Module1Commentary.pdf

6/23/21, 8:02 AMModule 1 Commentary

Page 1 of 15https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/ifsm/ifsm304/2215/modules/m1-module-1/s3-commentary.html?ou=581297

Module 1: Introduc!on to Ethical
Theories

Topics

Introduc!on to Ethical Theories

Teleology (Consequen!alism)

Deontology (Rights and Du!es)

Computer Ethics

Introduc!on to Ethical Theories

The concepts of ethics, character, right and wrong, and good and evil have

cap!vated humankind since we began to live in groups, communicate, and pass

judgment on each other. The morality of our ac!ons is based on mo!va!on,

group rules and norms, and the end result. The difficult ques!ons of ethics and

informa!on technology (IT) may not have been considered by previous

genera!ons, but what is good, evil, right, and wrong in human behavior certainly

has been. With these historical founda!ons and systema!c analyses of present-

day and future IT challenges, we are equipped for both the varied ethical ba#les

we will face and the ethical successes we desire.

Although most of you will be called upon to prac!ce applied ethics in typical

business situa!ons, you’ll find that the founda!on for such applica!on is a basic

understanding of fundamental ethical theories. These ethical theories include the

work of ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. This module introduces

the widely accepted core ethical philosophies, which will serve to provide you

javascript:;

6/23/21, 8:02 AMModule 1 Commentary

Page 2 of 15https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/ifsm/ifsm304/2215/modules/m1-module-1/s3-commentary.html?ou=581297

with a basic understanding of ethical thought. With this knowledge, you can

begin to relate these theore!cal frameworks to prac!cal ethical applica!ons in

today’s IT environment.

Let’s start with a fundamental ques!on: “Why be ethical and moral?” At the most

existen!al level, it may not ma#er. But we don’t live our lives in a vacuum—we

live our lives with our friends, rela!ves, acquaintances, co-workers, strangers,

and fellow wanderers. To be ethical and moral allows us to be counted upon by

others and to be be#er than we would otherwise be. This, in turn, engenders

trust and allows us to have produc!ve rela!onships with other people and in

society. Our ethical system, supported by cri!cal thinking skills, is what enables

us to make dis!nc!ons between what is good, bad, right, or wrong.

An individual’s ethical system is based upon his or her personal values and

beliefs as they relate to what is important and is, therefore, highly individualized.

Values are things that are important to us. “Values can be categorized into three

areas: Moral (fairness, truth, jus!ce, love, happiness), Pragma!c (efficiency, thri$,

health, variety, pa!ence) and Aesthe!c (a#rac!ve, so$, cold, square)” (Navran,

n.d.). Moral values influence our ethical system. These values may or may not be

supported by individual beliefs. For example, a person is faced with a decision—

he borrowed a friend’s car and accidentally backed into a tree stump, den!ng the

fender—should he confess or make up a story about how it happened when the

car was parked? If he had a personal value of honesty, he would decide not to lie

to his friend. Or, he could have a strong belief that lying is wrong because it

shows disrespect for another person and, therefore, he would tell the truth. In

either case, the ethical decision making was influenced by his system of values or

beliefs. These may come from family, culture, experience, educa!on, and so on.

This discussion brings us to the term ethics. Frank Navran, principal consultant

with the Ethics Resource Center (ERC), defines ethics as “the study of what we

understand to be good and right behavior and how people make those

javascript:;

javascript:;

6/23/21, 8:02 AMModule 1 Commentary

Page 3 of 15https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/ifsm/ifsm304/2215/modules/m1-module-1/s3-commentary.html?ou=581297

judgments” (n.d.). Behavior that is consistent with one’s moral values would be

considered ethical behavior. Ac!ons that are inconsistent with one’s view of

right, just, and good are considered unethical behavior. However, it is important

to note that determining what is ethical is not just an individual decision—it also

is determined societally.

We will witness this larger social dimension in this course, which is designed to

provide you with an understanding of the specific ethical issues that have arisen

as informa!on technology has evolved over the last few decades. The very

changes that enhanced technology causes in society also create ethical issues

and dilemmas not previously encountered. The lack of precedent in many areas,

combined with the ease of poten!ally opera!ng outside of ethical paradigms,

pose significant challenges to end users, IT analysts, programmers, technicians,

and managers of informa!on systems. We must be prepared logically and

scien!fically to understand ethics and to prac!ce using ethical guidelines in

to achieve good and right solu!ons and to plan courses of ac!on in !mes

of change and uncertainty.

You can see from the benefits discussed above that knowledge, respect for, and

a deeper understanding of norms and laws and their source—ethics and morals—

is extremely useful. Ethical thought and theories are tools to facilitate our ethical

decision-making process. They can provide the founda!on on which to build a

great company, or to become a be#er and more produc!ve employee, a be#er

neighbor, and a be#er person. S!ll, some professionals may wonder “Why study

ethics?” Robert Hartley, author of Business Ethics: Viola!ons of the Public Trust

(Hartley, 1993, pp. 322–324) closes his book with four insights, which speak

directly to this ques!on for business and IT professionals. They are:

The modern era is one of caveat vendidor, “Let the seller beware.” For IT

managers, this is an important reason to understand and prac!ce ethics.

6/23/21, 8:02 AMModule 1 Commentary

Page 4 of 15https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/ifsm/ifsm304/2215/modules/m1-module-1/s3-commentary.html?ou=581297

In business (and in life), adversity is not forever. But Hartley points out that

when business problems are handled unethically, the adversity becomes a

permanent flaw and results in company, organiza!on, and individual failure.

Trus!ng rela!onships (with customers, employees, and suppliers) are cri!cal

keys to success. Ethical behavior is part and parcel of building and

maintaining the trust rela!onship, and hence business success.

One person can make a difference. This difference may be for good or evil,

but one person equipped with the understanding of ethical decision-making,

either by ac!ng on it or simply ar!cula!ng it to others, changes history. This

some!mes takes courage or steadfastness—quali!es that spring from basic

ethical confidence.

In the world of informa!on technology today and in the future, the applica!on of

these ethical theories to day-to-day and strategic decision making is par!cularly

relevant. The ability to garner personal, corporate, and governmental informa!on

and to disseminate this data in thousands of applica!ons with various

configura!ons and components brings significant responsibili!es to ensure the

privacy, accuracy, and integrity of such informa!on. The drive to collect and

distribute data at increasing volume and speed, whether for compe!!ve

advantage in the marketplace or homeland security cannot overshadow the IT

manager’s responsibility to provide appropriate controls, processes, and

procedures to protect individual and organiza!onal rights.

Let’s begin building our understanding of several predominant ethical theories.

Ethical theories typically begin with the premise that what is being evaluated is

good or bad, right or wrong. Theorists seek to examine either the basic nature of

the act or the results the act brings about. As Deborah Johnson (2001, p. 29)

states in Computer Ethics, philosophical ethics is norma!ve (explaining how

things should be, not how they are at any given moment) and ethical theories are

6/23/21, 8:02 AMModule 1 Commentary

Page 5 of 15https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/ifsm/ifsm304/2215/modules/m1-module-1/s3-commentary.html?ou=581297

prescrip!ve (prescribing the “desired” behavior). Frameworks for ethical analysis

aim to shape or guide the most beneficial outcome or behavior. There are two

main categories of norma!ve ethical theories: teleology and deontology. Telos

refers to end and deon refers to that which is obligatory. These theories address

the fundamental ques!on of whether the “means jus!fy the end” or the “end

jus!fies the means.” Deontological ethical systems focus on the principle of the

ma#er (the means), not the end result. In contrast, teleological ethical systems

address the resul!ng consequences of an ac!on (the ends).

Return to top of page

Teleology (Consequen!alism)

Teleological theories focus on maximizing the goodness of the cumula!ve end

result of a decision or ac!on. In determining ac!on, one considers the good of

the end result before the immediate rightness of the ac!on itself. These theories

focus on consequences of an ac!on or decision and are o$en referred to as

consequen!alism. Teleological theories include u!litarianism, ethical egoism, and

common good ethics.

U!litarianism

The most prevalent example of a teleological theory is u!litarianism, o$en

associated with the wri!ngs of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham.

U!litarianism looks for the greatest good for the greatest number of people,

including oneself. Individual rights and en!tlements are subservient to the

general welfare. There are two main subtypes: act-u!litarianism (for which the

rules are more like rules-of-thumb/guidelines) and rule-u!litarianism (for which

the rules are more !ghtly defined and cri!cal). U!litarianism requires

considera!on of ac!ons that generate the best overall consequences for all

par!es involved. This entails:

javascript:;

6/23/21, 8:02 AMModule 1 Commentary

Page 6 of 15https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/ifsm/ifsm304/2215/modules/m1-module-1/s3-commentary.html?ou=581297

cost/benefit analysis

determina!on of the greatest good or happiness for the greatest number

iden!fying the ac!on that will maximize benefits for the greatest number of

stakeholders of the organiza!on

This quote explains a bit more: “The fathers of u!litarianism thought of it

principally as a system of social and poli!cal decision, as offering a criterion and

basis of judgment for legislators and administrators” (Williams, 1993, p. 135).

