Minds and Machines

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 67–83 | Cite as

Information, Ethics, and Computers: The Problem of Autonomous Moral Agents

  • Bernd Carsten Stahl

Abstract

In modern technical societies computers interact with human beings in ways that can affect moral rights and obligations. This has given rise to the question whether computers can act as autonomous moral agents. The answer to this question depends on many explicit and implicit definitions that touch on different philosophical areas such as anthropology and metaphysics. The approach chosen in this paper centres on the concept of information. Information is a multi-facetted notion which is hard to define comprehensively. However, the frequently used definition of information as data endowed with meaning can promote our understanding. It is argued that information in this sense is a necessary condition of cognitivist ethics. This is the basis for analysing computers and information processors regarding their status as possible moral agents. Computers have several characteristics that are desirable for moral agents. However, computers in their current form are unable to capture the meaning of information and therefore fail to reflect morality in anything but a most basic sense of the term. This shortcoming is discussed using the example of the Moral Turing Test. The paper ends with a consideration of which conditions computers would have to fulfil in order to be able to use information in such a way as to render them capable of acting morally and reflecting ethically.

autonomous moral agent ethics meaning information morality responsibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, C. (2002), ‘Calculated Morality: Ethical Computing in the Limit’, in I. Smit and G.E. Lasker, eds., Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making and Human Action, Volume I (Workshop Proceedings, Baden-Baden, 31.07.–01.08.2002), pp. 19–23.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, C. et al. (2000), ‘Prolegomena to Any Future Artificial Moral Agent’, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 12, pp. 251–261.Google Scholar
  3. Apel, K.-O. (1988), Diskurs und Verantwortung: das Problem des Übergangs zur postkonventionellen Moral, 3rd edition, 1997, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  4. Bechtel, W. (1985), ‘Attributing Responsibility to Computer Systems’, Metaphilosophy 16(4), pp. 296–305.Google Scholar
  5. Bloomfeld, B.P. and Coombs, R. (1992), ‘Information Technology, Control, and Power: The Centralization and Decentralization Debate Revisited’, Journal of Management Studies 29(4), pp. 459–484.Google Scholar
  6. Brooks, R. (2002), Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us, New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  7. Castells, M. (2000), The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. Volume I: The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd edition, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dreyfus, H L. (1993), What Computers Still Can't Do, Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Floridi, L. (forthcoming), ‘Is Semantic Information Meaningful Data?’ in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
  11. Floridi, L. (2002), ‘What Is the Philosophy of Information?’ Metaphilosophy 33(1/2), pp. 123–145.Google Scholar
  12. Floridi, L. and Sanders J.W. (2001), ‘On the Morality of Artificial Agents’, in L. Introna and A. Marturano, eds., Proceedings Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiry — IT and the Body, Lancaster, pp. 84–106.Google Scholar
  13. French, J.A. (1990), The Business Knowledge Investment: Building Architected Information, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Yourdon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gadamer, H.-G. (1990), Wahrheit und Methode, Tübingen: J.C.B. MohrGoogle Scholar
  15. Gotterbarn, D. (2002), ‘The Ethical Computer Grows Up: Automating Ethical Decisions’, in I. Alvarez et al., eds., The Transformation of Organisations in the Information Age: Social and Ethical Implications, Proceedings of the sixth ETHICOMP Conference, 13–15 November 2002, Lisbon, Portugal, Lisbon: Universidade Lusiada, pp. 125–141Google Scholar
  16. Grint, K. and Woolgar, S. (1997), The Machine at Work: Technology, Work, and Organization, Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Habermas, J. (1991), Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  18. Habermas, J. (1983), Moralbewuβtsein und kommunikatives Handeln., Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  19. Halévy, E. (1904/1995), La formation du radicalisme philosophique (I–III), Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  20. Heidegger, M. (1993), Sein und Zeit, 17th edition, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  21. Höffe, O. (1992), Lexikon der Ethik, 4th edition, München: Beck.Google Scholar
  22. Introna, L. (1997), Management, Information and Power: A narrative of the involved manager, London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, D.G. (2001), Computer Ethics, 3rd edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Jordan, N. (1963), ‘Allocation of Functions Between Man and Machines in Automated Systems’, Journal of Applied Psychology 47(3), pp. 161–165.Google Scholar
  25. Kant, I. (1995), Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
  26. Ladd, J. (2000), ‘Ethics and the Computer World — A new challenge for philosophers’, in R.M. Baird, R. Ramsower and S.E. Rosenbaum, eds., Cyberethics — Social and Moral Issues in the Computer Age., New York: Prometheus Books, pp. 44–55.Google Scholar
  27. Lenk, H. (1994), Macht und Machbarkeit der Technik, Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun.Google Scholar
  28. Mason, R.O., Mason, F. and Culnan, M.J. (1995), Ethics of Information Management, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE.Google Scholar
  29. Mason, R.O. (1986), ‘Four Ethical Issues of the Information Age’, MIS Quarterly 10, pp. 5–12.Google Scholar
  30. Mill, J.S. (1976), Der Utilitarismus, Stuttgart: Reclam Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. Moor, J.H. (2000), ‘Toward a Theory of Privacy in the Information Age’, in R.M. Baird, R. Ramsower and S.E. Rosenbaum, eds., Cyberethics — Social and Moral Issues in the Computer Age, New York: Prometheus Books, pp. 200–212.Google Scholar
  32. Mowbray, M. (2002), ‘Ethics for Bots’, in I. Smit and G.E. Lasker, eds., Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making and Human Action, Volume I (Workshop Proceedings, Baden-Baden, 31.07.–01.08.2002), pp. 24–28.Google Scholar
  33. Scanlan, M. (2000), ‘Does Computer Ethics Compute?’ in R.M. Baird, R. Ramsower and S.E. Rosenbaum, eds., Cyberethics — Social and Moral Issues in the Computer Age, New York: Prometheus Books, pp. 41–43.Google Scholar
  34. Stahl, B.C. (2001), ‘Constructing a Brave New IT-World: Will the Computer Finally Become a Subject of Responsibility?’ in R. Hackney and D. Dunn, eds., Constructing IS Futures — 11th Annual BIT2001 Conference, Manchester, UK, 30–31 October 2001.Google Scholar
  35. Stahl, B.C. (2000), ‘Das kollektive Subjekt der Verantwortung’, in Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Unternehmensethik 1/2, pp. 225–236.Google Scholar
  36. Stewart, I. (1997), ‘Mathematische Unterhaltungen’, Spektrum der Wissenschaft 7, p. 8.Google Scholar
  37. Stichler, R.N. (1998), ‘Ethics in the Information Market’, in R.N. Stichler, and R. Hauptman, eds., Ethics, Information and Technology: Readings, Jefferson, NC: MacFarland & Company, pp. 169–183.Google Scholar
  38. Turing, A.M. (1950), ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’, Mind 59, pp. 433–460.Google Scholar
  39. Ulrich, W. (2001), ‘A Philosophical Staircase for Information Systems Definition, Design, and Development’, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 3(3), pp. 55–84.Google Scholar
  40. Wiener, N. (1954), The Human Use of Human Beings — Cybernetics and Society, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  41. Wittgenstein, L. (2001), Philosophical Investigations/Philosopische Untersuchungen (translated by G.E.M. Anscombe), 3rd edition, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  42. Zerdick, A. et al., (2001), European Communication Councel Report: Die Internet-Ökonomie: Strategien für die digitale Wirtschaft, 3rd edition, Berlin, Heidelberg: SpringerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Carsten Stahl
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Computing and Social ResponsibilityDe Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations