Moral Objectivism Across the Lifespan

Question 1 

In an era where technological advancement is the norm, the heated debate between tech determinist and tech neutralists continues. The perspective of tech determinists provides that technological developments have been history movers and continue to be social changers. According to them, technology is the driver of the changes in the human society within its political, social and economic contexts (Drew, 2016). Contrastingly, tech liberalists/neutralists believe that humans are the drivers of their societies and technology is a neutral force that fits in the same and is entirely dependent on human aims and objectives regarding its use. Thus, their view presents that humans have control over technology and they determine how it affects their lives (Gerrie). Despite the presence of strong arguments from both parties, I believe that the neutralist view of technology is not only the most logical but also the most convincing.

Resultantly, Moor and Hartley’s proposal is not a presentation of impractical concepts as it supports the idea that humans control the evolution and progress of technology and they are capable of establishing the impact they want technology to have on the society. The said argument is indisputable because humans are the creators of technology. Hence, technological development entirely depends on the human need to advance from one technological level to the next. For instance, a few decades ago, the use of typewriters was prevalent, but human needs necessitated the said technological advancement resulting in the creation of the keyboard used with computers or on laptops. If humans did not need a more efficient way to type, would the keyboard be invented? No, it would not! Thus, Moor’s (2005) indication that technological development results from the elaboration of the technological paradigm and the improvements of its methods, both of which are dependent on human needs, is a rational argument.

Therefore, Hartley’s (2018) advocacy for the need to take liberal arts more seriously is warranted because the fuzzy are currently the major determiners of technological advancements. Tech professionals are the muscle society needs to create what humanity and social scientists deem appropriate to fulfil human needs because the fuzzy understand human nature and communities better, as opposed to their techie counterparts. Hence, regardless of the role that technology plays in determining how humans live and work, it is undisputed that we possess the capacity to subdue or even redirect it as we deem fit. The idea that tech is autonomous is questionable because as humans develop technology, they program it in a manner that allows the protection of fundamental human rights (Spinello & Tavani, 2004). Technology can only do what it is programmed to do! A computer screen cannot show a P output when its user types an A. If it does, it is a faulty computer. Ultimately, humans retain the power to drive technology and determine its impact on their societies.

Question 2 

The moral relativist view indicates that moral judgments are relatively categorized as either true or false based on the stance of the person categorizing them. Regardless, the said view also dictates that no single stance is privileged compared to others (Velleman, 2015). In opposition, moral objectivism indicates that moral truths are different from moral opinion. Thus a person’s stance does not affect or dictate moral truths (Beebe & Sackris, 2016).

From a moral relativist view, cultural values are significant influencers of our technological understanding and practices. The same is depicted by the application of cultural relativism when dealing with the determination of what is right or wrong in matters concerning computing technology. The extensive use of the World Wide Web across cultures is undisputed, and so is the uncontrollable nature of computer ethics. Regardless, in certain cultures free speech is permissible whereas in others it is not, as is the case with the US and China respectively, making it difficult to establish standards that govern free speech on the World Wide Web. Cultural relativism dictates that decisions on arising issues must be made based on specific situations and the grounds provided by local customary laws. The same applies in the case of determining whether technology has a universal inter-cultural meaning and application. Moral relativism denies the same because despite the similarity of technology in different parts of the world, the customs, thereof, vary leading to the conundrum of not having a general standard to establish technological meaning and application across the board (Moor, 2004).

However, the objectivist view states that cultural values do not influence our tech understanding or practices. The said theory indicates that humans share core values which dictate the standard for evaluating action and policy rationality. Thus, these core values provide the framework against which the analysis of computer ethics can be performed. For instance, in the case that people are asked to rank information theft and data corruption depending on acceptability, their views on which is the greater vice may vary, but they will agree that both are vices. Fundamentals of the objectivist view indicate that technology has a universal inter-cultural meaning and application because humans have core values which provide a framework through which the said meanings and applications can be drawn. Human core values provide standards that allow policy evaluation, establishing that despite the variations in the meaning and application of technology across cultures, common understanding of the same exists.

In my opinion, the moral objectivist perspective offers better guidelines for understanding the meaning and application of technologies across cultures. The said view rationalizes the differences in cultural preferences and explains that regardless of the divergent views that may exist concerning the meaning and application of technology, the core values that exist across human societies facilitate the realization of the universal meaning and use of technology.

Question 3 

Bollman (2010) defines net neutrality as an ideology that seeks the indiscriminate treatment of online content. Neutral net is the type of internet that we use currently. It allows all websites, regardless of the nature of their utility, to load with relatively similar speeds, provided the owners to pay for ISP, giving them a pass to digital content. A neutral net is critical because it creates a level playing field for both online entrepreneurs and users.

The utilitarian theory indicates that when faced with a choice, the best action is the one that maximizes utility through the production of the greatest well-being for the larger population (Spinello, 2010). From the said definition, the utilitarian theory supports net neutrality. The cost-benefit analysis provides that net neutrality allows uniform access to internet resources. This levels the playing field, especially in entrepreneurship because businesses, regardless of their sizes, have an equal platform to thrive. For instance, the tech giant as we know it today, Google, would not be in existence were it not for net neutrality. During the start-up stages of the said organization, it is highly unlikely that it would have made it to the top if net neutrality did not apply. In the past, Google has acknowledged that unrestrictive internet browsing is essential to allow the next generation of big ideas to emerge (Spinello, 2010). Hence, net neutrality benefits the majority in the society, a goal that aligns with the utilitarian perspective.

Nonetheless, the deontological view provides that the establishment of the morality of action should depend on whether an action, in itself, is right or wrong based on pre-determined rules rather than the action’s consequences. Therefore, a deontological theorist is more likely to oppose the idea of net neutrality, especially from an entrepreneurial stance. A lot of competition characterizes the business world, and for an organization to survive, it must always stay ahead of its competition. Thus, a deontological viewpoint would justify Google’s decision to support Verizon in pushing for the adaption of a non-neutral net. Google, like its competitors, is in the business of making profits and any threats to that are not welcome. Thus, Google’s deontological approach to the matter on net neutrality is justified by the organization’s need to stay ahead of the competition.

In my opinion, the utilitarian theory provides the most convincing argument on the matter of net neutrality. Most people will resonate with the ideologies it presents because it seeks to protect the greater good. We all want to live knowing that we have the opportunity to succeed and we only need to exploit it to achieve greatness. Restricting the said opportunity by revoking net neutrality will only lead to chaos and deterioration of societal values. Besides if we were all to think from a deontological perspective, wouldn’t that make us selfish to the point that we became inhumane?

Question 4 

In an IT department operations deal with the manipulation, inputting, storing and transferring of data. In many organizations, the IT department is critical because the employees in the same have access to valuable organizational and personal data, whose leakage may cause harm to the affected parties. For instance, Jackson is the head of the IT department in Briggs Tech. A new employee, Sandra, joined the department three weeks ago and her induction has recently ended. One evening, she stays behind to finalize a project she was expected to submit the next day, and as she is leaving the office, she sees Jackson in the CFO’s office. She decides to observe before saying hi and she notices Jackson operating the CFO’s computer. From where she is standing, she can see a display on the screen that some information copying is in progress and shortly, Jackson unplugs a hard drive from the computer and starts logging it off. Afraid, she would get in trouble for being at the wrong place, at the right time, Sandra dashes away without Jackson noticing she was ever there. Two weeks later, there are rumors in the office that the financial systems were hacked and apart from the money that was stolen, critical customer files were also taken.

In such a case, I believe that Sandra has a justified responsibility for whistleblowing. She is morally required to go to the management of Briggs Tech with the information she has about the evening she stayed late at the office. Her divulgence of the said information would allow the investigation of her claim implicating Jackson and possibly lead to the repossession of the client information that he may have taken, as well as the money. Her moral responsibility in such a situation should elicit a sense of guilt for not sharing the critical information, which is likely to make her the organization’s hero when the files and money lost are recovered. Her whistleblowing would not depict disloyal tendencies. Rather, it will express her devotion to the well-being of the organization and consequently justify her whistleblowing actions.

Nonetheless, to further justify her whistleblowing Tavani (2011) indicates that moral responsibility is not exclusionary. Thus, considering what Jackson did was wrong, despite him being in a higher job position, she is morally obligated to report his possible involvement in the organization’s crisis, making her part of the solution rather than the problem. When the safety or good of the majority is at stake, whistleblowing among IT professionals becomes a moral responsibility.

References

Beebe, J. R., & Sackris, D. (2016). Moral objectivism across the lifespan.  Philosophical Psychology ,  29 (6), 912-929.

Bollman, M. (2010). Net neutrality, Google, and internet ethics.  The Humanist ,  70 (6), 6.

Drew, R. (2016). Technological determinism.  A Companion to Popular Culture , 167.

Gerrie, J. Are We Running Out of Ingenuity?.  Editor, Davis Baird Editorial Assistant, Aubrey Bryant , 144.

Hartley, S. (2018).  The fuzzy and the techie: Why the liberal arts will rule the digital world . Penguin Random House India Private Limited.

Moor, J. H. (2004). Reason, relativity, and responsibility in computer ethics.  Readings in CyberEthics, 2nd edition. Jones and Bartlett, Sudbury, MA , 40-54.

Moor, J. H. (2005). Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies.  Ethics and information technology ,  7 (3), 111-119.

Spinello, R. (2010).  Cyberethics: Morality and law in cyberspace . Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Spinello, R. A., & Tavani, H. T. (Eds.). (2004).  Readings in cyberethics . Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Tavani, H. T. (2011).  Ethics and technology: Controversies, questions, and strategies for ethical computing . John Wiley & Sons.

Velleman, J. D. (2015).  Foundations for Moral Relativism: Second Expanded Edition . Open Book Publishers.