The Prevalence of Computers in Society and Ethical Dilemmas - Essay Example

? Ethics for a Society of Humans and Automatons Table of Contents Introduction Three Laws of Robotics Altering the Ethical Man The Automaton Risks The Notion of Harm Machine Ethics Misconceptions of Automatons’ Ethics Computable Ethics Conclusion ‘‘The word freedom has no meaning when applied to a robot. Only a human being can be free’’ from ‘The Bicentennial Man’ by Asimov. Introduction As we live in a society of computers, we by default face new ethical challenges. The prevalence of computers in the society creates ethical dilemmas for both computer programmers and computer users. Forester and Morrison strongly suggest that “computer system have often proved to be insecure, unreliable, and unpredictable and that society has yet to come to terms with the consequences….society has become newly vulnerable to human misuse of computers in the form of computer crime, software theft, hacking, the creation of viruses, invasion of privacy, and so on” (ix). The ethical dilemmas however do not rise simply for the fact that there are risks involved with the automatons. More than risks, when the automatons become largely entwined in the daily lives human beings on the earth, we have to deal with many more complex issues which ethically challenge the governance of such a world. Allen, Wallach and Smitt are of the view that “we can’t just sit back and hope things will turn out for the best. We already have semiautonomous robots and software agents that violate ethical standards as a matter of course. A search engine, for example, might collect data that’s legally considered to be private, unbeknownst to the user who initiated the query” (12). Three Laws of Robotics While we regard ethics in terms of automaton, it is necessary to look at Issac Asimov’s three laws of robotics. These laws were delineated in his famous 1942 short story ‘Runaround’. Here, most importantly, the robot does not actually need to hurt human beings actively. Just the inaction of robot could result in harm to humans. Secondly, robots are supposed to obey whatever human beings dictate, no order by humans to hurt other humans should not be obeyed by the robot. Finally, robot does not have right to live autonomously from human beings’ right to live. It means if a robot wants to protect in a given situation, it shall not be at the expense of harm to human beings. The ethical laws pertaining to moving machines are considered to be mechanical. Ethics is considered by definition to be anthropocentric. Ethics involves ruminations on living a life which is worthy to live. Asimov’s three laws are an important starting point in understanding machine ethics: “1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second law” (as quoted in Anderson, 477-78). These laws as originally proposed by Asimov imagine automatons as slaves of human beings. Moreover, they are not even considered to be able to exit relatively independent of human beings. Asimov has “provided an explanation for why humans feel the need to treat intelligent robots as slaves, an explanation that shows a weakness in human beings that makes it difficult for them to be ethical paragons. Because of this weakness, it seems likely that machines like Andrew could be more ethical than most human beings” argues Anderson (478). However, in the present world, the complex interactions take place between humans and automatons take us beyond the purview of these three laws concerning ethical governance of mechanized world. Altering the Ethical Man Albert Einstein put forward the question “Did God have any choice?” as the big question faced by humanity. In a society of automata, human beings are faced with another question. Did human beings have any choice? Human beings are no less than god to automatons. But, once automatons are created by human beings, they get relative autonomy from human world as their all functions are not for sure controlled by human beings in all times. Human beings are not simply different from animals. They are different from automata too. Human beings are distinct for their highly developed consciousness. Also, the human consciousness never ceases to develop. In other words, human consciousness is always in the making and it constantly evolves and develops. When human beings interact with automata, it differently alters the human consciousness than its interaction with nature. However, human rationality cannot automatically be translated into conscious ethics. When human beings evolved out of the animal kingdom, the ethics which governs the organization of human society too has transformed. Such a transformation of ethics now too takes place as we evolve from an exclusively human society to a society of automatons. The number of nonhuman agents which we interact in our daily life is at an all time high. The foundations of a society where close interactions between human beings and nonhuman agents exist are bound to be different from the traditional human society as we know it today. Anderson is strongly of the view that “not only can intelligent machines be taught to behave in an ethical fashion, but they might be able lead human beings to behave more ethically as well” (478). It means that the invention of sophisticated automatons is progressively altering the proverbial ethical man as delineated by traditional philosophy. The interactions between humans and automatons are structured in particular ways and there are crucial differences between the ways through which different human beings related to automatons. All the members of the society are not equally related to the automatons. It is because of the fact that too few people actually own automatons while too many do not anyway related to the production or creation of automations. Robots are essentially controlled by softwares and it will remain so at least for the time being. Here, human beings are not directly in control of automatons. Automata are governed by the softwares