WMSU Lecture-3-Analytical-Tools PDF

ANALYTICAL TOOLS WMSU 1 COMPUTER ETHICS 2  3.1 Computer Ethics “Computer Ethics” is the field that examines moral issues pertaining to computing and information technology. 3  3.1 Computer Ethics Moralit...

ANALYTICAL TOOLS WMSU 1 COMPUTER ETHICS 2  3.1 Computer Ethics “Computer Ethics” is the field that examines moral issues pertaining to computing and information technology. 3  3.1 Computer Ethics Morality The etymology of morality refers to manners and habits morality is not particular (i.e., specific) but instead is universal. 4  3.1 Computer Ethics Ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality. 5 6  3.1 Computer Ethics Information ethics refers to a cluster of ethical concerns regarding the flow of information that is either enhanced or restricted by computer technology. 7  3.1 Computer Ethics Internet ethics concerns about ethical issues involving the Internet in particular. Cyberethics to broaden the scope beyond individual machines or the concerns of computer professionals. 8 Other Definitions of Computer Ethics James Moor defines computer ethics as: “The analysis of the nature and the social impact of computer technology and the corresponding formulation and justification of policies for the ethical use of such technology.” 9 Other Definitions of Computer Ethics Deborah Johnson defines computer ethics as: “The study of the ethical questions that arise as a consequence of the development and deployment of computers and computing technologies. 10 3.2 Ethical theory and concepts Theoretical Framework – Consequence-based ethical theories – Duty-based ethical theories – Rights-based Ethics – Character-based ethical theories 11 12 3.2.1 Theoretical Framework Consequence-based ethical theories  When actions are judged morally right based upon their consequences, we have teleological or consequentialist ethical theory.  The Greek telos, means “end” or “goal”. 13 3.2.1.1 Consequence-based ethical theories 1. Utilitarianism The principle of Utilitarianism embodies the notion of operating in the public interest rather than for personal benefit. 14 3.2.1.1 Consequence-based ethical theories 2. Ethical Egoism It is used as justification when something is done to further an individual’s own (long-term) welfare. 15 3.2.1.1 Consequence-based ethical theories 3. Altruism Altruists see the principle “A decision results in benefit for others, even at a cost to some” as having a justification in evolutionary theory. French philosopher Auguste Comte coined the word altruisme 16 3.2.1.2 Duty-based ethical theories When actions are judged morally right based upon how well they conform to some set of rules, we have a deontological (duty- or obligations-based) ethical theory Greek deont, “that which is binding” expresses duty, that is, actions are essentially right or wrong, without regard to their consequences. 17 3.2.1.3 Rights-based Ethics Human rights are the basic entitlements that all people have simply because they are people. In Information Technology the rights may be: – The right to know – The right to privacy – The right to property 18 3.2.1.4 Character-Based Ethics The third major category of ethical theories are virtue ethics (or character ethics) Virtue ethics does not need to rely on a system of rules. Aristotle believed that ethics was something to be lived and practiced, not simply studied. 19 3.3 Four Basic Philosophies 1. Idealism 2. Realism 3. Pragmatism 4. Existentialism 20  Idealism: Imagine if everything around you, including the objects you see and the events that happen, is like a dream or a thought in someone's mind. Idealism suggests that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual, existing as ideas or consciousness rather than physical things.  Realism: Realism says that what you see and experience is real, and it exists independently of what you think about it. It's like saying that a tree exists whether or not you're looking at it, and it's the same tree for everyone who sees it.  Pragmatism: Pragmatism is about being practical. Instead of worrying about whether something is true in some abstract sense, pragmatism focuses on whether it works or not. If an idea or action helps you achieve your goals or solve a problem, then it's good, regardless of whether it fits some theory or not.  Existentialism: Existentialism is all about individual freedom and finding meaning in life. It's like saying that you have the power to create your own meaning and purpose in life, even in a world that might seem chaotic or meaningless. It's about taking responsibility for your choices and finding your own path, even if it's not always easy. 21 3.3 Four Basic Philosophies 22 3.3.1 Assumptions and Values Individuals on a day to day basis make decisions, consciously and unconsciously, based on a set of values. These values are derived from an individual’s deeply held moral beliefs. Values is the common term, which has roots in sociology, that refers to the individual’s desire to cherish, treasure, and prize certain things 23 3.3.1 Assumptions and Values values have the following characteristics according to Gaus: 1. Valuing, judgements of valuableness, and values provide reasons for actions and choice. 2. We argue about values, judgements of valuableness, and whether certain valuings are correct. 3. We often agree to differ about values, their judgements, and valuings. 24 3.3.1 Assumptions and Values 4. Values are often considered to be chosen. 5. valuing is a result of one’s emotions and/or also comes from one’s desire and volition. 25 3.3.1.1 Basic Ethical Values/Principles Values: Non-maleficence – The concept of non-maleficence is embodied by the phrase, “above all do no harm”. Values: Informed Consent – The concept of non-maleficence is embodied by the phrase, “above all do no harm”. 