U!litarianism is geared to administra!ve and organiza!onal decision-making,

given that in complex systems or rela!onships, a single individual may not have

the resources to determine the overall benefit to the total number of people

affected by the decisions.

Ethical Egoism and Altruism

Egoism is maximizing your own benefits and minimizing harm to yourself. This is

some!mes thought of as behavioral Darwinism, and clearly it guides decision-

making with an eye toward basic survival. Although different aspects of this

theory debate whether all human behavior is self-serving or should be self-

serving, it is impossible to know with certainty what internally mo!vates an

individual.

Altruism determines decisions and ac!ons based on the interests of others, the

perceived maximized good for others, o$en at one’s own expense or in a way

directly opposed to the egoist alterna!ve.

Further debate can be found over whether ethical egoism also incorporates an

element of altruism. For example, a network engineer working for a vendor

recommends to a client a network security installa!on that generates a

substan!al commission for the engineer. However, this installa!on also provides

maximum network security for the benefit of the client. Is this self-serving or

javascript:;

javascript:;

javascript:;

6/23/21, 8:02 AMModule 1 Commentary

Page 7 of 15https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/ifsm/ifsm304/2215/modules/m1-module-1/s3-commentary.html?ou=581297

altruis!c? The inability to dis!nguish pure mo!ves in most prac!cal applica!ons,

along with the inherent conflict resul!ng from compe!ng self-interests, leads to

an unsurprising result: these theories are not typically used in generally accepted

frameworks for ethical decision-making.

The Common Good

The common-good approach comes from the teachings and wri!ngs of Plato,

Aristotle, Cicero, and Rawls. It is based on an assump!on that within our society,

certain general condi!ons are equally advantageous to all and should therefore

be maximized. These condi!ons include health care, safety, peace, jus!ce, and

the environment. This is different from u!litarianism in that u!litarianism strives

for the maximum good for the most (but not necessarily all) people. The

common-good approach sets aside only those condi!ons that apply to all.

All teleological theories focus on the end result: what’s best for me, what’s best

for you, or what’s best for some or all of us. One important factor in using

teleological frameworks as a guide to ac!on is that you need to be able to

understand accurately and project the end result for the variety of affected

groups. For egoism and altruism, this is perhaps not difficult. For larger, more

remote, and less-well-understood groups, teleological theories can lead to acts

that in turn become the bricks paving the road of good inten!ons. However, in

informa!on technology, where many people are affected either posi!vely or

nega!vely by the acts of a few, teleological theories can be very helpful.

Return to top of page

Deontology (Rights and Du!es)

6/23/21, 8:02 AMModule 1 Commentary

Page 8 of 15https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/ifsm/ifsm304/2215/modules/m1-module-1/s3-commentary.html?ou=581297

Deontological theories focus on defining the right ac!on independently of and

prior to considera!ons of the goodness or badness of the outcomes. The prefix

deon refers to duty or obliga!on—one acts because one is bound by honor or

training to act in the right manner, regardless of the outcome. Deontological

theories include those that focus on protec!on of universal rights and execu!on

of universal du!es, as well as those that protect less universal rights and more

specific du!es. These rights and du!es are usually learned and are o$en codified

in some tradi!onal way. For example, theologism is a deontological theory based

on the Ten Commandments. Boy Scouts have a code that is intended as a guide

to the rights of others and personal du!es. Deontology uses one’s duty as the

guide to ac!on, regardless of the end results.

Kant’s Categorical Impera!ve

Deontological theories are most o$en associated with Immanuel Kant and his

categorical impera!ve. Kant’s famous categorical impera!ve takes two forms:

1. You ought never act in any way unless that way or act can be made into a

universal maxim (i.e., your act may be universalized for all people), and

2. Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of

another, always as an end and never only as a means.

Kant’s duty-based approach might directly conflict with teleological approaches,

for in a u!litarian solu!on, individuals could very easily serve as the means for

other ends. Duty-based ethical analysis leads a manager to consider the

following ques!ons:

1. What if everyone did what I’m about to do? What kind of world would this

be? Can I universalize the course of ac!on I am considering?

2. Does this course of ac!on violate any basic ethical du!es?

6/23/21, 8:02 AMModule 1 Commentary

Page 9 of 15https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/ifsm/ifsm304/2215/modules/m1-module-1/s3-commentary.html?ou=581297

3. Are there alterna!ves that be#er conform to these du!es? If each

alterna!ve seems to violate one duty or another, which is the stronger duty?

Duty-Based Ethics (Pluralism)

A duty-based approach to ethics focuses on the universally recognized du!es

that we are morally compelled to do. There are several “du!es” that are

recognized by most cultures as being binding and self-evident. These du!es

include being honest, being fair, making repara!ons, working toward self-

improvement, and not hur!ng others. A duty-based approach would put these

obliga!ons ahead of the end result, regardless of what it may be. Pluralism

includes the care-based ethical approach based simply on the Golden Rule, “Do

unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Rights-Based Ethics (Contractarianism)

A rights-based approach to ethics has its roots in the social contract philosophies

of Rousseau, Hobbes, and John Locke. These ideas are also at the founda!on of

the United States form of government and history, and rights (whether natural or

granted by governments) are intensely held American ideological values. Because

the global informa!on technology leadership is fundamentally an American

crea!on, contractarian philosophical approaches in IT are widely used, even if we

don’t think about it overtly. When invoking a rights-based or contractarian

framework, managers must carefully consider the rights of affected par!es:

Which ac!on or policy best upholds the human rights of the individuals

involved?

Do any alterna!ves under considera!on violate their fundamental human

rights (i.e., liberty, privacy, and so on)?

javascript:;

javascript:;

6/23/21, 8:02 AMModule 1 Commentary

Page 10 of 15https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/ifsm/ifsm304/2215/modules/m1-module-1/s3-commentary.html?ou=581297

Do any alterna!ves under considera!on violate their ins!tu!onal or legal

rights (e.g., rights derived from a contract or other ins!tu!onal

arrangement)?

Fairness and Jus!ce

The fairness-and-jus!ce approach is based on the teachings of Aristotle. It is

quite simple: equals should be treated equally. Favori!sm, a situa!on where

some benefit for no jus!fiable reason, is unethical. Discrimina!on, a situa!on

where a burden is imposed on some who are not relevantly different from the

others, is also unethical. This approach is deontological because it simply

iden!fies a right and a duty, and does not specifically consider the end result.

Virtue Ethics

Whereas teleological theories focus on results or consequences and

deontological theories relate to rights and du!es, the virtue ethics approach

a#ributes ethics to personal a&tudes or character traits and encourages all to

develop to their highest poten!al. This theory includes the virtues themselves:

“mo!ves and moral character, moral educa!on, moral wisdom or discernment,

friendship and family rela!onships, a deep concept of happiness, the role of

emo!ons in one’s moral life and the fundamentally important ques!ons of what

sort of person I should be and how I should live my life” (Hursthouse, 2003).

When faced with an ethical dilemma, a virtue ethicist would focus on the

character traits of honesty, generosity, or compassion, for example, rather than

consequences or rules. Virtue ethics is included in the area of what is referred to

as norma!ve ethics.

The table below helps to organize the various ethical theories for you. Note that

these theories have evolved over !me, and there are some overlapping ideas and

theorists.

javascript:;

6/23/21, 8:02 AMModule 1 Commentary

Page 11 of 15https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/ifsm/ifsm304/2215/modules/m1-module-1/s3-commentary.html?ou=581297

Major Ethical Theories

Theory Key Players Explana!on

U!litarianism

John Stuart

Mill, Jeremy

Bentham

Seeks the greatest good

for the greatest number

of people; wants to make

the world a be#er place

Egoism

Epicurus,

Thomas

Hobbes

Seeks to maximize one’s

individual benefit and

minimize harm to self;

key idea: survival.

Altruism Auguste Comte

Seeks to maximize

decisions and ac!ons

based on interests of

others, even if at own

individual expense;

opposite of egoism.

Common Good

Plato, Aristotle,

Cicero and

Rawls

Based on the assump!on

that within society, we

are all pursuing common

goals and values.

Duty-Based or

Pluralism
Immanuel Kant

Based on Kant’s

categorical impera!ve: all

acts can be made into a

universal maximum; act

always as an end (not a

means)

6/23/21, 8:02 AMModule 1 Commentary

Page 12 of 15https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/ifsm/ifsm304/2215/modules/m1-module-1/s3-commentary.html?ou=581297

Rights-Based

(Contractarianism)

Rousseau,

Hobbes, and

John Locke

Seeks ac!on or policy

that best upholds the

human rights of

individuals involved

(founda!on for United

States form of

government).

Fairness and

Jus!ce Approach
Aristotle

Equals should be treated

equally; favori!sm and

discrimina!on are

unethical.