which are programmed by human beings. This indirect control over the functioning of automations (must) give birth to new ethics. Importantly, robots have ‘positronic’ brain as opposed to the organic brain of human beings. The Automaton Risks Roboethics, as per the roadmap of Veruggio and Operto is primarily trying to deal with “the need and possibility to attribute moral values to robots’ decisions, and about the chance that in the future robots might be moral entities like – if not more than– human beings” (6). This is especially relevant when the idea of military robots is being fast realized. Simultaneously, there are major issues surrounding the questions of robotic terrorism, biorobotics and robotic warfare. The safe performance by robots is not guaranteed. It is the primary source of automaton risks. Robot inflicted human injuries is not a matter of science fiction. As th world seeing the endeavors to develop robotic surgeons to sex workers, no realm of live in the future would be left out the purview of robots. Human beings are only fascinated by the idea of making robots, not managing them. The roboethics attempt to deal with the issues involved in the management of robots. Even social robots have become directly intervening in human culture as they function as entertainers. In the same way, the so-called therapeutic It is important to note that “a whole series of aerospace accidents such as French , Indian, and Nepalese A320 Airbus disasters, the Bell V-22 Osprey and Northrop YF- 23 crashes, and the downing of the Lauda Air Boeing 767 in Thailand has been attributed to unreliable software in computerized fly-by-wire systems” (Forester and Morrison, 3). Not only that there are many accidents involved, but also the possibility for accidents larger in number and intensity is a looming threat for the humanity. According to Allen, Wallach and Smitt, “designers didn’t consider the ways in which they implicitly embedded values in the technologies they produced. An important achievement of ethicists has been to help engineers become aware of their work’s ethical dimensions. There’s now a movement to bring more attention to unintended consequences resulting from the adoption of information technology. For example, the ease with which information can be copied using computers has undermined legal standards for intellectual-property rights and forced a reevaluation of copyright law” (13). The Notion of Harm Any ethical concern regarding the lives of both human beings and automata should take cognizance of the physical well being of both. The dilemma is that are human beings simply present in the world of automaton or automations are present in the human world. The notion of harm is central to understanding the interactions between humans and automata. The presence of human beings in the cyberspace leads to manipulations or interventions of softwares and computer programs by the users. No operating system knows anything about the presence of human beings that use these softwares. Computer programs are only aware of the abstract users for whom they are designed for. It goes same for the automata too. No automata know a thing about human beings, except the abstract users that manipulates their functions. Even the systems cannot differentiate between human users and automated programs. The basic idea is that automata must be for the use of human beings. No automata shall do any harm to human beings or their products. Even through inaction, it should not cause harm to human beings or their activity. Even when human beings are wrong in the way they use automata, they should not make harm to human beings. It means that someone unknowingly give inputs to an automaton which would possibly lead to harm to humans, the automata must not go for it. While automatons shall obey commands given by users, they should give reasonable corrective measures for not doing harm to humans. Automata should only be obedient to authorized persons, not all human beings. Automata must also never do harm to itself. In other words, it should always protect itself. Billings points out that, the South Korean “Robot Ethics Chart’ “envisioned a near future wherein humans may run the risk of becoming emotionally dependent on or addicted to their robots” Machine Ethics There are differences between robots too. From the mid of the twentieth century itself, robots are around with human beings in our planet. However, now, robots are becoming more autonomous. When we live in a society where we have to cohabit with autonomous robots, old ethics cannot guide our interactions. Etymologically, the Latin root of automations involves the meaning of acting based on one’s own will. Machine ethics is also known as machine morality, artificial morality or computational ethics. This new field of moral enquiry is about dealing with the possibility of inventing moral decision making facilities on machines and its consequences in the human world and natural environment. Allen, Wallach and Smitt have pointed out that “driverless systems put machines in the position of making split-second decisions that could have life or death implications. As a rail network’s complexity increases, the likelihood of dilemmas not unlike the basic trolley case also increases” (12). Here, the ethical decisions, at the time of real situation is not taken by humans but automatons. Machine ethics is a question of acting based on one’s own will even if it is programmed by the human beings for the automatons. Ancient society too had automata. Those were mainly to explain scientific principles to the larger public in an easy manner. At present, automations are not simply a matter of technological sophistication. Automata have become an art in itself. Automation is widely used in contemporary mechanical theaters. The automation has evolved itself substantially from simple toys to complex machines which perform many human functions in a semi-autonomous manner. The machine ethics attempt to create automatons which are