Expository Narrative on James Moores free essay sample

One difficulty is that along with a policy vacuum there is often a conceptual vacuum. Although a problem in computer ethics may seem clear initially, a little reflection reveals a conceptual muddle. What is needed in such cases is an analysis that provides a coherent conceptual framework within which to formulate a policy for action. (Moor, 1985, 266) Even though today computer ethics is no longer an idea in its infancy, there are many interpretations of ethics in relation to information technology. Today almost all companies use computer and information technology to serve their clients and because of that they have to have strong ethical standards for the conduct of their business. Microsoft Corporations â€Å"Four Pillars of Trustworthy Computing† (Reynolds, 2010) which combine security, privacy, reliability and integrity in a system focused on the aspect of trustworthiness – something Microsoft and other companies see as important. Moors 1985 essay and later work helped lay the groundwork for the development of a policy, thus breaking down the vacuum for ethics in the computer age. He added additional ideas in the 1990s, including the important notion of core human values: According to Moor, human values such as life, health, happiness, security, resources, opportunities, and knowledge, are so important for the survival of a community that all communities do hold them near and dear. Certainly if a community did not value the â€Å"core values†, it would soon cease to exist. It was these human â€Å"core values† that Moor used for examining computer ethics topics like privacy and security (Moor 1997), and to add an account of justice, which he called â€Å"just consequentialism† (Moor, 1999), a theory that combines â€Å"core values† and consequentialism with Bernard Gerts deontological notion of â€Å"moral impartiality† using â€Å"the blindfold of justice† (Gert,1998). In his essay, Moor introduces the â€Å"conceptual vacuum,† which he says is the lack of terminology to define elements in a specific system or model. According to Moor, while it is possible for a conceptual vacuum to be discovered only after the policy vacuum is identified, it is the conceptual vacuum that needs to be addressed first. Only then can the relevant actions and policies be implemented to solve a computer ethics problem. At least a basic understanding of terms and their relationship to one another, or â€Å"coherent conceptual framework,† (Moor, 1985) is necessary otherwise it would be close to impossible to define a computer ethics problem without understanding what a computer actually is and what it can do, and the specific ethical values, unique to computers systems. Conceptual vacuums may still exist in certain fields in which the conceptual framework remains unclear. As an example, today, in the field of advanced genetic engineering, cloning, and stem cell research conceptual vacuums may still exist, since these areas are not fully developed and the related terminologies are still not specifically defined. Since the field of computers itself was not fully understood any actions that were taken would still be subject to a policy vacuum. Moor also talks about logical malleability, which is basically the concept of the computers ability to perform virtually any task, using ideas that can be represented as simple values. Since these values can represent anything, a computer is basically able to perform calculations or logical deductions in any area of work. Logical malleability, then, according to Moor, is the process of computers taking in information as input, processing it with a logical unit, and then producing an output. In this way, computers become very much like human beings, where the central nervous system and the brains higher cognitive functions, processes the sensory input and the resultant thought or action the is output. Moor does say that â€Å"computers manipulate symbols but they dont care what the symbols represent,† it is possible, however, for a user to assign priorities to certain processes or tasks in the form of a hierarchy of importance, the computer thinks a certain task is importance and treats accordingly is because it has been told (programmed) to do so. Moors comparison of the Computer Revolution to the Industrial Revolution is spot on. He forecasts their methodological footsteps and their effects on society to be similar. According to him, In the Industrial Revolution there were two stages; the first was the implementation of technology, and the second was the permeation stage in which the workings of the economy became permeated with technology to the extent that it became inconceivable to imagine any aspect of the economy without technology and there was a transformational effect on the way people lived their lives and what they expected from society. Even though the essay was written in 1985, it seems that the Computer Revolution is still not over, in fact, it may be in a state of perpetual evolution much the same way as we are as human beings. Moore says that as computers become embedded in every aspect of our lives, they will not only alter the way lives are lived but make people question our values. As computerized machines take over craftsmanship, flying skills are automated by computer, and photographs are enhanced by picture enhancing software, some may question the value of the pride and joy of creating a masterpiece or the exhilaration of a perfect takeoff or landing. Moors highlights the element of conceptual vacuum by considering the invisible environment in which computers carry out their functions. He argues that computers are not fool-proof and to base important ethical decisions on outcomes of computer calculations is wrong. As more and more aspects of life are computerized, we are taking the outputs of computers for granted and basing our decisions whether big or small, on those outputs without verifying the methodology behind those invisible processes. He makes the reader think hard about the perceived infallibility of computers by using the example of a nuclear attack: For instance, computers are used by the military in making decisions about launching nuclear weapons. On the one hand, computers are fallible and there may not be time to confirm their assessment of the situation. On the other hand, making decisions about launching nuclear weapons without using computers maybe even more fallible and more dangerous. What should be our policy about trusting invisible calculations? Moore, 1985) Moors 1985 essay was a convincing argument for the consideration of computer ethics as an important and independent field of study. He highlighted some of the ethically questionable issues that may arise due to the use of computers, and illustrated his point with numerous examples. Some of the issues are obviously dated as this essay was written over a quarter century ago and many of the computerized processes now are far more evolved now than t hey were back then, making them more secure, for example, or fool-proof. One of the questions I’d like to ask Mr. Moor is about Internet marriages and divorce, and what his opinion vis-a-vis ethical considerations of divorce is about them. If a divorce can be applied for and granted online, can a marriage also not take place along similar lines and should it be accepted in a court of law, especially if a judge or magistrate is a witness on camera? Another question that I’d like to ask Mr. Moore is based off of his comparison of the Computer Revolution to the Industrial Revolution. I don’t feel that the Computer Revolution can be defined in two stages like he described the Industrial Revolution. While the Industrial Revolution changed the way we lived our lives, computers as they get embedded into every aspect of our daily lives continue to do so every day and this is not something that seems to have an end point. As our values change in step with advances in computers, does he think that at some point we may even question the very notion of computers not being part of a certain aspect of life if it were? Would not our thinking also change and our standards not be based on life without computers to even ask why we depend on computers so much? My last question for Mr.