Moral psychology Essay

The members in this special section behave a coarse theme the use of nurture applied science in bon ton is creating a rather unique set of good edits that requires the making of new moral choices on the part of society and has spawned special implications for its members. engineering science itself is not the only, nor necessarily the most responsible, cause of these paying backs. All honourable examinations draw near initially give away of human agency. Technology, due to its cap office to augment psychological and physical powers of human existences, does stand in the role of a coconspirator.The seduce of power-enhancing capabilities makes technology an inducer of sorts, a indwelling but not qualified underpinning to many of the estimable issues we face today. An ethical issue is said to resurrect whenever mavin party in pursuit of its goals engages in behavior that materially stirs the ability of an new(prenominal) party to pursue its goals. When the effect is helpfulgood, right, incisivelywe say the behavior is praiseworthy or exemplary. When, however, the effect is harmful bad, wrong, partialthe behavior is unethical. This purposeful theory of ethics is reflected in the issues discussed in these articles.For example, e-mail and being online be applications of instruction technology, the lure of which is found on their ability to expand the scope, range, speed, and ease of interpersonal and corporate communications. Useful as they atomic number 18, the schemes and the compound of issues addressed leave one question unanswered What moral focussing idler be provided to the instruments whose behavior prepare these issues? And, this question leads to separates How should the many cognition workers, systems analysts, programmers, hardw be designers, authors, executives, and so forth, who set in motion the modus operandiions which bring these issues to the fore, organize their own behavior?Knowing their technology-based action s exit intercede in the public life of human affairs, how should they direct them? The crucial point occurs when a moral performerone that by definition has choicesdecides to change the state of information or information technology in a human system. Changes in hardware, software, information content, information pay heed, knowledge-based jobs, and the rules and regulations affecting information are among the many things agents do that affect others. I call these crucial juncture points moments-of-truth. If those of us who make finales in any of these areas are to behave ethically,we must(prenominal) be able to tell the signifi appriset momentsof-truth in which we participate and be able to reflect on the effects of our actions. We must use our moral imagination to guide our choices so that we slew contribute positively toward making the kind of ethical orb in which we want to live and want to bequeath to our future generations. How can we do this? The ACM Code of moral p hilosophy 1, as strong as the schemes and other articles in this special section provide initial grist for the mill. More fundamental, however, is our conscience, aid by our understanding and expertise in information technology.If we have an hint our behavior as information professionals might in some vogue harm others, we probably should examine our ratiocinations a little to a greater extent cautiously and from an ethical point-of-view. Getting the Morally Relevant Facts The facts of an ethical situation can be summarized by four factors. The first factor is to clearly severalise the moral agent. Whose actions will bring about the technology-induced change? The frameworks and discussions hand overed here will be helpful because they point to a variety of possible forms of agency. The future(a) factor is the set of alternative courses-ofCOMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM.celestial latitude 1995/Vol. 38, No. 12 55 action available to the agent. These are the realworld acts that will have an effect on the human system under consideration. Acts have consequences, hence the third factor a delineation of the results that are expected to occur if distributively act is stock backn. Finally, it is essential to identify the s sweep upholders who will be affected by the consequences of the acts. A stakeholder is any individual, group, organization, or institution that can affect as well as be affected by an agents actions. In a word, stakeholders have an interest in what an agent does 3.These four factorsagent, acts, results and stakeholdersare the basic facts from which an ethical analysis proceeds. Applying Ethical Theories Renowned medical ethician William F. May refers to the method of ethical reflection as corrective vision. ethical motive supplies a type of corrective lens, he observes, and relies heavily on the preeminence between what is and what ought to be 4. These four crucial factors serve to establish what is. For what ought to be we must turn to ethica l theories. These theories are the prismsthe optometrists allurement of lensesthrough which we can observe reality and see the choices to make as we attempt to direct reality towards our ethical ideals.There are many, perhaps an infinity, of theories we might apply. The optics of ethics is very large indeed. We can be comfort in this effort, however, by the realization that the evolution of ethical thinking has resulted in four major themes. These are meta-lenses through which to require at an ethical situation. hotshot theory emphasizes an agents responsibility. This theory seeks to effect a good society by having people do the right things. As Immanuel Kant emphasized, there are prohibitions against taking some acts and obligations to take others.We have a major facie or a priori duty, for example, to respect the autonomy of others according to one principle evolving out of this theory any acts an agent might take that would invade a stakeholders secretiveness or right to withdraw for themselves should be avoided. More specifically, it is reasonable to assume members have a prima facie duty to adhere to the provisions of the ACM Code of ethics. But, and this is a significant point, we may not always be obliged to do so.Subsequent theorists in this deontological vain, W. D. Ross in particular 5, have held that while these duties are compelling they are not definitive. When two or more duties come into conflict the agent must make a reasoned choice. For example, the advantages obtained from using email may be deemed to be more all-important(prenominal) than the exposure to loss of privacy it brings about. These moral losses, however, should be make explicit in making a moral choice. The same principle applies, as we will see, among theories themselves. The second corking tradition is the pursuit of happiness.Applying this theory requires that we assess the consequences of the agents actions and deter56 December 1995/Vol. 38, No. 12 COMMUNICATION S OF THE ACM mine how much pleasure or pain, good or bad, happiness or unhappiness, benefits or costs they cut down on stakeholders. The guiding principle, which originates with Bentham and Mill, is that an agent should choose an act resulting in the greatest good for the greatest number. The good society is occured according to this theory by doing good for others.However, since what is good for the collective-at-large may not be good for a given individual (or may violate a basic duty or right), advice emanating from this consequentialist tradition may conflict with advice deriving from other theories. A third great tradition is the pursuit of virtue. This theory focuses on ameliorate the character or traits of the agent. The ancient Greeks averred that a moral person should take acts that enable and enhance the agents courage, prudence, temperance and undecomposedice. Their predecessors focused on accumulating individual power.Might is right formed the basis of their concept of virtue. One of their successors, St. Thomas Acquinas, drew on the Pauline tradition to add the more spiritual virtues of faith, hope and charity to the list. And, in the industrial age, industry, honesty, and trustworthiness were added because they were necessary for commercial relationships.All of these virtueoriented guides have the effect of creating a good society by having apiece agent be a good person. Finally, there is the tradition of the pursuit of justice. Justice requires that every stakeholder in the system should enjoy, so far as possible, an equal opportunity to develop his or her knowledge, skills and talents, and to reach his or her potentialities. This comes from fair dealing and right action and is usually based on rules that society has made, rules that should be the same for all and applied equally.The rules are based on criteria such as merit, need, work or other agreed-upon standards. The social contract theories to which several of the authors refer have e merged as a part of this tradition. The good society according to theories of justice is achieved by doing fairly, some(prenominal) in the fair allocation of privileges, duties, and goods, and in the meting out of punishments. When veneering a moment-of-truth, one is well advised to view the situation through each of these ethical lenses. Each provides insight into the moral complexity of the issue being examined. Frequently, however, the guidance deriving from one of these theories will conflict with that of one or more of the others.This requires a moral judgment, one that shows how one theory or principle trumps another. The reasons behind the choice made should be grounded in at least one moral theory and justified accordingly. The pitting of facts against theories is a necessary and the most importantaspect of deciding on an ethical issue. There are also four additional considerations to take into count on Who should decide? Who should benefit? How should the decisiveness be made? And, how can the issue be prevented from arising in the future? Who Should Decide? Presumably if you are facing a moment-of-truth you are also engaged in a decision process.Should you go it alone? Often, not. Before an agent acts he or she should take into account the answers to two questions 1) Which other stakeholders ought to participate in the making of this decision because of their knowledge, their values, or their interests? The voices of future generations should always be considered in this determination as well as the voices of contemporaries. 