






|
 |
Revolution, more than any other kind of change, means
that two processes take place simultaneously: the process of creation
and the process of destruction. The problem is that in a human society
this usually causes conflict, because both creation and destruction can
be regarded as a positive (good) or negative (bad/evil) process. The assessment
depends on the values accepted by the people (individuals or groups) who
are exposed to the revolutionary changes.
Moor writes: “On my view, computer ethics is a dynamic and complex
field of study which considers the relationships among facts, conceptualizations,
policies and values with regard to constantly changing computer technology.”
(Moor, 1985, p. 267) This is a broad enough definition to be accepted
by almost everybody; but a problem arises when we realize how many people
may be affected by and interested in those “facts, conceptualizations,
policies and values” – how diverse this group is. In my opinion,
we are talking about the whole population of the globe! Computers do not
know borders. Computer networks, unlike other mass-media, have a truly
global character. Hence, when we are talking about computer ethics, we
are talking about an emerging global ethic – and we are talking about
all areas of human life, since computers affect them all. What does this
mean for the understanding of what computer ethics is?
For one thing, computer ethics cannot be just another professional ethics.
Writers like Deborah Johnson (Johnson, 1994) and Donald Gotterbarn (Gotterbarn,
1992) sometimes appear to assert that computer ethics is simply a kind
of professional ethics. I support wholeheartedly the idea of a code of
ethics for computer professionals. However, there are at least two problems
that arise if we take computer ethics to be just a type of professional
ethics:
1. Unlike, say, physicians or lawyers, computer professionals
cannot prevent or regulate activities that are similar to their own
but performed by nonprofessionals. Therefore, although many of the rules
of conduct for physicians or lawyers do not apply to those outside of
the profession, the rules of computer ethics, no matter how well thought
through, will be ineffective unless respected by the vast majority of
– maybe even all – computer users. This means that, in the
future, the rules of computer ethics should be respected by the majority
(or all) of the human inhabitants of the Earth. In other words, computer
ethics should become universal, it should be a global ethic.
2. Let’s assume that computer ethics applies only to computer professionals.
Such professionals are not totally isolated from the society in which
they function. The role of their profession is significantly determined
by the general structure of the society in which they are included.
At present, there exist various societies and cultures on earth. Many
of them function within different ethical systems than those predominantly
accepted in the United States or even in the “western world.”
Hence professional ethics, including ethical codes for computer professionals,
may differ among cultures to the point of conflict. And even if they
do not differ, conflict may still be unavoidable. Example: computer
professionals in two countries who happen to be at war may obey the
same rule that computers should be used
to strengthen national security. In such a situation, computers may
become a weapon more deadly than the atomic bomb. Discussions like those
about scientists responsible for the use of nuclear energy may now apply
to computer professionals. And given the power of computer technology,
the potential for destruction may be even greater than the case of the
atomic bomb.
Or consider another example: it is well known that the United States
CIA monitors the Internet for security reasons. However, the question
arises whether this means that certain ethical rules, such as respecting
privacy, do not apply to certain people? If the CIA does not need to
respect an ethical code, who else is entitled to break the rules and
on what grounds? If one country can do it, what moral
imperatives should stop other countries from doing the same? Let’s
assume that such moral rules could be found. If they are better, why
shouldn’t they be applied on a global scale?
Problems like those described above will become more obvious
and more serious in the future when the global character of cyberspace
makes it possible to affect the lives of people in places very distant
from the acting subject’s location. This happens already today, but
in the future it will have a much more profound character. Actions in
cyberspace will not be local. Therefore, the ethical rules for such actions
cannot be rooted in a particular local culture, unless the creators of
computer ethics accept the view that the function of computers is to serve
as a tool in gaining and maintaining dominion over the world by one particular
group of humans. I would like very much to believe that this is not the
case. I would like to believe Smarr’s optimistic comment (quoted
in Broad, 1993):
It’s the one unifying technology that can help us
rise above the epidemic of tribal animosities we’re seeing world
wide. One wants a unifying fabric for the human race. The Internet is
pointing in that direction. It promotes a very egalitarian culture at
a time when the world is fragmenting at a dizzying pace.
This may be yet another example of wishful thinking, though.
And I worry that scholars in computer ethics may contribute to the problem,
if they do not fully realize the importance of their undertaking. It seems
to me that, unfortunately, the scholars who have chosen to explore the
field of computer ethics have been too modest in defining the area of
investigation, as well as the importance of the subject.
Back to the top
Go to: End Notes
Home > Research
Resources > On the Emerging
Global Information Ethics > The Computer Revolution and the Problem
of Global Ethics
|