Computer ethics

As a general observation, we can say that the philosophical community was slow to understand the ethical and conceptual challenges posed by the advent of computers. Although computers had existed for some time, the Philosopher s Index, which classifies and catalogs philosophical literature, had no entries under the heading of computer ethics until 1985. In the five years from 1985 to 1989, only three articles, monographs, or books were classified and listed under computer ethics. There were only two such items listed between 1990 and 1994. However, 19 items were listed between 1995 and 1999 and 18 items were listed between 2000 and 2004. 

If there had been better communication between humanists and technologists, philosophers might already have resolved the matter of how computer ethics should be viewed. Of the forty-two articles listed in the Philosopher s Index under the category computer ethics, at least a dozen either focused on or touched upon the place of computer ethics in the pantheon of philosophy [see, e.g., 5-12]. The most basic question facing philosophers is the uniqueness of computer ethics. 

Some have argued that computer ethics is a subdiscipline of applied ethics [5,13]. As such, examining other subdisciplines of applied ethics would prove fruitful to resolving issues that arise in computer ethics. For instance, Wong and Steinke [13] argue that computer ethics shares many similarities with medical ethics and business ethics. They suggest that the fields of medical ethics and business ethics can be useful as models for computer ethics. 

Others suggest that computer ethics is a type of professional ethics [14]. If this is the case, then computer ethics is not such a brand new thing and considered judgments already in the common body of knowledge suffice to resolve challenges posed by computers. In other words, the area of computer ethics is not so unique. 

Proponents of the two positions just mentioned, that computer ethics is a subdiscipline of applied ethics and that computer ethics is a type of professional ethics, severely understate the case of computer ethics, according to others. Gorniak-Kocikowska [11], stating partial agreement with an earlier... 

The single best source for quick and reasonably thorough access to the body of knowledge associated with computer ethics is Deborah Johnson s Computer Ethics (3rd edition, 2001). The first edition of that work [17], the first book listed under computer ethics in the Philosopher s Index, provides a conceptual framework for the issues of privacy, liability, ownership, and power. Despite its very early appearance in the short history of computer ethics, much of the analysis retains its value. 

Johnson [17] identifies several topics related to liability, and she offers an important distinction as well. Among the topics related to liability and computer use in general are legal liability, the duty of honesty, the nature of contracts, misrepresentation, express and implied warranties, and negligence [17]. The relevant distinction concerns the nature of software as either a product or a service. Many of these topics hold little interest for the ethicist investigating computer ethics. For instance, legal liability is less important to philosophy than to jurisprudence. 

In short, we return to C. P. Snow s recommendation that the scientist and humanist converse more. The conversations, analysis, and discussion should include the third culture, the technologist. Therefore, although we have not provided specihc and detailed analysis of issues related to computer use in the pharmaceutical industry, believing as we do that that sort of analysis is for the specialized philosopher doing conceptual analysis in computers ethics, we do urge that applied philosophers be part of the research team. Also, in the dynamic and flexible world of technology, applied philosophers—not just the people in the held of computers—should help draft policy statements and codes of conduct. 

Himma KE. The relationship between the uniqueness of compute ethics and its independence as a discipline in applied ethics. Ethics Inform Technol 2003 5.4 225-37. 

Florid L, Sanders JW. Mapping the foundationalist debate in computer ethics. Ethics Inform Technol 2002 4.1 1-9. 

Tavani HT. The uniqueness debate in computer ethics what exactly is at issue and why does it matter Ethics Inform Technol 2002 4.1 37-54. 

Bynum TW. Computer ethics its birth and its future. Ethics Inform Technol 2001 3.2 109-12. 

Wong K, Steinke, G, The development of computer ethics contributions from business ethics and medical ethics. Ethics Inform Technol 2000 6.2 245-53. 

Gotterbarn D. Computer ethics responsibility regained. Natl Forum 1991 (Summer) 26-31. 

Johnson DG. Computer ethics. In Frey RG, editor, A companion to applied ethics. Malden, MA Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2003 608-19. 

Johnson DG. Computer ethics, third edition. Englewood Cliff, N.J. Prentice-Hail, 2001. 

Brey P. Method in computer ethics toward a multi-level interdisciplinary approach. Ethics Inform Technol 2000 2.2 125-9. 

Computer Ethics, 2nd ed. (Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ). 

---