
and Thesis
Weight: 15%
Introduction does
not include solu-
tions or approach-
es on the topic.
Thesis statement
does not include

3 supporting rea-
sons that clearly
expresses stance
on the topic; it is
not clear, and/or
it is wordy. It does
not give a preview
of the rest of the
essay.
Introduction
attempts to
offer solutions or
approaches on
the topic. Thesis
statement may not
include 3 support-
ing reasons and/
or may not clearly
express stance on
the topic; it is not
entirely clear; and/
or it is wordy. It
barely previews the
rest of the essay.
Introduction
includes partial
solutions or
approaches on the
topic. Thesis state-
ment includes 3
supporting reasons
and/or partially
expresses stance
on topic; it is fairly

clear, and/or con-
cise. It somewhat
previews the rest
of the essay.
Introduction
includes effec-
tive solutions or
approaches on the
topic. Thesis state-
ment includes 3
supporting reasons
and/or effectively
expresses stance
on topic; and is suf-
ficiently clear and
concise. It gives an
adequate preview
of the rest of the
essay.
Introduction
includes compel-
ling solutions or
approaches on
the topic. Thesis
statement includes
3 supporting rea-
sons and/or fully
expresses stance
on topic; and is
completely clear
and concise. It
gives a completely
effectual preview
of the rest of the

essay.
3. Supporting
Paragraphs
Weight: 20%
Did not write or
incompletely
wrote supporting
paragraphs for
each point from
the thesis state-
ment. Does not
consider opinions
or concerns of
the audience.
Does not properly
paraphrase and/or
comment on each
quote.
Insufficiently
wrote supporting
paragraphs for
each point from
the thesis state-
ment. Insufficient-
ly consider opin-
ions or concerns
of the audience.
Inadequately
paraphrases and/
or comments on
each quote.

Partially wrote
supporting para-
graphs for each
point from the
thesis statement.
Somewhat con-
siders opinions or
concerns of the
audience. Partially
paraphrases and/
or comments on
each quote.
Satisfactorily
wrote supporting
paragraphs for
each point from
the thesis state-
ment. Adequately
considers opin-
ions or concerns
of the audience.
Satisfactorily
paraphrases and/
or comments on
each quote.
Clearly wrote
supporting para-
graphs for each
point from the
thesis statement.
Fully considers
opinions or con-
cerns of the audi-
ence. Completely

paraphrases and/
or comments on
each quote.
Points: 230 Assignment 3: Stance Essay
Criteria Unacceptable
Below 60% - F
Meets Minimum
Expectations
60-69% - D
Fair
70-79% - C
Proficient
80-89% - B
Exemplary
90-100% - A
4. Transitions and
Logic

Weight: 15%
Ideas are incon-
sistent and/or are
not presented in a
logical order. Tran-
sition words are
not used effectively
to move from one
idea, paragraph,
and/or sentence to
the next through-
out the paper. Body
paragraphs are not
in the order pre-
sented in the thesis
statement.
Ideas may not be
consistent and/or
are inadequately
presented in a
sition words are
used ineffectively
to move from one
idea, paragraph,
and/or sentence to
the next through-
out most of the
paper. Body para-
graphs may not in
the order present-
ed in the thesis
statement.

Ideas are fairly
consistent and/
or are partially
presented in a
sition words are
used somewhat
effectively to move
from one idea,
paragraph, and/
or sentence to the
next throughout
some of the paper.
Body paragraphs
are partially in the
order presented in
the thesis state-
ment.
Ideas are mostly
consistent and/or
are presented in a
sition words are
used adequately
to move from idea,
paragraph, and/
or sentence to the
next throughout
most of the paper.
Body paragraphs
are mostly in the
order presented in
thesis statement.
Ideas are com-

pletely consistent
and/or are clearly
presented in a
logical order.
Transition words
are used effectively
to move from idea,
paragraph, and/
or sentence to the
next throughout
the paper. Body
paragraphs are in
the order pre-
sented in thesis
statement.
5. Conclusion
Weight: 15%
Conclusion does
not paraphrase or
rephrase the thesis
in a new way. It
does not leave a
lasting impression.
Conclusion at-
tempts to para-
phrase or rephrase
the thesis in a new
way. It attempts
to leave a lasting
impression.
Conclusion