26 3.3.1.1 Basic Ethical Values/Principles Values: Ethical Relativism – Ethics is relative: What is right for me might not be right for you Values: Golden Rule (ethic of reciprocity) – The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as you would wish to be treated yourself. 27 3.4 Law Law is a system of rules that tells us what we can and cannot do. Laws are enforced by set of institutions (the police, courts, law-making bodies). 28 3.4 Law 29 3.5 Critical Reasoning An argument is a collection of claims (or statements or sentences), which are referred to as the premises, that are offered as reasons for another claim. The claim being supported is called the conclusion. Informal logic is an attempt to develop a logic that can assess and analyse the arguments that occur in natural language, and of the variety that is “everyday” or “ordinary” language discourse. 30 31 32 3.5.1 Logical Arguments A logical argument is a set of statements such that: One of them is being said to be true (conclusion) The other(s) are being offered as reasons for believing the truth of the one (called premises). 33 3.5.1 Logical Arguments An assertion is a single statement (possibly complex) that is being stated as a fact. Assertion are either TRUE or FALSE. Which of the following sentences are assertions? 1. It is very dry. 2. Is it very dry? 3. Turn on the water sprinkler! 4. If it is very dry there will be water restrictions. 34 3.5.1.1 Deductive Arguments Deductive arguments are such that if their premises are true then the truth of their conclusion is guaranteed. A deductive argument is either valid or invalid. For example: All penguins are black and white. That is a penguin Therefore it is black and white. 35 3.5.1.1 Deductive Arguments For a deductive argument to be sound, it must be: valid (i.e., the assumed truth of the premises would guarantee the truth of the argument’s conclusion); the (valid) argument’s premises must also be true in the actual world. deductive argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all its premises are true. 36 3.5.1.2 Inductive Arguments Inductive arguments are such that the truth of their premises makes the conclusion more probably true. Example of a strong inductive argument: The sun has risen every day for millions and millions of years therefore the sun will rise tomorrow. Example of a weak inductive argument: It has been raining for the past couple of days therefore it will rain today. 37 3.5.1.2 Inductive Arguments Types of Inductive Arguments: 1. Inductive generalizations  are a way of making conclusions about a whole group based on observations of a smaller part of that group. In simpler terms, it's like making a guess about something based on what you've seen or experienced.  the premise identifies a characteristic of a sample of a population the conclusion and extrapolates that characteristic to the rest of the population. 2. Causal generalizations  are a type of inference where you make a general statement about the cause-and-effect relationship between two or more variables based on observed instances  The premise identifies a correlation between two types of event and the conclusion states that events of the first type cause events of the second type. 38 3.5.1.2 Inductive Arguments 3. Arguments from analogy  Arguments from analogy are a type of reasoning where you draw conclusions about something based on similarities between that thing and something else. In simpler terms, it's like saying, "Because these two things are alike in certain ways, they're likely to be alike in other ways too."  Arguments from analogy take just one example of something and extrapolate from a character of that example to the character of something similar to that thing. 4. Arguments from authority  Arguments from authority are a type of reasoning where you support a claim by citing an expert or a respected source who endorses that claim. In simpler terms, it's like saying, "Because an expert says so, it must be true."  Take one person or group of persons who are, or are assumed to be, right about some things, and extrapolate to the claim they are right about other things. 39 The Standard Form and Evaluating Arguments 40 The Standard Form and Evaluating Arguments 41 The Standard Form and Evaluating Arguments To start analyzing an argument you first convert it to standard form 1. identify the conclusion of the argument; 2. identify each of the premises; 3. add suppressed (assumed) premises; 4. remove irrelevancies; 5. remove inconsistent terms; 6. remove cross-references. 42 Exercise: The Nature of Arguments Which of these sets of sentences are arguments? 1. Towards lunchtime clouds formed and the sky blackened. Then the storm broke. 2. Since Manchester is north of Oxford and Edinburgh is north of Manchester, Edinburgh is north of Oxford. 3. Witches float because witches are made of wood and wood floats. 4. Since Jesse James left town, taking his gang with him, things have been a lot quieter. 43 3.5.2 Fallacies A fallacy is not a false statement but faulty reasoning Fallacies of relevance: – Non-sequitur: Citing in support of a conclusion something that is true but irrelevant: – Ad hominem: Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument that is made. 44 3.5.2 Fallacies Fallacies of vacuity: – Circular arguments: Citing in support of a conclusion that very conclusion. – Begging the question: Citing in support of a conclusion a premise that assumes the conclusion. 45 3.5.2 Fallacies Fallacies of clarity: – Fallacy of the heap: vagueness. – Slippery slopes: misusing borderline cases. – Equivocation: trading on ambiguity. – Straw man: The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else’s position, so that it can be attacked more easily, then knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude th – Red herring: This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone else’s attention is diverted away from the pointsmade, towards a different conclusion.at the original position has been demolished. 46  ANALYTICAL TOOLS WMSU 47