Virtue

Predominantly

influenced by

Plato and

Ar!stotle

Seeks to encourage all to

develop to their highest

poten!al

Return to top of page

Computer Ethics

What is computer ethics? This term can be used in a variety of ways. It may refer

to applying tradi!onal ethical theories to IT situa!ons, or it may entail the

broader applica!on that we see with the prevalence of ethical codes, standards

of conduct, and new areas of computer law and policy. There also is an increasing

interest in how sociology and psychology relate to compu!ng. Scholars generally

agree that the study of computer ethics began with Norbert Wiener, an MIT

professor who worked during World War II to develop an an!-aircra$ cannon.

His work in the 1940s prompted Wiener and his associates to create a new field

of study that Wiener labeled cyberne!cs. Their work fostered the development

javascript:;

6/23/21, 8:02 AMModule 1 Commentary

Page 13 of 15https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/ifsm/ifsm304/2215/modules/m1-module-1/s3-commentary.html?ou=581297

of several ethical conclusions regarding the poten!al implica!ons of this type of

advanced technology. Wiener published his book, The Human Use of Human

Beings, in 1950. Although the term computer ethics was not used by Wiener and

it was decades later that the term came into general use, his work certainly laid

the founda!on for future study and analysis. His book became a cornerstone for

the study of computer ethics. In it, Wiener talks about the purpose of human life

and the four principles of jus!ce, but he also offers discussion, applica!on, and

examples of what would come to be recognized as computer ethics. (Bynum,

2001)

It wasn’t un!l the 1970s that computer ethics began to garner interest. Walter

Maner, a university professor then at Old Dominion University, offered a course

in computer ethics to examine the ethical problems created, exacerbated, or

changed due to computer technology (Bynum, 2001). Through the 70s and 80s,

interest increased in this area, and in 1985, Deborah Johnson (previously

referenced in this module) authored the first textbook on the subject, Computer

Ethics. Both Maner and Johnson advocated the applica!on of concepts from the

ethical theories of u!litarianism and Kan!anism. However, in 1985, James Moor

published a broader defini!on of computer ethics in his ar!cle “What is

Computer Ethics?” He states: “computer ethics is the analysis of the nature and

social impact of computer technology and the corresponding formula!on and

jus!fica!on of policies for the ethical use of such technology” (Moor, 1985, p.

266). His defini!on was in line with several frameworks for ethical problem-

solving rather than the specific applica!on of any philosopher’s theory. With the

poten!ally limitless ability of compu!ng comes a dynamic, evolu!onary flow of

related ethical dilemmas. Moor indicated that as computer technology became

more entwined with people and their everyday ac!vi!es, the ethical challenges

would become more difficult to conceptualize and do not lend themselves to the

development of a sta!c set of rules (Moor, 1985).

6/23/21, 8:02 AMModule 1 Commentary

Page 14 of 15https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/ifsm/ifsm304/2215/modules/m1-module-1/s3-commentary.html?ou=581297

Throughout the 1990s and con!nuing into the new millennium, we’ve seen

tremendous developments in the field of technology. Not surprisingly, with these

developments, we’ve seen the wide-spread adop!on of computers to almost

every applica!on imaginable, including the affordability and prevalence of

computers in homes and businesses. Professional associa!ons have adopted

codes of conduct for their members, organiza!ons have developed ethical codes

and standards of conduct for employees, and the IT field has focused increased

efforts in addressing the ethical situa!ons and challenges that have unfolded.

In the following modules, we will explore how to apply these tradi!onal theories

and analysis and problem-solving frameworks to effec!vely understand and

address ethical challenges in the informa!on age.

Return to top of page

References

Bynum, T. (2001).Computer ethics: Basic concepts and historical overview. In

E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2001 ed.).

Retrieved July 7, 2005, from

h#p://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2001/entries/ethics-computer/

Hartley, R. F. (1993). Business ethics: Viola!ons of the public trust. New York:

John Wiley.

Hursthouse, R. (2003). Virtue ethics. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford

encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2003 ed.). Retrieved July 2, 2005, from

h#p://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2003/entries/ethics-virtue/

Johnson, D. G. (2001). Computer ethics (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New

Jersey: Pren!ce Hall.

6/23/21, 8:02 AMModule 1 Commentary

Page 15 of 15https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tus/ifsm/ifsm304/2215/modules/m1-module-1/s3-commentary.html?ou=581297

Kidder, R. M. (1995). How good people make tough choices: Resolving the

dilemmas of ethical living. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Narvan, F. Ask the expert: What is the difference between ethics, morals and

values? The Ethics Resource Center. Retrieved June 19, 2005, from

h#p://www.ethics.org/ask_e4.html

Williams, B. (1993). A cri!que of u!litarianism. In J.J.C. Smart & B. Williams

(Eds.), U!litarianism: For and against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Return to top of page