http://www.diva-portal.org Postprint This is the accepted version of a paper presented at International Conference on Computer Ethics, 9-10 June 1997, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. Citation for the original published paper: Eberhagen, N. (1997) A look at an IS ethical code's underlying ethical principles. In: Collste, G. (ed.), International Conference on Computer Ethics Linköping, Sweden: Centre for Applied Ethics, Linköping University N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper. Permanent link to this version: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-6361 A look at an IS ethical code's underlying ethical principles Niclas Eberhagen Växjö University Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science S-351 95 Växjö E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The purpose if this paper is to give light to the underlying ethical principles of an ethical code. The ethical code here is the unified international ethical code and standards for IS- professionals as proposed by Effy Oz (1992). An ethical code and standard is the rules for morally correct behavior that a community or organization put forth to its members, serving as norms and guidelines for their interactions and relationships. The underlying ethical principles are represented by such moral philosophers as Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hegel, Hume, and Mill. The presentation and study of the ethical code is done in order to uncover what ethical principles its rules and norms are based upon. Keywords: Ethical code and standards, IS-professionals, Ethical theories Introduction The purpose of this article is to throw light upon those underlying ethical principals whose representatives can be found in the work of Norman (1982) with regard to an ethical code and standard with relevance to the IS-field. By an ethical code and standard here is defined as those ethical principles that e.g. an organization or community put forth to its member to adhere to serving as guidelines or norms for the behavior between the members but also between the members and those outside the organization. The codes and standards, norms or rules, the members must follow in order for them to count themselves as members of the community or organization in question. An example of such an ethical code or standards is "the ACM Code of Ethics" which the members of that association must follow. Another example of an ethical guideline for an association, an early one, is the principle of Hippocrates stating that a doctor should not at least hurt their patients intentionally. Such an ethical principle is critical for a patient that a doctor adheres to since he is at the mercy of the whims of the doctor while undergoing treatment. This ethical principle seeks to establish a contract of trust between the moral agent and the stakeholder. If the patient cannot trust that the doctor in question can follow this basic ethical principle then there is no basis for trust between them. By a moral agent here is someone who has the potential to make a change of the current situation or status by choosing among different courses of actions. The stakeholder is the one who is affected by this change of current status. The stakeholders stand to gain or lose something from this change. They may or may not exercise some influence over the moral agent and or themselves. The moral agent may even himself be one of the stakeholders. The ethical code and standards which will be presented and discussed here is the international unified one that Oz (1992) has come to formulate by doing a comparative study of five different within the IS-field. The work of Oz will be presented further on in this paper. What is then ethics? Walsham (1996) gives us this brief definition by state that it is those norms that should guide our actions. Laudon (1995) however gives us a much clearer insight to what it is that we are dealing with by saying that it is all about decision making and choices of course of action of free individuals. Ethics should help us to reach the correct decisions by giving answers to questions like "what shall I do?” However this doesn't explain sufficiently enough what ethics is about. Norman (1982) approaches a usable definition of ethics by making use of the concept of moral philosophy and to the fact that behind it lies an attempt to reach an understanding of the characteristics of human values regarding how we shall live and what is meant by and constitutes a morally correct behavior. Norman states further that reducing ethics or moral to being just a tool for deciding or estimating whether the conduct of individuals is morally admirable or not is a rather one-sided perspective. Studies of moral philosophy should concern more general questions such as: "how should one live?" What can be said to be a good life for individuals, not only what is necessarily morally good. Norman points on the difference between what he calls substantial ethics (i.e. normative ethics) and meta-ethics and claims that this division is fundamental. Normative ethics tries to give answer to questions such as: "how should I live?" and "how should I be?" and so forth. It tries to create rules for conduct which can be general to all individuals. In the light of this Norman (1982) also let forth some critical voices of other philosophers who claims that we cannot create ethical theories concerning how one should live or act because there is no objective or general view of how we should live or act. It is the criteria of objectivity or generalizability that is questioned. They are critical to all attempts to establish objective general rules applicable to each and everyone despite the many cultures and forms of societies there exist. The critical philosophers tend to advocate some form of ethical subjectivism or relativism much in line whit the teachings of Protagoras stating that what is right for one society is also right for that society. Meta-ethics looks upon normative ethics and questions "what does it mean when we say that an action is god or correct?” At the bottom of this lies an analysis of the very language and concepts that are used in normative ethic and the questions that it raises. The purpose of meta-ethics is not to discover what is good or correct but what is meant by saying that something is good or correct. If normative ethics is occupied with practical issues and questions then the purpose of meta-ethics is to discover or uncloak that which is going on within normative ethics. A meta-ethical thinking represents a self-reflective thinking where the moral agent is preoccupied with the basis for theory of his moral reflections and may pose questions regarding the definition of fundamental concepts e.g. what is meant by a morally good action. In this way the moral agent may come to change the ethical principles he follows when faced with a moral dilemma. Norman (1982) lets a number of representatives for different moral philosophical schools come forth and present their ideas. Starting with the Sophists in the ancient Greece 600-500 B.C. through Plato and Aristotle in classical antique Greece to modern philosophers such as Hume, Mill, and Kant, and Hegel all the way to the contemporary ones such as Marx and Freud. Others, less known, are also given the opportunity to voice their ideas and thoughts but the one mentioned here comes to represent the mainstream of philosophical ideas and thinking. Last but not least Norman is as brave enough as to attempt to state what, in his own opinion, a moral ethical theory should include, and thereby trying to overcome some of the critique he and others have given regarding the work of the earlier moral philosophers. However this attempt may in itself be the object of another discussion and will not be taken up within here. Ethical questions do not necessarily have to be of normative character to be interesting but may as well be descriptive. Such descriptive ethical questions tries to uncover the ethical facts which are relevant to the situation at hand by giving answers to questions such as "what is...?". Mason (1995) points on a framework with four questions which may be used to discover those facts, more or less of ethical character, which underlies an ethical situation, choice or dilemma. The framework states that facts in a situation may be gathered by answering the following questions: 1) who is the moral agent? Here it is the identification of the one whose actions may bring about change; 2) what possible courses of actions are available to the moral agent? Since actions bring about the realization of consequences question number three automatically follows; 3) what are the consequences that may be realized when different courses of action are chosen?; and 4) who are the stakeholders in the situation? The identification of them is important because they are the ones who stand to gain or lose something through the action of the moral agent. The answers to these questions within the framework help us to establish the facts of the situation that gives answers to such questions as "what is...?", but they do not tell us how we should act or behave. Some relevant ethical theories What is meant by relevant ethical theories? They are here those theories which have the greatest relevance in studies of ethical principles or questions with regard to the IS-field. In order to find these a study has been undertaken of a number of contemporary authors, which have discussed ethics and ethical dilemmas within the IS-field.