A Brief History of Ethics Troy Kling CSC 385 Dr. Eric Patterson

January 30, 2015

Abstract As civilizations rise and fall throughout the history of humanity, so too do various different ethical theories. From its earliest inception in the minds of Ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates and Plato, straight through to the modern day theories put forward by Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and their peers, the idea of the “greatest good” has pervaded the minds of humanity. One of the most fundamental questions a person can ask is whether an action is good or evil, right or wrong, and ethics has evolved to assist humanity in formulating an answer to this age-old question. However, the field of ethics is renowned for the constant upheavals it experiences, and this rate of change has only increased in the modern day. With the invention of the computer and the ever-accelerating pace of technological innovation, one must consider how ethics will evolve to handle new moral quandaries that could not have been considered in the past. In this paper, a brief survey of ethical theories - from Ancient Greece to modern day - is conducted. Once several of the most prominent ethical theories have been described, the ethical codes of the ACM and IEEE are introduced. Many similarities can be found between the ethics of the past and the ethics of the information age, but there are also some key differences that must be considered.

Contents

1 Introduction 2

2 Ancient Greek Ethics 2 2.1 Socratism ...... 2 2.2 Sophism ...... 3 2.3 Aristotelianism ...... 4

3 Later Greek Ethics 4 3.1 Hedonism ...... 4 3.2 Epicureanism ...... 5

4 Modern Ethics 6 4.1 Kantianism ...... 6 4.2 Utilitarianism ...... 6 4.3 Relativism ...... 7

5 Ethics in the Age of Information 8 5.1 IEEE and ACM Codes of Ethics ...... 8 5.2 Conclusion ...... 9

1 1 Introduction

The evolution of ethical ideals has been steadily progressing throughout the past two and a half millennia.

As humanity has advanced culturally and intellectually, so too have philosophers’ theories about right and wrong. The field of ethics is a constantly-shifting landscape, but recently that rate of change has been forced to increase. In order to keep up with the technological advancements of the modern era, ethical theories have had to evolve more rapidly. Several of the new ideas in computer ethics have never before been considered, but the majority of topics share some at least some similarity with ethical traditions of the past.

2 Ancient Greek Ethics

One can imagine that the concept of right vs. wrong has existed for as long as humanity itself. Certainly it would have been difficult for early humans to have advanced much at all if they didn’t have some concept of morality, some driving force that led them down a path of solidarity rather than chaos. It might even be said that ethical reasoning is ingrained within the human psyche. Despite this fact, humans didn’t start recording their thoughts on morality and ethics until relatively recently.

The field of ethics traces its roots back to Ancient Greece [3]. Major contributions were made by countless individuals, and a full compendium of contributions is not feasible. Nonetheless, the major figures in the development of ethics are described below.

2.1 Socratism

Socrates is generally thought to be the father of philosophy and, by extension, ethics. He is arguably the most well known of all Ancient Greek philosophers, and yet he never did any philosophical writing of his own. The only records we have of Socrates are through secondhand accounts, such as his depiction is Plato’s

Republic, and many of these accounts are likely embellished. This has led many philosophers to question whether or not the modern day depiction of Socrates is accurate. Regardless of whether or not Plato’s representation of him is accurate, Socrates is still widely considered to be one of the most important figures in all of philosophy and ethics [3].

Plato’s Apology is an account of the speech given by Socrates after he was accused of corrupting the youth and being impious. The text mainly consists of a monologue by Socrates, where he defends himself against the claims made by the Athenian state. However, he asserts that, “I am not going to argue for my own sake, as you may think, but for yours,” and compares himself to a gadfly stinging the lazy horse that is Athens [1]. This is an apt description of Socrates, who was famed for criticizing the government and the

2 individual politicians within it.

In the Apology Socrates also talks about his views on ethics. He states that, “a man who is good for

anything ... ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong - acting the part

of a good man or of a bad” [1]. This is one of the earliest examples of ethical reasoning in writings about

Socrates. Throughout other dialogues written by Plato and other students of Socrates, a clearer image of

Socratic ethics can be formed.

One of the most prominent ethical theories proposed by Socrates is that of virtues. Socrates considered

the intellectual and ethical virtues to be the most important, even going so far as to claim that, “ethical virtue

is the only thing that matters” [2]. In this sense, Socrates’ teachings on this subject could be summarized

by saying it is important to be good to your fellow man. Indeed, Socrates believed that all humans wanted to do good in the world and to be virtuous. This leads to the Socratic Paradox, which states that humans do not perform unethical actions deliberately and that no one would knowingly choose evil over good [3].

