From ethics washing to ethics bashing: a view on tech ethics from within moral philosophy

Elettra Bietti
{"title":"From ethics washing to ethics bashing: a view on tech ethics from within moral philosophy","authors":"Elettra Bietti","doi":"10.1145/3351095.3372860","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The word 'ethics' is under siege in technology policy circles. Weaponized in support of deregulation, self-regulation or handsoff governance, \"ethics\" is increasingly identified with technology companies' self-regulatory efforts and with shallow appearances of ethical behavior. So-called \"ethics washing\" by tech companies is on the rise, prompting criticism and scrutiny from scholars and the tech community at large. In parallel to the growth of ethics washing, its condemnation has led to a tendency to engage in \"ethics bashing.\" This consists in the trivialization of ethics and moral philosophy now understood as discrete tools or pre-formed social structures such as ethics boards, self-governance schemes or stakeholder groups. The misunderstandings underlying ethics bashing are at least threefold: (a) philosophy and \"ethics\" are seen as a communications strategy and as a form of instrumentalized cover-up or façade for unethical behavior, (b) philosophy is understood in opposition and as alternative to political representation and social organizing and (c) the role and importance of moral philosophy is downplayed and portrayed as mere \"ivory tower\" intellectualization of complex problems that need to be dealt with in practice. This paper argues that the rhetoric of ethics and morality should not be reductively instrumentalized, either by the industry in the form of \"ethics washing,\" or by scholars and policy-makers in the form of \"ethics bashing.\" Grappling with the role of philosophy and ethics requires moving beyond both tendencies and seeing ethics as a mode of inquiry that facilitates the evaluation of competing tech policy strategies. In other words, we must resist narrow reductivism of moral philosophy as instrumentalized performance and renew our faith in its intrinsic moral value as a mode of knowledgeseeking and inquiry. Far from mandating a self-regulatory scheme or a given governance structure, moral philosophy in fact facilitates the questioning and reconsideration of any given practice, situating it within a complex web of legal, political and economic institutions. Moral philosophy indeed can shed new light on human practices by adding needed perspective, explaining the relationship between technology and other worthy goals, situating technology within the human, the social, the political. It has become urgent to start considering technology ethics also from within and not only from outside of ethics.","PeriodicalId":377829,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"136","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372860","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 136

Abstract

The word 'ethics' is under siege in technology policy circles. Weaponized in support of deregulation, self-regulation or handsoff governance, "ethics" is increasingly identified with technology companies' self-regulatory efforts and with shallow appearances of ethical behavior. So-called "ethics washing" by tech companies is on the rise, prompting criticism and scrutiny from scholars and the tech community at large. In parallel to the growth of ethics washing, its condemnation has led to a tendency to engage in "ethics bashing." This consists in the trivialization of ethics and moral philosophy now understood as discrete tools or pre-formed social structures such as ethics boards, self-governance schemes or stakeholder groups. The misunderstandings underlying ethics bashing are at least threefold: (a) philosophy and "ethics" are seen as a communications strategy and as a form of instrumentalized cover-up or façade for unethical behavior, (b) philosophy is understood in opposition and as alternative to political representation and social organizing and (c) the role and importance of moral philosophy is downplayed and portrayed as mere "ivory tower" intellectualization of complex problems that need to be dealt with in practice. This paper argues that the rhetoric of ethics and morality should not be reductively instrumentalized, either by the industry in the form of "ethics washing," or by scholars and policy-makers in the form of "ethics bashing." Grappling with the role of philosophy and ethics requires moving beyond both tendencies and seeing ethics as a mode of inquiry that facilitates the evaluation of competing tech policy strategies. In other words, we must resist narrow reductivism of moral philosophy as instrumentalized performance and renew our faith in its intrinsic moral value as a mode of knowledgeseeking and inquiry. Far from mandating a self-regulatory scheme or a given governance structure, moral philosophy in fact facilitates the questioning and reconsideration of any given practice, situating it within a complex web of legal, political and economic institutions. Moral philosophy indeed can shed new light on human practices by adding needed perspective, explaining the relationship between technology and other worthy goals, situating technology within the human, the social, the political. It has become urgent to start considering technology ethics also from within and not only from outside of ethics.
从伦理洗涤到伦理抨击:道德哲学视野下的技术伦理观
“道德”一词在科技政策圈饱受诟病。“道德”被用作支持放松管制、自我监管或放任自流的武器,越来越多地与科技公司的自我监管努力和表面上的道德行为联系在一起。科技公司所谓的“道德清洗”正在上升,引发了学者和整个科技界的批评和审视。在“道德清洗”兴起的同时,对其的谴责也导致了“道德抨击”的倾向。这包括伦理和道德哲学的琐琐化,现在被理解为离散的工具或预先形成的社会结构,如伦理委员会、自治计划或利益相关者团体。道德抨击背后的误解至少有三个方面:(a)哲学和“伦理”被视为一种沟通策略,是对不道德行为的一种工具化的掩盖或掩饰;(b)哲学被理解为对立的,是政治代表和社会组织的替代品;(c)道德哲学的作用和重要性被淡化,并被描绘成仅仅是对需要在实践中处理的复杂问题的“象牙塔”理智化。本文认为,伦理和道德的修辞不应该被简化为工具化,无论是由行业以“道德清洗”的形式,还是由学者和政策制定者以“道德抨击”的形式。解决哲学和伦理的作用需要超越这两种倾向,并将伦理视为一种探究模式,有助于评估相互竞争的技术政策战略。换句话说,我们必须抵制道德哲学作为工具化表现的狭隘还原论,并更新我们对其作为知识寻求和探究模式的内在道德价值的信念。道德哲学远没有强制要求一种自我监管计划或给定的治理结构,事实上,它促进了对任何给定实践的质疑和重新思考,将其置于法律、政治和经济机构的复杂网络中。道德哲学确实可以通过增加必要的视角,解释技术和其他有价值的目标之间的关系,将技术置于人类,社会,政治之中,来揭示人类实践的新曙光。从伦理的内部而不仅仅是从伦理的外部来考虑技术伦理已经变得迫在眉睫。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信