paraphrases or
rephrases some of
the thesis in a new
way. It sufficiently
left a lasting im-
pression.
Conclusion ade-
quately paraphras-
es or rephrases
the thesis in a new
way. It was some-
what effective in
leaving a lasting
impression.
Conclusion effectu-
ally paraphrases or
rephrases the the-
sis in a new way.
It left a powerful
lasting impression.
6. Grammar,
Mechanics, Punc-
tuation, and APA
Formatting
Weight: 25%
There are more
than 8 mechanics,
grammar, and
punctuation errors.
The paper is not
double-spaced;

font is incorrect;
margins are not
one-inch on all
sides, and, there
may not be a cover
page. It does not
have headers,
pages numbers, in-
dented paragraphs,
and/or hanging
indents. Did not
appropriately use
in-text citations
throughout the
body. No Referenc-
es page.
There are 7-8 me-
chanics, grammar,
and punctuation
errors. The paper
is double-spaced;
font is correct;
margins are
one-inches on any
sides, and, there
is a cover page.
It only includes 1
of the following
elements: headers,
pages numbers, in-
dented paragraphs,
and/or hanging in-
dents. All citations
are missing or have
been used improp-

erly in the essay
and References
page.
There are 5-6 me-
chanics, grammar,
and punctuation
errors. The paper
is double-spaced;
font is correct; mar-
gins are one-inches
on any sides, and,
there is a cover
page. It includes
2 of the following
elements: headers,
pages numbers, in-
dented paragraphs,
and/or hanging
indents. Body
paragraphs include
in-text citations,
and attributive tags
and signal verbs
are sufficiently
used. Some in-
text citations are
improperly placed,
missing, or not
developed. Most
of the References
page is correct.
There are 3-4 me-
chanics, grammar,
and punctuation

errors. The paper
is double-spaced;
gins are one-inches
on any sides, and,
there is a cover
page. It includes
3 of the following
elements: headers,
pages numbers, in-
dented paragraphs,
and/or hanging
indents. Body
paragraphs include
in-text citations,
and signal verbs
are mostly effec-
tive. Two credible
sources are proper-
ly cited with some
errors. References
page is correct.
There are 0-2 me-
chanics, grammar,
and punctuation
errors. The paper
is double-spaced;
gins are one-inches
on any sides; and,
there is a cover
page. It includes
all of the following
elements: headers,

pages numbers, in-
dented paragraphs,
and/or hanging
indents. Body
paragraphs include
in-text citations,
and signal verbs
are effectively
used. Two cred-
ible sources are
properly cited with
few or no errors.
References page is
correct.
Outline Mutual Trust is the Basis of Society Ethics and the Law
Ethical Theories
What is Computer Ethics?
Alice E. Fischer
September 3, 2015
Law, Trust, and Ethics. . . 1/37
Ethical Theories
Mutual Trust is the Basis of Society

The Cyprus Problem
Genocide and Murder
Ethics and the Law
Ethical Theories
A Universal Ethic
Short Essay 5: Messy Situations
Ethical Theories
Mutual Trust is the Basis of Society
Society is Based on Trust
The Cyprus Problem Genocide and Murder
Ethical Theories
Society is Based on Trust
We live in a society; almost all people do.
I Within our society, the ideal is to have and to guarantee
personal freedom.
I But freedom is always relative. In the words of a well known

saying – Your freedom stops where my nose begins.
I Every society depends on its free citizens to follow common
rules that govern the peace and security of people and
property.
I When compliance stops, instability, unrest, anarchy, and civil
war follow.
Ethical Theories
Ethical Codes Enable Trust
I Codes of acceptable behavior come in many forms:
I professional codes of ethics,
I religious law,
I political law,
I international law,
I universal ethical standards that transcend all of those forms.
I All such codes are intended as a basis for a society in which
people can carry on their daily lives without fear of being
attacked or cheated or harmed by others.
I Civilized society needs this level of trust in order to function.

Ethical Theories
The Cyprus Problem
When Trust Fails: The Island of Cyprus
I For as long as anyone can remember, Cyprus has been home
to people of both Turkish and Greek descent, maintaining
their own languages, religions, and cultures.
I Until 1960, the island was a colony of the United Kingdom,
with the two factions coexisting peacefully, often sharing
schools, playgrounds, and communities.
I A militant Greek minority waged guerilla warfare against
Great
Britain, leading to the establishment of an independent
Cypriot government.
I In 1960, Britain gave Cyprus independence. A series of
treaties established a government and a constitution for the
island that gave the Greek majority many rights, but not the
right to seek unification with Greece.
Ethical Theories
The Cyprus Problem
The Nation of Cyprus
I After independence, the Greek militants did not disarm

