Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 27–39 | Cite as

Discourse ethics for computer ethics: a heuristic for engaged dialogical reflection

Original Paper

Abstract

Attempts to employ discourse ethics for assessing communication and information technologies have tended to focus on managerial and policy-oriented contexts. These initiatives presuppose institutional resources for organizing sophisticated consultation processes that elicit stakeholder input. Drawing on Jürgen Habermas’s discourse ethics, this paper supplements those initiatives by developing a more widely usable framework for moral inquiry and reflection on problematic cyberpractices. Given the highly idealized character of discourse ethics, a usable framework must answer two questions: (1) How should those who lack organizational power (e.g., concerned citizens, students) conduct their moral inquiry under non-ideal conditions of discourse? (2) How ought they to understand the moral force of the judgments they reach under such conditions? In response, I develop the heuristic implications of Habermas’s principle of universalization. To render that principle usable for non-ideal discourse, I propose a modification that yields a scalar measure of “dialogically robust” judgments that are responsive to the actual state of discussion. To illustrate the use of these principles, I sketch two case studies, which examine the moral acceptability of violent video gaming and government cyber-surveillance.

Keywords

Appraisal Computer ethics Discourse ethics Dialogue Habermas Universalization 

References

  1. Administration White Paper. (2013). Bulk collection of telephony metadata under section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. http://perma.cc/8RJN-EDB7?type=pdf. Downloaded 28 June 2014.
  2. Alexy, R. (1990). A theory of practical discourse. In S. Benhabib & F. Dallmayr (Eds.), The communicative ethics controversy (pp. 151–190). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12(5), 353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Apel, K.-O. (1980). Towards a transformation of philosophy. (G. Adey and D. Frisby, Trans.). Routledge and Kegan Paul: London.Google Scholar
  5. Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the self. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Birrer, F. A. J. (2001). Applying ethical and moral concepts and theories to IT contexts: Some key problems and challenges. In R. A. Spinello & H. T. Tavani (Eds.), Readings in cyberethics (pp. 91–97). Boston: Jones and Bartlett.Google Scholar
  7. Bushman, B. J. (2013). Don’t buy your kid Grand Theft Auto V for Christmas. Huff Post Tech, 13 Dec 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-j-bushman/dont-buy-your-kid-grand-theft-auto-v-for-christmas_b_4440477.html. Accessed 19 Feb 2014.
  8. Clarke, R. A., Morell, M. J., Stone, G. R., Sunstein, C. R., & Swire, P. (2013). Liberty and security in a changing world: Report and recommendations of the president’s review group on intelligence and communications technologies. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf. Downloaded 21 June 2014.
  9. ESBR (2014a) ESBR ratings guide. http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp. Accessed 5 August 2014.
  10. ESBR. (2014b). Principles and guidelines for responsible advertising practices. http://www.esrb.org/ratings/principles_guidelines.jsp. Accessed 5 August 2014.
  11. Floridi, L. (2008). Foundations of information ethics. In K. E. Himma & H. T. Tavani (Eds.), The handbook of information and computer ethics (pp. 1–23). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gabbiadini, A., Riva, P., Andrighetto, L., Volpato, C., & Bushman, B. J. (2014). Interactive effect of moral disengagement and violent video games on self-control, cheating, and aggression. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 451–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gellman, B., & Poitras, L. (2013). U.S., British intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program, Washington Post, 7 June 2013. www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html. Accessed 20 June 2014.
  14. Gorban, S., & Barrett, D. (2013). “NSA violated privacy protections, official says.” Washington Post, 10 Sept 2013. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324094704579067422990999360. Accessed 21 June 2014.
  15. Gotterbarn, D., Clear, T., & Kwan, C.-T. (2008). A practical mechanism for ethical risk assessment—A SoDIS inspection. In K. E. Himma & H. T. Tavani (Eds.), The handbook of information and computer ethics (pp. 429–471). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenwald, G. (2014). No place to hide. New York: Metropolitan-Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  17. Gunter, W. D., & Daly, K. (2012). Causal or spurious: Using propensity score matching to disentangle the relationship between violent video games and violent behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1348–1355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. (C. Lenhardt and S. W. Nicholsen Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Habermas, J. (1993). Justification and application. (C. Cronin Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. (W. Rehg Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Habermas, J. (1998). The inclusion of the other. (Ed.) Cronin, C., & De Greiff, P. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Harty, J. M. (1911). Probabilism. In Catholic encyclopedia (Vol. 12, pp. 441–446). New York: Robert Appleton.Google Scholar
