Ethical Problems in the Case of Killer Robot - Essay Example

Ethical Problems in the Case of Killer Robot Roll No: Teacher: 17th February 2009 Ethical Problems in the Caseof Killer Robot Introduction Ethics play a crucial role in any organizational setup and should be considered in order to keep people away from negative effects. In the case study, “The Case of Killer Robot”, the author, Epstein describes about a robot, Robbie CX 30 that was designed by Silicon Techtronics Inc. and delivered to Cybernetics. This robot caused the death of robot operator on the basis of its violent oscillation. The ethical problems that are highlighted by the case study are hiding and misrepresenting relevant information from the users, giving a little consideration to health and safety of people, making use of stolen code, offering services for the post for which, one is not suitable and capable and production of fake test results. All these ethical problems become a cause for the death of a human being. The leadership of the company, Silicon Techtronics Inc. also took unethical and autocratic decisions due to which, the co-workers were made to take support of unethical steps in order to safe guard their jobs. The time assigned for the development of the software program was not much and in a little time, an imperfect software was developed and this imperfection was hidden from the users. This essay takes into consideration the ethical issues along with the ethical codes applicable on those issues. In addition, it also informs about the philosophical theory that could have brought a change in the results. Ethical Considerations Contained in the BCS Code of Conduct Randy Samuels was indicted to be involved in the killing of Bart Matthews on the basis of the program that he wrote for the functioning of the arms of the robot. Bart Matthews was the robot operator in the firm. Due to the malfunctioning of the robot, Matthews was put to death. The robot moved its hands violently due to which, Matthews’ skull got damaged and he died at the spot. Randy Samuels was accused because it was analyzed that he made use of the coding language erroneously and carelessly. Randy Samuels misinterpreted the codei due to which, the robot functioned wrong. The ethical consideration that is applicable in this situation is, “You shall not claim any level of competence that you do not possess. You shall only offer to do work or provide a service that is within your professional competence.”ii When Samuel was not fully sure about his competence and experience, he should not have offered his services for programming. He should have assessed his knowledge and expertise for programming. The resulting death of Matthews indicates that Samuels had not made use of his programming before and he was not experienced due to which, he followed a wrong code for the arms of the robot. Randy Samuels is also identified by his co-workers as wholly task-oriented. He is also regarded as lacking the aspect of interaction-oriented. The problem of erroneous coding that resulted in the death of a person can be a result of lack of communication between the workers. Samuels was called a prima donna (a person who cannot accept criticism), while criticism is a must in working. By the help of criticism, the knowledge that one has can be updated and upgraded. The ethical code that is, “You shall seek to upgrade your professional knowledge and skill, and shall maintain awareness of technological developments, procedures and standards which are relevant to your field, and encourage your subordinates to do likewise.”iii is only possible when one feels that his knowledge is somewhat deficient and can be improved but the personality of Randy Samuels as described by his co-workers is of a person, who considers all his tasks to be the most effective. As far as the manager, Reynolds was concerned, Ray Johnson, the chief of Robotics division was against Reynolds’ shifting to the robotics division from data processing. Reynolds had good knowledge of data processing and he was also an efficient manager but as far as the project of robotics was concerned, Reynolds was not wholly expert for it. Reynolds had limited knowledge and he, accepted his position in the robotics division without acknowledging his level of expertise. “Reynolds saw himself both as a manager and as a technical expert. Reynolds was not aware of his own technical limitations.”iv He offered to do a work for which, he was not fully competent. Here, again there is an ethical consideration. Reynolds should have accepted the job if he was aware of it and also if he had already worked on it but he accepted the job without prior knowledge and efficiency in the related field. He opted for waterfall model in place of prototyping model because he was aware of waterfall model in terms of data processing projects and he thought that is would be applicable for the robotics project as well. He was reluctant to employ prototyping model because of his limited knowledge. Leadership should not make unethical decisions as the people working under the leaders are motivated to adopt unethical steps for their tasksv. The company, Silicon Techtronics Inc. in an agreement to Cybernetics informed that they would deliver a safe robot to the company and also that the robot will cause no bodily injury even in exceptional conditionsvi. Here, an ethical concern that is related to the public safety and health, “In your professional role you shall have regard for the public health, safety and environment.”vii The company Silicon Techtronics Inc. ensured that the robot, Robbie CX 30 is safe for usage and will not affect public safety negatively even in exceptional conditions due to which, the blame of the killing of Matthews comes on the company itself and not on the programmer. Another ethical concern that is, “You shall ensure that within your professional field/s you have knowledge and understanding of relevant legislation, regulations and standards, and that you comply with such requirements.”viii was also disregarded by the company. The company ensured the safety usage of a robot for which, they were themselves not sure. The legislation goes against the company as a whole because of the surety that was given to Cybernetics. The personnel of Silicon Techtronics Inc. showed no awareness in terms of necessary legislation. The company itself was responsible for ensuring that the robot functioned without any harm. The company failed to be successful in their provided information. The company, Silicon Techtronics Inc. can also be accused of withholding and misrepresenting the actual information related to the robot in terms of its violence and harmful outcome. The ethical problem that was there according to the ethical code, “You shall not misrepresent or withhold information on the performance of products, systems or services, or take advantage of the lack of relevant knowledge or inexperience of others.”ix When the robot was provided to the operator, he was not informed about any harmful consequences attached with the malfunctioning of the robot. By considering this aspect in mind, the company can be accused ethically of the killing of Matthews, the robot operator. According to Silicon Techtronics, the error that was caused in the robot’s functioning needed the operator’s intervention but he got confused due to which, the accident happened. This was proved because the user manual was open at Matthews’ console. Witherspoon, who was also an operator, informed that she and Matthews gained no information about violent oscillation of robot’s arm. She also told that they were not trained about how to handle the robot when it got into such a condition. The company was legally responsible to inform operators about handling of all kinds of errors. This is an ethical consideration, which was not regarded important by the company. Witherspoon reported that “"Silicon Techtronics Inc. obviously did not give much thought to the training and testing procedures”x The test results that were obtained before shipping of Robbie CX 30 were fake and were self-attained without conducting the testing procedure. These fake tests results were prepared by Yardley and she was asked to do so by Ray Johnson. The information related to the efficiency of the robot and its harmfulness was not purely provided to the company Cybernetics, which is against the legislative demands attached to the usage of a software. The fake testing results point a figure towards the ethical considerations of the leaders of the company. Ray Johnson and others violated the ethical codes in order to safe their jobs. They violated the ethical code that is, “You shall not misrepresent or withhold information on the performance of products, systems or services, or take advantage of the lack of relevant knowledge or inexperience of others.”xi Randy Samuels also stole some part of the “killing robot” program from some place that is again a violation of ethical concerns. He negated the legal concerns and implications of stealing the program of a software that could have resulted in hard consequences. The programmer along with some other persons worked for the first time in Silicon Techtronics Inc., were not fully experienced to take over the jobs that they did. The company personnel hid important information, they showed no concern to legal implications, they handed over an imperfect and harmful software to Cybernetics that took a person’s life, all of the mentioned acts can be fully considered as the violation of ethical codes. Philosophical Theories By looking at the condition and the steps taken by the personnel at Silicon Techtronics Inc. in order to deliver a robot to Cybernetics, it is clear that the problem was there with the shifting of Reynolds to the robotics division. Reynolds was unable to understand the needs of the software program and the time that was required. He was only interested to indicate towards his own professionalism and sooner working. He was not aware of the demands of the project and how it was to be done. He was only concerned about the work. Ray Johnson presented “Ivory Snow” theory in which, he informed that it is not necessary to provide something with perfection and completion. The theory presented by Ray Johnson was an output of the pressure that was put on him and his workers. Due to this pressure and restriction of time, Ray Johnson was made to violate the ethical codes due to which, the accident occurred. According to my understanding, the leadership theories should be considered in this regard. It is quite clear that the leadership at Silicon Techtronics Inc. was not fully equipped with relevant information about the project. The manager was not technically fit for the robotics division but he was shifted in order to save the extra costs. Due to the pressure that he put on Ray Johnson, the robot that was created was imperfect and the accident occurred. Leadership could have saved the harmful working of the robot. If the leader was a technical person who understood all the needs and demands of the software, the software would have been much better and would not have taken the life of a person. According to my, “Ivory Snow” theory was only used because the time that was provided to the team was not enough. I would have replaced the manager, Reynolds with someone who was able to manage the technical work with much experience and expertise. The robot that was shipped to Cybernetics should be provided to the company with full details about what was left in the software and until when it could be completed. Under the leadership that was interaction-oriented and much more technical who was able to understand the needs of the project, the project would have appeared much better. The leadership shown by Reynolds appeared to be autocratic, in which the subordinates were forced to work according to the requirements and constraints of the leadership. The subordinates were not given a chance to share their responses regarding the development of the software. They were made to violate the ethical codes because the time, which was allocated for the completion of the task, was not enough for the development of the software program. The leader that is to be appointed should be people-oriented and should give proper consideration to the ethical issues as they are very important for the success of a project. If the leadership is ethical, the people working under the leadership show consideration for ethical issues but if the case is otherwise, people also adopt the same flawed ethical concerns. The leader must make choices according to the situation under considerationxii. The ethical leadership is not one that remains attached to only one leadership style but one which changes according to the situation under consideration. Reynolds appeared to be autocratic when his attitude must be supportive and interactive. He paid no heed towards the problems that the software team was facing in designing the software program. He announced his decision of making use of waterfall model, which was not considered effective by the people from technical division such as Anderson. When Jan Anderson emphasized over the need of employment of prototyping model in place of waterfall model, she had to leave her job because Reynolds was an autocratic leader, who was not ready to give a chance to other co-workers to share their experiences. By forcing the project team to provide with the software program within a restricted date or to lose their jobs, was a threat that made the people to move towards unethical considerations. Reynolds as a leader showed no trust towards his subordinates and only showed his authority due to which, the accident happened. So, it is quite evident by the case study that Reynolds was not a suitable leader for the robotics division. It was he due to which, his subordinates took unethical decisions and those unethical decisions took the life of a human being. Conclusion Matthews, the operator of the robot, Robbie CX 30 died because of the malfunctioning of the robot. The robot was made by acting upon the theory of “Ivory snow” that stated that “Perfect software is an oxymoron.”xiii This theory was followed on the basis of the time that was allocated for the completion of the project. The newly hired leader of the project team, Reynolds was not a technical man and had little knowledge about robotics and its needs. Reynolds took wrong decisions and made use of autocratic style of leadership in order to ensure the success of the project. The project team handed over a robot to Cybernetics that was harmful and took the life of an operator. The robotics division gave little consideration to ethical issues and took such actions that violated the ethical codes. They made use of fake test results, they disregarded the health and safety concerns, they misrepresented and hid the information and they stole the program code. These steps created ethical problems due to which, the life of a robot operator was endangered. Read More