because they did not like the terms of the treaties: they
wanted to become part of Greece.
I In 1962, the Greek majority of the government amended the
constitution to remove all guarantees of freedom and safety
for the Turkish minority.
I In December 1963, Greek Cypriots dressed as policemen
stopped a party of Turkish Cypriots returning home and
sprayed their vehicle with machine gun fire. One pregnant
woman survived long enough to tell friends what had
happened.
This broke the long-standing but fragile trust between the two
ethnic groups.
Ethical Theories
The Cyprus Problem
The Trust was Broken
I More Greek “policemen” started attempting to disarm the
Turks, and battle commenced.
I On Christmas day, the Greek army joined the Greek Cypriot
fighters. In the space of four days, 30,000 Cypriot Turks were
forced to leave 103 villages.
I Turkish Cypriots demanded protection, fled communities that
were mostly Greek, set up their own walled communities, and

tried to defend them.
I Civil war ensued; Greece urged the United Nations to
intercede, claiming that the Turks were the problem and the
only ones who did not want peace. (This is true, if you define
“peace” to mean total Greek control.)
Ethical Theories
The Cyprus Problem
No Man’s Land
In 1964, the United Nations sent a peace force to the island.
I The island was partitioned. An unofficial line, the “green
line”, was established between the Greeks on the south and
the Turks on the north.
I That line became an official border in 1983 when Turkey
unilaterally declared the independence of the Turkish Republic
of Northern Cyprus,
I This freed Turkey of any responsibility for the education and
social welfare of the impoverished Turkish Cypriots. However,
the Turkish army still defends the island, and drafts Turkish
Cypriots into the army.
Nobody benefited, and today, nearly fifty years later, there is
still
no sane peace on Cyprus.

Ethical Theories
Genocide and Murder
Genocide in Rwanda and Burundi
I Hutus (majority) and Tutsis (minority, in power) lived
side-by-side for hundreds of years in central Africa. They
spoke the same language, followed the same Tutsi king, and
intermarried. The country became independent and split into
two countries in 1962, Rwanda (Hutu) and Burundi (Tutsi).
I In 1994, hundreds of thousands of Tutsis and moderate Hutus
were killed. Then Tutsis won control, and a million Hutus fled
into nearby countries. Burundi was also consumed by civil
war. 150 thousand people were killed, mostly Tutsi civilians.
I The Tutsis gained power in 1996. Since then, 1100 civilians
were killed, mostly Hutu refugees.
I Refugees returned home in 2007, but will there be peace?
Will anybody trust anybody?
Ethical Theories
Genocide and Murder

Northern Ireland
Catholics (minority, nationalist anti-monarchy)
vs. Protestants (majority loyalist pro-monarchy).
I Ireland was partitioned in 1921, with loyalists in the north and
nationalists in the south.
I However, a substantial part of Northern Ireland was
dominated by nationalists, setting the scene for civil war.
Weapons were supplied by Irish-Americans and smuggled into
the civil war zone.
I Between 1969 and 1997, over 3,600 people were killed and
over 40,000 people were injured in bombings and shootings, in
Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Ethical Theories
Genocide and Murder
A Slow End to the Irish Civil War
I In 1994, the first officially sanctioned public peace talks took
place between Sinn Fein and British Officials.
I A peace agreement was signed in 1998, but disarmament did
not happen until 2006.
I Local government was restored to Northern Ireland in May

2007.
I Commerce and some level of normalcy has returned to
Northern Ireland.
I This month, the former leader of the IRA shook hands with
Queen Elizabeth, a symbolic move.
Ethical Theories
Genocide and Murder
Iraq
I Iraq: Sunnis vs. Shiites.
The Sunni minority was in control for 25 years.
I They slaughtered tens of thousands of Shiites and Kurds and
dumped them in mass graves.
I Now the Shiites are slaughtering Sunnis and Iran is supporting
them.
I Peace does not look near. Trust may never come.
Ethical Theories

Ethics and the Law
Ethics != Law
Situational Ethics and Relativism
Utilitarianism
A Universal Ethic
Ethical Theories
Ethics != Law
Ethics is not the same as Law:
I Ethics goes further: Professional codes of ethics go far beyond
laws in defining appropriate professional behavior.
I We try to find universal ethical principles. Laws are not
universal. Hitler wanted to live in a society without Jews, and
a lot of people were willing to go along with that. Gassing
Jews was legal at that time. We would not agree, however,
that it was right, moral, or ethical.
I Even after laws are enacted, people often argue militantly that
they violate basic ethical principles.

Ethical Theories
Ethics != Law
Most of the
things we do
Actions
considered by
the minority to
be wrong
Actions
considered by
the minority to
be right or
good
Actions we
agree are bad
Ethical Not Ethical
Le
ga
l
N
ot
L
eg

al
Ethical Theories
Both Legal and Ethical
Most of the things we do are both legal and ethical.
People don’t argue about these things:
I Buying a home or a car or a computer.
I Going to school to learn a profession.
I A man and a woman getting married when both are adult and
sane.
I Breeding plants to produce disease-resistant strains (as long
as we don’t introduce genes from other plants).
Ethical Theories
Neither Legal nor Ethical
Most civilized people find these things repugnant.
There is little debate:

I Leaving a new baby in a dumpster
I Using a child for sex
I Holding a suspected child molester in jail without charging
that person with any crime.
I Keeping 40 pit bull terriers in stacks of small unheated cages
for breeding. (East Haven, 2010.)
I Going to school to learn bomb-making and terrorism
Ethical Theories
Today’s Ethical Issues
Many controversial things are legal, or legal in some places but
not
others. People argue about whether these things are ethical:
I Abortion on demand (and picketing Planned Parenthood
offices).
I The death penalty
I The war against terrorism
I Genetically modifying plants that will enter our food chain
I Testing cosmetics for safety by rubbing them in the eyes of
rabbits

Ethical Theories
Today’s Legal Issues
Many things are clearly not legal, but large numbers of people
think they should be.
I Smoking anywhere you feel like smoking
I Growing, selling, and smoking pot
I Music file-sharing
I Stem cell research (using fetal tissues procured by abortion)
I Universal, publicly subsidized, affordable, health care
These issues form the battleground of political activists.
Ethical Theories
Laws
I Civil authorities create laws when the heavy majority of their
citizens believe that a new law is both needed and right.

I A government cannot enforce a law that is not supported by
the people. All power derives from the consent of the
governed. [John Locke]
I The tyranny of the majority then becomes a problem. It could
happen that the majority of the citizens support a law or a
governmental action (such as war against ISIS or same-sex
marriage). If the minority is heavily convinced that the law is
unfair or wrong, or the action is evil, what happens?
Ethical Theories
Civil Disobedience
If a minority is convinced that a law is unfair or wrong, or evil
–
I In a free society, they protest, write, talk and argue.
I They may or may not sway the majority.
I In frustration, some extremists may “take the law into their
own hands” and protest in some illegal way, sometimes
believing that it will get attention for their cause. [Think of
the civil rights movement of the 1960’s.]
I Often, the majority opinion changes, but slowly. Sometimes
an opposing force arises with its own screaming and shouting.
[Think of the battles over abortion, with two sides equally
militant.]

Ethical Theories
Professional Ethics
Many ethical issues go beyond the law – existing laws simply
do
not govern them. This is the territory of professional ethics.
I The proper relationship between employer and employee: duty
and loyalty
I Use of professional knowledge and skills to benefit society,
not
harm others.
I Your responsibility to follow best practices in your profession.
I Your responsibility when you learn about illegal or
unprofessional acts by others.
I Your responsibility with the information that you control.
I Your responsibility, as a world citizen, to others and to the
environment.
These issues are the topics of this course.

Ethical Theories
Informal Ethical Theories
I Common sense and Mom.
I Situational Ethics: if it feels good, do it.
I Ethical Egoism: It is OK if it benefits me the most.
I Subjective Relativism: Morality is an individual’s own
creation.
I Cultural Relativism: Each society determines its own morality.
Ethical Theories
Common sense doesn’t work
I “Everybody knows” what is right and what is wrong. We can
all tell good from evil. [Uh... but that is simply not true!
What about the woman who drowned her children?]
I The mom test: It’s OK if you would be willing to tell Mom
about it. [My mom, maybe, but what about the mom who
drove the getaway car when her under-16 son wanted to rob a
store?]

Ethical Theories
Situational ethics: it’s OK if it seems OK at the time
The problem is, times change, opinions change, and people
change.
I A young person went to a clinic for an abortion. People were
outside yelling and screaming “murderer”. At the time,
though, she thought it was the right thing to do, and went
into the clinic for the procedure.
I Later she told her friend that she now believes she is a
murderer.
Ethical Theories
Ethical Egoism
I I seems OK to do this, I can’t think of a good reason not to
. . .
I This act supports my larger political agenda. [Hackers who
download and post personal data].
I What kind of society do I want to live in? An act is right if it
is consistent with that kind of society. [The Cypriot Turks
want to live in a society without Greeks. Does that make it

ethical to drive out the Greeks?]
Ethical Theories
Subjective Relativism
Morality is an individuals own creation.
I I think that waste is wrong. Does that mean you should not
throw out food?
I My idea of morality changes slowly as times change.
I Can we ever really agree on a meaningful set of principles?
Relativism == moral anarchy
Ethical Theories
Cultural Relativism
What kind of society do my neighbors and friends want to live
in?
I This ethical theory makes law and ethics almost synonyms.

I We know that laws change constantly to reflect the way of life
desired by the majority.
I But do we want our idea of ethics to be that wishy-washy?
I Does right and wrong depend on the time and place? [Is it
ethical, now, to use contraceptives? was it not ethical 50
years ago when they were illegal in Massachusetts?] [Is it
moral or immoral to work on Sunday? In 1960, it was illegal in
Massachusetts.]
Ethical Theories
A Universal Ethic
Formal Ethical Theories
I Objectivism: Ayn Rand. Rational self-interest: the purpose of
life is pursuit of one’s own happiness
I Divine command theory: God provided guidelines through
holy books. Organized religions may disagree on right and
wrong. [Is it right to suicide-bomb a synagogue?]
I Utilitarianism: OK if it increases the total happiness of the
world.
I Kantianism: The effect of my acts on others is centrally
important.

Ethical Theories
A Universal Ethic
Objectivism: Ayn Rand and Rational Self-Interest
This is the favored philosophy of the libertarian movement.
I Human beings use senses to perceive reality, that exists
independently of consciousness.
I One can gain knowledge from perception through concept
formation and logic.
I The proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s
own happiness.
I The only social system consistent with this morality is
laissez-faire capitalism.
I Altruism can and should be consistent with self interest.
Question: Is it ethical for a CEO’s salary to be 400 times that of
his lowest-paid full time worker?
Ethical Theories

A Universal Ethic
Divine Command Theory
Our holy books tell us how to live, but there are problems:
I We need ethics for athiests, also.
I What if one holy book conflicts with another?
I What if it conflicts with parts of itself?
I These writings are heavily interpreted by our current
“experts”. The resulting opinions vary over time.
Ethical Theories
A Universal Ethic
Utilitarianism
The most good for the most people
I Problem: the prisoner’s life. According to this theory, a
condemned prisoner should be killed and his organs harvested
for transplant, as soon as enough recipients have been
identified with the matching genotype. So is it right to kill
because several others will benefit?
I Watch the movie “Breaker Morant” for a thorough
consideration of executing one man to save many lives.

Ethical Theories
A Universal Ethic
A Universal Good?
Can we find a universal definition of “good” and “right”?
I Is there even one thing that everyone on Earth can agree
about?
I Possibly the worst human act is murder. However, Saddam
Hussein, Stalin, and Hitler all believed that society would be
better if certain groups of people were eliminated, and they
acted aggressively on that belief.
I There are people today who believe that killing is wrong, in
general, but it is right to kill group xxx or people who have
done yyyy, or babies that are unwanted.
Ethical Theories
A Universal Ethic
Kant Tried to Define Good without God

The golden rule was “improved” by Immanuel Kant
I Kant’s categorical imperative:
“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.”
I “Other people” are ends in themselves. Is it because people
are different from dogs? Is this based on the idea that people
have a soul or self-consciousness?
I What about other living things?
I Where does this imperative end?
I Is it OK to eat a hamburger? a soybean? a carrot?
Ethical Theories
Short Essay 5
Choose one of the following “messy situations”. Use the
internet
to learn about the events and issues.
I Barbie with a brain records everything the child says.
I TV’s that spy on you and send the info “home”.

I The Internet of Things: developments and problems.
I VW diesel car emissions
I The cost of an old drug: Epipen
I Or propose your own “messy situation” and submit it to me
for approval.
(continued on the next slide)
Ethical Theories
Instructions
Write one or two paragraphs describing the issue in moderate
detail, including names, companies, dates, etc. Then write four
more paragraphs about:
I An action that was legal and ethical.
I An action that was legal but not ethical.
I An action that was ethical but not legal.
I An action that was not ethical and not legal.
Support all your statements with facts.

Mutual Trust is the Basis of SocietyThe Cyprus
ProblemGenocide and MurderEthics and the LawEthical
TheoriesA Universal EthicShort Essay 5: Messy Situations

Outline The Vision and the Current Reality The Technology The .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Outline The Vision and the Current Reality The Technology The .docx

Similar to Outline The Vision and the Current Reality The Technology The .docx (16)

More from gerardkortney

More from gerardkortney (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Outline The Vision and the Current Reality The Technology The .docx