autonomous in ethical concerns and practices. Ethics fort his purpose must be made computable. Here, the task is to recreate automatons as ethical advisors to human beings rather than just reproducing the ethical concerns and practices of human beings. It necessitates human beings to recognize the ethical status of automatons. Machine ethics is more actively linked to automaton intelligence than human intelligence Misconceptions of Automatons’ Ethics Most people believe that human beings can only follow ethical principles, not automatons. To argue that automatons could even be moral advisors human beings would be more than sacrilegious. And, automatons are, not equally, but differently capable of following ethical standpoints. Besides, some think that automatons can be given the ability to think and act morally which is also not true. It is very much possible for automata to be ethical actors if corresponding ethical programs are developed. And, it is widely believed that automatons have no moral standings or moral rights. But, according to most of the philosophical delineations of ethical rights, if any entity has the ability to act morally should have moral standings and moral rights. People think it is impossible to formulate automatons as having moral standings. Even if the existing automatons do not have moral standing, it is still possible for us to create automatons capable of moral standing. The point is that as the proverbial judge in the Asimov’s ‘‘The Bicentennial Man’’ states in his verdict that ‘‘there is no right to deny freedom to any object with a mind advanced enough to grasp the concept and desire the state’’ (as quoted in Anderson, 479). Ultimately, the most vital ethical question about automatons is that whether they need to be fashioned after the image of human beings at all. The problem, according to Anderson is that “despite Aristotle’s claim that ‘‘man is the rational animal,’’ human beings are prone to behaving in an irrational fashion when their interests are threatened and they must deal with beings/entities they perceive as being different from themselves” (480). Most importantly, Anderson put forwards the controversial idea that “if we can just find the right set of ethical principles for them to follow, intelligent machines could very well show human beings how to behave more ethically” (480). Computable Ethics Deconstructing the prominent myths in engineering ethics Davis argues that “three myths common in engineering ethics: a) that the first codes of engineering ethics put loyalty to client or employer ahead of the public interest; b) that engineering codes of ethics should be mere (moral) guides rather than (legalistic) rules; and c) that codes of engineering ethics are too vague to provide much guidance”(9). This argument could be easily stretched to the case of all machine ethics as well. Machine metaethics involves many propositions such as adding ethical dimension to machines, computability of ethics, the existence of single correct ethical theory to be implemented and so on. Primarily, it is necessary to find the moral status of the machine itself, if at all we are to make it capable of following ethical positions. It is easy to see that the major goal of machine ethics is to formulate a machine along the lines of a given set of ideal ethical principles. The machine must be able to draw a course of action from such a set of ethical principles. In brief, the machines must involve an ethical dimension. According to Anderson, machines with added ethical dimension mean “either (a) in designing the machine, building in limitations to its behavior according to an ideal ethical principle or principles that are followed by the human designer, or (b) giving the machine ideal ethical principles, or some examples of ethical dilemmas together with correct answers and a learning procedure from which it can abstract ideal ethical principles, so that it can use the principle[s] in guiding its own actions” (481). Here, the tension is between the human agency and automatons’ agency with relations to machine ethics Conclusion All computer systems are vulnerable to risks. Such risks could be multifaceted. It could be the result of physical attacks carried out by human beings, whether it is by outsiders or inside employers. It is a matter of grave concern that “our growing dependence on computers leaves society increasingly vulnerable to software bugs, physical accidents, and attacks on critical systems” (Forester and Morrison, 5). As the more the automatons growing in complexity and usage in the human world, the more the risks are. For instance, driverless rail system are very much being part of our world wherein automatons have to take life or death decision in a fraction of second. It is necessary to develop a kind of machine ethics wherein the machines are able to take ethical decisions autonomously without doing harm to itself or to human beings. Moreover, the automatons could be able to advice human beings on complex ethical dilemmas. Works Cited Allen, Collin. Wallach, Wendell and Smitt, Iva. “Why machine Ethics” IEE Intelligent Systems, (2006). pp. 12- 17. Web. 04 Apil. 2011. Anderson, Susan, L. “Asimov’s ‘‘Three Laws of Robotics’’ and Machine Metaethics”, AI & Soc, Springer-Verlag London, Vol. 22, (2008), pp. 477-493. Web. 04 Apil. 2011. Billings, Lee. “Grappling with the Implications of an Artificially Intelligent Culture”, Seed, (2007): Web. 04 Apil. 2011. Davis, Michael. “Three Myths about Codes of Engineering Ethics”, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Fall, (2001): pp. 8-15. Web. 04 Apil. 2011. Forester, Tom, and Morrison, Perry. Computer Ethics: Cautionary Tales and Ethical Dilemmas in Computing. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2001. Print. Veruggio, Gianmarco and Operto Fiorella. “Roboethics: A Bottom-up Interdisciplinary Discourse in the Field of Applied Ethics in Robotics”, International Review of Information Ethics, Vol. 6, (2006), pp. 2- 8. Print. Read More