2) Which other stakeholders must take part in the decision and its implementation because of their institutional jobs, responsibilities or the resources they control?As debates on the basis of a just war have concluded, a decision that does not carry legitimacy or a reasonable prospect of success is unlikely to lead to a satisfactorily moral outcome. Who Should usefulness from the Decision? Many stakeholders may be affected by a decision. Some of these outcomes should have been considered during the application of ethical theories to the situation at blow over. Nevertheless, to begin with enacting a choice one should assure himself or herself the benefits of the decision flow to morally justifiable parties and that no undue harm is done.How Should the Decision be Made and Carried Out? From a stakeholders point-of-view a decision cannot be separated from the way it is made and delivered.Whenever possible, important moral decisions should be made as the result of due process. Beyond any legal requirements, the processes by which decisions are made should be fair and they should follow established procedures when applicable. It is essential the parties who are potentially harmed by decisions, as well as those who are benefited, recognize the legitimacy of the decision-making process. This, however, is not enough. Decisions should be carried out in a humane, moral way. During the trumping process just de scribed, some ethical principles or dictates are relegated to a secondary position.But they do not go away. A decision should be framed and fulfilled in a manner which maximizes the accomplishment of all of the ethical principles identified. All decisions should be carried out with due respect, in the sense that they should preserve the dignity of all stakeholders intricate to the extent possible. How Can the Issue be Prevented from Arising in the Future? each decision becomes a precedent in the future. A decision that resolves an smashing and pressing moral issue today may not look so good in light of the passage of time. It may create worse problems than the ones it solves.Or, our moral reflection may reveal flaws in our institutions that can beperhaps, should bechanged so the ethical issue at hand does not emerge again, at least in the same spirit level of intensity or severity. Thus, procedures and processes should be put in place, eliminating the root causes of this issue o r handling it more effectively in the future. The essential question In making this ethical decision, what sort of social transcript do we want to write? The last four considerations have a common thread To be ethical, a decision-maker must think beyond just the facts and theories pertinent to the current issue.One must reach beyond the present and be sure to bring in additional voices, insure that ethical procedures are employed, adopt a humane style of conduct, and look to the future. travel Ahead The articles in this issue form a rather game as well as a cerebral basis for acquiring on with the task of creating a good society in our information age. The ethics of being online, using tools such as email, and infusing of information technology into our lives in areas ranging from business process reengineering to installing large-scale systems are, arguably, among the most important ethical issues of our time.As good citizens in this information age we must be able to identify th e crucial moments-of-truth in which our behavior as information professionals shapes the direction our society will take. By understanding the facts of each case, drawing on ethical traditions for guidance, and doing this with a concern for the broader implications of our actions, we can create the kind of ethical society we want. This is the challenge of our times 2. C References 1. Anderson, R. E. , Johnson, D. G. , Gotterbarn, D. and Perrolle, J. employ the new ACM code of ethics in decision-making. Commun. ACM 36, 2 (Feb. 1993), pp 98107 2.Mason, R. O. , Mason, F. M. , and Culnan, M. J. Ethics of data Management. Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif. , 1995. 3. Mason, R. O. and Mitroff, I. Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions. Wiley, New York, 1981. 4. May, W. F. The medical students Covenant. Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1983. 5. Ross, W. D. Moral Duties. Macmillan, London, 1969. Richard O. Mason is Carr P. Collins Professor of Management Information Sciences at the Edwin L. Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Tex. Parts of this article are based on material originally developed for Mason, R. , Mason, F. , and Culnan, M.Ethics of Information Management. Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif. , 1995. Permission to make digital/hard simulate of part or all of this work for personal or schoolroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage, the copyright notice, the title of the publication and its take care appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of ACM, Inc. To copy otherwise, to republish, to charge on servers, or to redistribute to lists requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. ACM 0002-0782/95/1200 $3. 50 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM December 1995/Vol. 38, No. 12 57.