CS761: Computer Ethics and

Public Policy
(23, 24 & 26 August, 2022)
Philosophical & Professional Ethics
• Philosophical ethics could be called the study of what is good and
bad.
 Example: A person with no money steals from a grocery store to feed their
friends and neighbors who are hungry.

• Professional ethics are principles that govern the behavior of a person

or group in a business environment.
 Example: The Hippocratic Oath, taken by doctors when they are
rewarded the degree in medicine.
Dimensions of Ethics:
Meta Ethics:

Deals with questions like “what is meant by being right?” OR “what is

meant by being wrong?”

It deals with the definition of right and wrong.

Meta means about the thing itself, so Meta Ethics is Ethics about
Ethics.
Eg: “What is meant by a
wrong action?”
Prescriptive Ethics (Normative Ethics):
Deals with questions like “Is that action right (ethical)?” OR “Was that act
wrong?”
It checks if the action/outcome of the action fits into the definition of right and
wrong.
Normative Ethics
Eg: “Is it
wrong to kill a
Deontological Teleological Ethics Virtue Ethics person?”
Ethics (focus on (focus on the (focus on good
action/duty) outcome/end) action)
Descriptive Ethics (Comparative Ethics):

Deals with peoples beliefs about morality.

It deals with what society thinks as good or bad.

It is an empirical investigation of the moral beliefs of various groups.

Eg: “How many among

you think that it is wrong
to kill a person?”
Applied Ethics:

The most practical branch of Ethics.

It deals with the ethical questions specific to the practical fields.

Bio Ethics

Eg: “Is it ethical to allow Cyber Ethics

euthanasia?”
Environment Ethics

International Ethics
Descriptive and normative claims:

• Descriptive claim:

A DESCRIPTIVE claim is a claim that asserts that

such-and-such IS the case.

• Normative claim:

A NORMATIVE claim is a claim that asserts that

such-and-such OUGHT to be the case.
Difference between descriptive and normative ethics

Descriptive ethics Normative ethics

Descriptive ethics is the study of people’s views Normative ethics is the study of ethical actions.
about moral beliefs

It describes how people behave and what types Attempts to evaluate or create moral standards
of moral standards they claim to follow and prescribes how people ought to act.

Analyses people’s moral values, standards and Analyses how people ought to act
behavior
Ethical Relativism:

• Ethical Relativism is the belief that there are no universal standards for
what is right and wrong; something that may be considered “right” in one
society could be considered “wrong” in another.

• There are 4 reasons for ethical relativism :

 The diversity of moral values
 Moral Uncertainty
 Situational Differences
 Toleration of Differences
Reasons for ethical relativism

The diversity of moral values : The actual fact that People and Societies have and
continue to disagree about the moral issues, they continue to hold different moral
beliefs.

Moral Uncertainty : In a complex moral situation, I may be uncertain about what is the
right thing to do. I may indeed have to simply act according to my conscience, i.e., what I
believe to be right. But this does not prove that morality is wholly a matter of mere
belief. That would be like saying; since I do not know with certainty the correct answer to
this problem there is no correct answer. The best I can say is that I do not know the
answer, not that there is no answer.
Reasons for ethical relativism
Situational Differences: Situational differences seem to make
objectivity, in terms of a common or universal morality impossible. A
Relativist insists that moral norms cannot be objective universally
true, because circumstances vary too much.
For example: A Relativist might insist that given diverse circumstances, the
judgment that “lying is always wrong” cannot be absolutely true. For instance,
lying might be right in order to save a life.
Reasons for ethical relativism
 Toleration of Differences: Indeed, much of contemporary relativism is not
the result of a logical argument but is a function of allegiance to a value
Tolerance.
For Example: This position is contradictory. I might adopt tolerance as a moral value,
but if relativism is correct, than tolerance is only one value among many. Since no
value is more correct than another, I could just as easily adopt dogmatism as my
overriding moral belief. Moreover, if relativism is true, why should I even bother to
listen to another person’s moral beliefs, since by definition their beliefs cannot be
better or more correct than my own beliefs?