Ethical Issue in an Area of Social Computing-Samples for Students

Question: Prepare a Business Style report of approximately, which analyses driverless cars through the lens of each of the four Ethical Philosophies Presented in Lectures, and One element selected from the Australian Computer Societys ACS Code of Ethics. Answer: Introduction Drivers of the car are forced to make ethical decision while driving the car. Driverless car has been prepared for the mass market. World is now changing by adopting a new technology. Driverless car is one of the parts of that new technology. It has been observed that new technology is appreciable till it is not give any harm duet user but every coin has two aspects. Driverless car brought new changes in a world in a form of Technology but it has some negative points as well which can give harm to those people who utilize this services. The issues of driverless cars can be safety security, community, parking evolution and corruption. Four ethical philosophies will be describing in this report to ethical analysis of driverless car. It involves utilitarianism, deontology commercial; correct based and ACS codes of ethics. In this report ethical dilemmas will be describing in concise manner which will help to study further. Driverless car is a robotic vehicle. It cannot be possible every one to trust on robot. There can be real risk if passenger don't understand those psychological barriers and address them through regulation and public outreach. It has been analyzed that self driving Cars hold out the promises of being safer in comparison of manually driven cars. It is a reason in which many people are excited about their introduction and new technology car. Yet, self driving car is not much safer in comparison of manually driven car. It is because the speed of self driving car is high and in the midst of unpredictable pedestrians and human drivers. So it is necessary to think about the program in which it should react in different scenarios so that accident can be avoided. Ethical analysis of driverless Driverless car has not intuition and are based on absolutist programming. In case of programming of driverless car failed to account the crisis situation, the accident may occur. In case of emergency the program of driverless car does not allow to hack. Apart from that driverless car can be the barrier for those who are workers in transportation, driver of car, car washer etc. ethical theories are able to guide on investigation and analyze the issues related to moral. Who lives and who dies, in an accident involving driverless cars? it is the ethical dilemma which has been analyzed driverless cars. In an accident involving driverless cars, life of sitting inside the car and outside people both are in danger. Utilitarianism, Deontology, social contract, character based and ACS code of ethics has been taken for resolving the issues of above dilemma. Utilitarianism is a philosophy which is proposed by Jeremy Bentham. It is the philosophy which enhances the benefits for the wider range of people. In the condition of an unavoidable crash, where driverless car has to opt between crashing different groups of lives, the utilitarian approach will select the option with the least loss of life. Utilitarianism is considered as the best approach ever because it is able to give result in the least damage of life compared to other approaches. It is the approach which is most intuitive (Reynolds, 2012). It is expected from robots that it make decision based on algorithms which is senseless. Ethical decision is made on the principles of utilitarian which are continuous and it is not influenced by the occupants of the vehicles state of mind. This would decreased the risk of losing life and demonstrate vehicle safety autonomously. As per this approach it has been analyzed that the utilization of different approaches of program could be used to m ake cars safer in the concern of driver (Megginson Whitaker, 2017). Figure 1: Trolley problem Source: (Brinkman Sanders, 2013). Using an approach of utilitarian to program self driving cars refers that all cars would be systemized in the same manner. It defines that car is not keeping on priority in comparison of life of driver. Utilitarian programming is not typical to run, it is easy to implement because it is based on minimizing loss of life in any condition (Shaw Barry, 2010). Other framework of ethical is required complicated computation to choose the effective course of action in crash situation. In such case Utilitarian method has capability to reduce the risk of losing life by decreasing the cost of progressing the technology, programming required, which would in the field of low and high car manufacturers, repeating improving consistency. Utilitarian is found easier approach by insurance companies because the premium due to this approach would be lesser in comparison of other ethical frameworks (Neumann, 2016). The calculation through this approach is not complicated and utilitarian decision taken b y car would always in the favor of mankinds best interest. Utilitarian algorithm is easy to handle because it does not require any personal information or data for the car to model it as a human driver and thus, decrease the scope of privacy infringement. Deontology is known as Kantianism and it is an obligation based theory thats written by Immanuel Kant. It is the theory which demonstrates the kind of action rather the the result of the action. It is believe of Deontologists that moral decision should be on priority and based on ones duties and the rights of others. As per Kant, people have the ability to perform rationally; they will act morally, not in respective of personal desires. There is a one problem which is finding as a popular. Trolley problem, where a person need to decide whether to move the way of a trolley on to a track which may cause of one death in order to save five passengers. The trolley problem is an experiment of thoughts in ethics. The general form of the trolley problem can be: There is a trolley of runway which is barrelling down the tracks of Railways (Lucas, 2010). Further, on the tracks, there are four people who are tied up and can't move. In such case, trolley is headed straight for them. Deontological ethics involves of limits that are situated on a behaviors of machine a set of rules. It is the rule which cannot violate. As per Goodall, (2014), Deontological ethics has a well known example which is three laws of robotics. Deontological ethics appears when decreasing complex value of human in the code of computer. It is the philosophy of this theory that driverless car should have sensor which able to recognize the all signs of traffic signals. In the example of traffic law, rules of anything require some common sense in their application because computers are able to identify only literal interpretations. This interpretation between the application and computer is not settled down. It will lead to unexpected behavior. In the law of Asimov, an automated vehicle can ignore braking before a collision because this action would give its passenger jerk, thereby breaching the first law forbidding harm to humans. Rules are a system which can be added or clarified in many si tuations. It is considered as unclear if any set of rules could bind all situations (Arroliga, 2016). Human morals should be articulated to develop rules; an expected difficult task given that there could not be completed agreement on the question of what should be right or wrong. There can be other ethical dilemma of whos liable when an autonomous car crashes? The driver or the programmer? There can be so many ethical issues in surrounding autonomous vehicles in which liability is considered as a major ethical issue. The complex system of driverless essential has errors and Googles self driving car in resistant to the failure of software. In that case ethical issues can arise in the surrounding of liability which is assigned fault in the case of crashes of autonomous vehicle. It has been observed that autonomous vehicles get to be common in the term of responsibility in which responsibility must be established. Social contract theory is closed to old philosophy itself. It refers the view of persons moral or obligation which is based on an agreement or contract among them in which they live. Social contract theory can be minimalist in the sense that define we are obligated where formal or legal contract exist. It has been analyzed that there is moral responsibility which is more than legal responsibility. The most benefit of social contract theory for Driverless car is that no one is free to get revenge on people they think have wronged them. Social contract theory involves corporate social responsibility, corporate philanthropy and corporate governance. Social contract theory in the context of corporate philanthropy is made for the purpose of more involvement in the local community (McBride, 2016). The business of driver less car can show that they are concerned with their local communities of the streams of revenue provided by allocating resources for community projects. It can be analyzed that driverless car should be more ethical while driving because there is no driver inside the car. Corporate social responsibility is concerned about the creating sustainable and renewable business solution. The function of CSR is considered as an internal mechanism which ensures that ethical standards in driverless car are always followed to protect the company of driverless car from doing anything which is illegal, from breaching the trust of public or from unnecessarily harming the environment. Corporate governance is an important concept of the social theory contract in the business. The structures of corporate governance are a policy which defines the company should act to keep itself on an illegal as well as ethical part (Kirkpatrick, 2015). It is considered as internal laws of the company. In case of any illegal things happen while driving the car, the criteria of punishment will be there. Therefore, corporate governance is more important in order to keep corporate philanth ropy, corporate social responsibility along with overall theory of social contract at the in front of a plan of business strategy. For instance, autonomous car manufacturers required specifying some action to avoid the event of crash, and the wrong action of them could lead to message lawsuits and alarmist headlines. In such case social contract theory will be helpful to perform a moral responsibility along with legal responsibility (Beemsterboer, 2010). Character based ethics is a standard which is evaluating moral behavior. Character theory is referred as virtue theory which was found by Aristotle. Virtue based ethics trusts in training in comparison of actions which is described in deontological ethics. As we noted above, self driving Cars can be inevitable crash, Noah Goodall (2014a-b) and Patrick Lin (2015) argue for this, advanced sensor Technology has been used by self driving car to detect its surrounding to consistently predict the trajectory of nearby objects. Information technology is a greatest element in nowadays which can be used by self driving Cars to communicate with each Other so that communication between among vehicles on the road can be done efficiently. With the help of character based ethics, self driving car would not behave in the disorganized manner to a human being is appropriate to react to accident scenarios. In the condition of unavoidable collision, the technology of car would be able to significant cho ices and able to control the levels (ten Cate, et. al., 2015). Due to having the access of other information, the driver less car can be able to calculate the most likely results of different trajectories which may involve different combinations of braking and swerving. As we discussed above the trolley problem, as per Kirkpatrick, (2015), to save the life of 5 by sacrificing the one will be presentable wrong to most of us, on the other hand in the other case, to save the life of 5 by sacrificing the one will be seemed as morally permissible. Virtue ethics is agent oriented theory because it is centered on the good character. It believes in training in which no guidance are required in a situation in the condition of conflicting virtues (Velasquez, et. al., 2015). Australian Computer Society, (2017), Australian computer society has code of ethics which describes the self interest should not come in the point of priority. It should be given with full of responsibility and integrity. Moral rules and cultures are main elements of ACS and we are performing these elements while performing our duties whether consciously or un-consciously. There are so many standards which is able to describe how the code of ethics applies in the work of professional. The standard of list is not compulsory exhaustive, and it is not definitively demarking which is acceptable from the unacceptable in the conduct of professional in the situation of practical which is faced by a person (Australian Computer Society, 2017). The main aim of a standard of conduct is to define or explain in more details, the code of ethics refer in context of specific behavior. However it has been seen that people does not engage in and does not take guarantee that a person is acting ethicall y or unethically. Moral rules are necessary for the manufacturer of driverless car. There can be so many acts such as honesty, competence, social implications, professional development and computing profession. Computing profession is one of ethics which has been taken in the context of driverless car (Villasenor, 2014). It is the code of ethics in which manufacture has to accept that in case of any professional opinions are required in the term of driverless car; the opinion of colleagues as well as client shall be respected. It makes ensure other people that the relationship of manufacturer whose membership with ACS has been terminated due to unethical behavior or unsatisfactory conducts (Richtel Dougherty, 2015). Conclusion It has been concluded that the ethical analysis of driverless cars has been dependent on primarily on speculative situations that will enable to prevent some situation not all of the issues. However this topic has been given more knowledge about the autonomous vehicles, which will be easier to evaluate the derived moral implications. This research will be helpful for further testing and survey to programmers in which they can prepare their cars in such a way where chances of accident will be reduced and abide by the ethics of society. These added values should be supported by laws and legislation so that policies between different manufactures can be prevented. Policies should be designed in the favour of passengers because it would enhance the benefit of manufacture at same time. Common accidents by self driving car will bring the attentive nature of manufacturers in the order of liability policies for this technology References Arroliga Jr, E.A., (2016). Deontological Ethical System For Google's Self-Driving Car. Australian Computer Society. E.d. Our values. Retrieved on August 12, 2017, from https://more.acs.org.au/about-the-acs/work-with-us/our-values Beemsterboer, P. (2010). Ethical decision making. Dimensions of Dental Hygiene, 8(6), 78-81. Brinkman, B. Sanders, A. (2013). Ethics in a computing culture. Boston, MA: Course Technology, Cengage. Donald A. N. (2015). The human side of automation. Keynote address for Automated Vehicles Symposium. 2014. Published in Road Vehicle Automation .Springer. Goodall, N.J., (2014). Machine ethics and automated vehicles. In Road vehicle automation (pp. 93-102). Springer International Publishing. Kirkpatrick, K., (2015). The moral challenges of driverless cars. Communications of the ACM, 58(8), pp.19-20. Lowrey, B. (2006). The Hero as a Reflection of Culture. Retrieved August 12, 2017, from https://www.palmbeachstate.edu/honors/Documents/BelenLowrey.pdf. Lucas, R. (2010). Are ICT managers as bad ethically as everyone thinks they are? The facts prove rather surprising. Information Age 8/9, 45-47. McBride, N. (2016). The ethics of driverless cars. ACM Computers and societ, 45(3), 179-184. Megginson, D., Whitaker, V. (2017). Continuing professional development. Kogan Page Publishers. Merriam-Webster Inc. Virtue. Retrieved Feb 12, 2017, from https://www.m-w.com. Neumann, P. (2016). Automated care woes Whoa there! Ubiquity, July, 1-6. Reynolds, G. (2010). Ethics in information technology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Course Technology, Cengage Reynolds, G. (2012). Ethics in information technology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Course Technology, Cengage. Richtel, M., Dougherty, C. (2015). Googles driverless cars run into problem: Cars with drivers. New York Times, 1. Shaw, W. Barry, V. (2010). Moral issues in business (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage. ten Cate, O., Chen, H. C., Hoff, R. G., Peters, H., Bok, H., van der Schaaf, M. (2015). Curriculum development for the workplace using entrustable professional activities (EPAs): AMEE guide no. 99. Medical teacher, 37(11), 983-1002. Velasquez, M.,Moberg, D., Meyer, M., Shanks, T., McLean, M., DeCosse, D., Andr, C., Hanson, K. (2015). A framework for thinking ethically. Retrieved August13, 2017, from: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.html Villasenor, J. (2014). Products liability and driverless cars: Issues and guiding principles for legislation