Despite the inherent paradoxical nature of this argument, it is useful for describing how Socrates viewed the world. It causes knowledge and ethics to become closely intertwined - without knowledge one cannot act ethically, and without ethics one cannot be knowledgeable. And as the famous Socratic saying goes, “True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing” [1].

2.2 Sophism

In many ways, the philosophy and ethics of the Sophists represent the exact antithesis to Socrates’ beliefs.

Living and teaching in the same time period as Socrates, the Sophists were moral relativists. They believed that morality and ethics were personal issues and that each individual could have his own equally valid system of ethics. They were also teachers of the aristocracy in Ancient Greece and were often criticized because they charges fees for their lessons.

Several of Plato’s dialogues portray fictional discussions between Socrates and the Sophists, with Socrates pointing out the logical inconsistencies in their belief system. In the spirit of the Socratic method, his major criticisms of the Sophists came in the form of rhetorical questions: “Does everyone’s opinion hold equal weight?” and “Can it be assumed that one person’s judgment is just as good as anyone else’s [3]?” According to Socrates, it was foolish to claim that each person had his own equally valid system of beliefs regarding ethics.

The Sophists were also regularly criticized for their teaching methods. The Socratic philosophers of the time claimed that charging a fee for knowledge was morally reprehensible and that academic freedom was only possible if all lessons were free of charge. Although the Sophists had a measurable impact on the politics

3 of the time, the Socratic method of thinking has been far more pervasive throughout the history of ethics

[3].

2.3 Aristotelianism

Aristotle was likely the first person to use the term “ethics” to refer to the field of moral philosophy. He regarded Socrates as the first ethical thinker in history and shared many common views with him. Aristotle valued human virtuosity above all else, and his four cardinal virtues were prudence, temperance, courage, and justice [4]. In some ways, Aristotle extended Socratic ethics beyond that which is written about in

Plato’s dialogues. Most importantly, Aristotle treated ethics as something that should be put into action, not merely learned about. According to his “Nicomachean Ethics”, people should study ethics not to become more knowledgeable, but to better practice moral behavior and to become better individuals [4]. This stands in contrast to standard Socratic thinking of the time, which claimed that knowledge itself was equivalent to goodness.

Whereas Socrates valued knowledge and wisdom above all other virtues, Aristotle valued prudence, or the practice of making pragmatic decisions. Making intelligent decisions did require knowledge, but Aristotle thought this knowledge was meaningless if it was never put into action. He also valued temperance, courage, and justice - all virtues that lie at the midpoint of deficiency and excess. Indeed, many of Aristotle’s views on ethics can be summarized by saying that he was in favor of “virtues of the mean”, meaning that he valued moderation in all things [4]. Artistotle’s views were more firmly rooted in teleology than Socrates’ views, in the sense that he believed the purpose of studying ethics was to become a better person.

3 Later Greek Ethics

3.1 Hedonism

Ethical hedonism is the philosophical view that each person has the right to try to maximize their happiness

(or pleasure) through any means necessary, as long as those means do not infringe upon the happiness of others. The first major proponent of hedonism was Aristippus, a student of Socrates [5]. In contrast to the earlier Socratic philosophers, however, followers of Aristippus believed that the only way to be good was to seek pleasure in the world. In this way, Hedonism and Aristotelian ethics are vastly different from one other. Hedonists derived their value from seeking pleasure in all things, no matter how extreme, whereas

Artistotelians valued moderation.

The Hedonists also had quite the extreme view of knowledge. Whereas most Socratic philosophers

4 believed the pursuit knowledge to be a virtuous activity, Hedonists believe it to be pointless. According to their doctrines, the only true knowledge came from immediate sensory perceptions [5]. For example, it was possible to know that a fruit tasted sweet or that a flower smelled nice, but it would be impossible to truly know what caused these objects to have said attributes. This train of thought fit nicely into the

Hedonist worldview, because it meant that the only way to truly know anything was to live in the moment and appreciate whatever ephemeral pleasures the world had to offer. Hedonism had a somewhat large impact on the field of ethics and heavily influenced Epicureanism and Utilitarianism [5].

3.2 Epicureanism

As the name suggests, Epicureanism was started by the philospher Epicurus. Similar to the Hedonists that came before him, Epicurus valued pleasure above all else. He thought that the search for pleasure was the main driving force behind humanity and that seeking pleasure was equivalent to being morally good. One major difference that separated Epicurus from the Hedonists, though, was the idea of katastematic pleasure, or pleasure that occurs while at rest [6]. Unlike the Hedonist view of pleasure, the Epicurean view of pleasure allowed for individuals to find solace by merely being content with themselves, or by seeking knowledge for its own sake. Epicureans were also not concerned with maximizing pleasure, but rather in simply attaining some finite amount of it. Under their worldview, moderation was important because excess pleasure could prove dangerous. In the spirit of Aristotelian ethics, Epicurus believed that too much of a good thing could cause it to turn sour and that self control was an important virtue.

Epicurus was also one of the first philosophers to devise the idea of a social contract. Although John

Locke and Thomas Hobbes are more prominent names in social contract theory, Epicurus was instrumental in creating the groundwork. According to his writings on justice, he believed that societies and governments were created to protect their constituents from the perils of the outside world and that they were conferred certain rights for doing so. His belief was that the rule of law gave benefits that outweighed its costs.

In this way, and many others, Epicurus was a very forward thinker. Following the teachings of Democritus, he viewed the entire world - and even the human soul - as consisting of atoms [6]. He was strictly a materialist and fought against superstition and other forms of thinking that were not rooted in empiricism.

His materialistic view of the world also strongly influenced his views on ethics.

5 4 Modern Ethics

4.1 Kantianism

Kantianism is a deontological branch of ethics, meaning that it is largely rule-based. First described by

Immanuel Kant in the late eighteenth century, Kantianism attempts to universalize morality. In order for an action to be considered universally morally acceptable, it must be able to be applied to all individuals without causing harm. This notion is called the categorical imperative, which Kant describes as “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law” [7].

Or in other words, an action can only be considered good if the individual performing that action would be okay with the rest of humanity following in his footsteps. In certain formulations, the categorical imperative is not unlike the golden rule - “Do unto others as you would like done unto yourself.”

Kant’s categorical imperative precludes lying, theft, murder, and the like from being considered morally justifiable actions. For example, one individual stealing an apple from a fruit stand might seem inconsequen- tial, but if all of humanity were to start stealing, the world would become chaotic. This is not desirable, so the categorical imperative states that stealing must be ethically wrong. This, of course, raises several concerns about how strict the rules of Kantian ethics are. Kantianism allows for no exceptions to the universal rules it upholds, but there are many conceivable situations in which exceptions should be made. For example,

Kant considered killing to always be wrong, no matter what the circumstances, but one could argue that extenuating circumstances should be taken into consideration [7]. In the case of self-defense, where a victim intentionally or unintentionally kills their assailant in order to protect their own life, most people would claim that such an action should be an exception to the “no killing” rule.

Kantianism is also notable due to the fact that it only considers the justification for an action, not the outcome of that action. An action might pass the categorical imperative test and still cause harm, but if the actor’s intention was good then the action itself is still considered good. For example, an individual might tell the truth when questioned about a sensitive topic and ultimately cause harm to others. However, since the individual’s intention was good (and since telling the truth is always preferable to lying, according to

Kant), such an action still fits under the umbrella of universal morality.

4.2 Utilitarianism

First formalized by John Stuart Mill in the mid-nineteenth century, Utilitarianism is the principle that morally justifiable actions are those that result in the greatest amount of happiness (or utility) for the greatest number of people [8]. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist approach to ethics, meaning that the only

6 factor under consideration is the outcome of an action. According to Mill, consequences are the only things that truly matter when considering the goodness or badness of an action. Unlike Kantianism, no weight is placed on an individual’s motives or intentions.

Utilitarianism has come under scrutiny for several reasons. Chief among them is that it puts too much focus on the rule of the majority rather than on minority rights. There are countless scenarios where certain actions result in a net gain of utility but are still morally reprehensible. As an extreme example, consider the concept of slavery. If a small proportion of a population is forced into slavery, a very large proportion of individuals will benefit from the free labor and resources they produce. Surely those individuals forced into slavery will experience a drastic loss of utility, but overall the amount of utility in the entire population may actually increase. According to Utilitarianism, such a form of slavery would be morally defensible. However, most people would agree that slavery is wrong because it violates the rights of those individuals who become enslaved.

Utilitarianism has also received criticism for simply being too complex to implement as an ethical system.

Under Utilitarianism, each individual would have to consider the effect that their actions would have on the entirety of humanity, and this is simply not feasible. Such a calculation would simply take too long and be too intricate to accurately estimate. Even quantifying utility for a single individual would be a difficult task. As a result, rule utilitarianism was developed. This system of ethics shares several commonalities with

Kantianism and would be easier to implement, but is not without its criticisms.

4.3 Relativism

Moral relativism has seen a resurgence in popularity recently. This branch of ethics is not unlike the

Sophist way of thinking from Ancient Greece. At different scales, moral relativism can mean different things. Some relativists claim that each individual has their own equally valid interpretation of ethics and that no individual’s opinion is any more correct than another individual’s. Relativism at this scale can also get bogged down by the fact that “good,” “bad,” “right,” “wrong,” etc. can lose their meaning. However, there is also relativism at a larger scale - be it cultural or national. One culture might have a certain system of ethics that governs it, and another culture might have a very different ethical system. Despite these differences, though, moral relativists would claim that both cultures have equally valid interpretations of ethics.

Understanding the tenets of moral relativism is especially important in today’s globally-connected world.

Citizens of the United States might value the democratic process or the capitalist system, and they might have strong ethical beliefs about democracy and capitalism, but not every nation around the world holds

7 those same values. Many American citizens would view an ethical system in a communist country to be somehow lesser than their own, and surely the opposite is also true. But moral relativists step in to say that both forms of ethics are equally valid.

5 Ethics in the Age of Information

As the world of technology has changed over the past several decades, so too has the field of ethics. Indeed, it has been necessary for rapid advancements in the understanding of computer ethics to occur in order to keep up with the accelerating pace of technological innovation. As a result, several organizations - both large and small - have developed their own codes of ethics when it comes to computer use and software development.

5.1 IEEE and ACM Codes of Ethics

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has created of the most widely-recognized codes of ethics for computer scientists. The ten rules can be paraphrased as follows:

1. Do not endanger the public or the environment.

2. Avoid conflicts wherever possible. 3. Be honest and realistic with regard to software projects. 4. Reject bribery. 5. Improve the public’s understanding of technology.

6. Maintain your own technological competence. 7. Offer and accept criticism willingly. 8. Treat all people fairly.

9. Do not injure others in any way. 10. Assist colleagues whenever possible [9].

The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) has also developed their own code of ethics, which is quite a bit more detailed but mentions many of the same points. Other topics that are mentioned in the ACM code of ethics are: respecting copyrights and intellectual property, respecting privacy and confidentiality, striving for high quality products, and other suggestions related to managerial and leadership positions [10].

8 5.2 Conclusion

If one compares the IEEE and ACM codes of ethics to the ethical theories of the past, it might not be immediately clear how similar they are. However, modern day computer ethics do actually share quite a few similarities with the other systems of ethics outlined in this paper. Rule (1) of the IEEE code is framed in the negative (do not endanger the public), but when framed in the positive (i.e. seek to improve the well- being of the general public) it sounds similar to Kantianism and Utilitarianism. Rule (3) relates to honesty, which again goes back to Kantianism and the idea that being truthful is always better than lying. Rule (4) talks about rejecting bribery in all its forms, which Socrates would most likely be in favor of, considering he disliked the Sophists for simply getting paid to be educators. Rules (5) and (6) are aimed at improving knowledge for all of humanity, which is perhaps the most important of the Socratic and Epicurean virtues.

Rule (8) regards equality and fairness, which is a central theme of any discourse regarding ethics. Rule (9) is similar to rule (1) in that it aims to protect individuals from harm.

The other rules in the IEEE and ACM codes of ethics have more to do with workplace relationships and good practices for software development, but are still very relevant in the discussion of modern day ethics.

Although they might not have been considered important ethical issues in the past, that is now changing.

Software developers have responsibilities to their colleagues and to their users, and therefore new ethical ideas must be taken under consideration.

9 References

[1] Plato, “Apology”, Project Gutenberg, 2008. E-Book. [2] Brian Duignan, “The 100 Most Influential Philosophers of All Time”, The Rosenberg Publishing Group, pp. 33. 2009. Print. [3] Catherine Osborne, “Presocratic Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction”, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-135. 2004. Print.

[4] Aristotle and Martin Ostwald, “Nicomachean Ethics”, Bobbs-Merrill, 1962. Print. [5] “Hedonism”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/ [6] “Epicureanism”, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/

[7] Immanuel Kant and H. J. Paton, “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals”, Harper & Row, 1964. Print. [8] John Stuart Mill, “Utilitarianism”, Project Gutenberg, pp. 1-46. 2004. E-Book. [9] “IEEE Code of Ethics”, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Web. http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html [10] “ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct”, Association for Computing Machinery. Web. http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics

10