  23. Heath, J. (1995). The problem of foundationalism in Habermas’s discourse ethics. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 21(1), 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heng, M. S. H., & de Moor, A. (2003). From Habermas’s communicative theory to practice on the internet. Information Systems Journal, 13, 331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. HLR. (2014). Recent administration white paper. Harvard Law Review, 127, 1871–1878.Google Scholar
  26. Kant, I. (1994). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. In Kant (Ed.), Ethical Philosophy (2nd ed.), (J. W. Ellington Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  27. Kirk, M. (director) (2014) The United States of secrets. Frontline, 2 parts, May 15, May 20, 2014.Google Scholar
  28. Lanier, J. (2014) Should Facebook manipulate its users? New York Times, 1 July 2014, A17.Google Scholar
  29. List, C., & Pettit, P. (2011). Group agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCarthy, T. (1998). Legitimacy and diversity: Dialectical reflections on analytic distinctions. In M. Rosenfeld & A. Arato (Eds.), Habermas on law and democracy (pp. 115–153). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. McCormick, M. (2001). Is it wrong to play violent video games? Ethics and Information Technology, 3, 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McMahon, C. (2000). Discourse and morality. Ethics, 110, 514–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Medine, D., Brand, R., Cook, E. C., Dempsey, J., & Wald, P. (2014). Report on the surveillance program operated pursuant to section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. 2 July 2014. http://www.pclob.gov/All%20Documents/Report%20on%20the%20Section%20702%20Program/PCLOB-Section-702-Report.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2014.
  34. Mingers, J., & Walsham, G. (2010). Towards ethical information systems: The contribution of discourse ethics. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 833–854.Google Scholar
  35. Moor, J. (1997). Towards a theory of privacy in the information age. Computers and Society, 27(3), 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moor, J. (1999). Just consequentialism and computing. Ethics and Information Technology, 1, 65–69.Google Scholar
  37. Olson, C. K., Kutner, L. A., Baer, L., Beresin, E. V., Warner, D. E., & Nicholi, A. M, I. I. (2009). M-rated video games and aggressive or problem behavior among young adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 13(4), 188–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rehg, W. (1994). Insight and solidarity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  39. Rehg, W. (2003). Discourse ethics. In E. Wyschogrod & G. P. McKenny (Eds.), The ethical (pp. 83–100). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Rollins, J. W., & Liu, E. C. (2014). NSA surveillance leaks: Background and issues for Congress. In S. Cepeda (Ed.), NSA intelligence collection, leaks, and the protection of classified information (pp. 1–27). NY: Nova.Google Scholar
  41. Sanger, D. E. (2014). Sky isn’t falling after Snowden, N.S.A. chief says. New York Times, 30 June 2014, A1, A13.Google Scholar
  42. Schiesel, S. (2011). Supreme court has ruled; now games have a duty. New York Times, 28 June 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/arts/video-games/what-supreme-court-ruling-on-video-games-means.html. Accessed 11 July 2014.
  43. Sicart, M. (2009). The ethics of computer games. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stahl, B. C. (2004). Responsible management of information systems. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stahl, B. C. (2008). Discourses on information ethics: the claim to universality. Ethics and Information Technology, 10, 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stansbury, J. (2009). Reasoned moral agreement: Applying discourse ethics within organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(1), 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tavani, H. T. (2008). Informational privacy: Concepts, theories, and controversies. In K. E. Himma & H. T. Tavani (Eds.), The handbook of information and computer ethics (pp. 131–164). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tavani, H. T. (2011). Ethics and technology. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  49. Wellmer, A. (1991). Ethics and dialogue: Elements of moral judgment in Kant and discourse ethics. In D. Midgley (Ed.), Persistence of modernity (pp. 113–231). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Wong, P.-H. (2012). A Walzerian approach to ICTs and the good life. Journal of Information, Communication, and Information in Society, 10(1), 19–35.Google Scholar
  51. Wright, D. (2011). A framework for the ethical impact assessment of information technology. Ethics and Information Technology, 13, 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yetim, F. (2006). Acting with genres: Discursive-ethical concepts for reflecting on and legitimating genres. European Journal Of Information Systems, 15, 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yetim, F. (2011). Bringing discourse ethics to value sensitive design: Pathways toward a deliberative future. AIS Transactions On Human-Computer Interaction, 3(2), 133–155.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySaint Louis UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations