Using structured ethical techniques to facilitate reasoning in technology ethics

Matt A. Murphy
{"title":"Using structured ethical techniques to facilitate reasoning in technology ethics","authors":"Matt A. Murphy","doi":"10.1007/s43681-023-00371-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Despite many experts’ best intentions, technology ethics continues to embody a commonly used definition of insanity—by repeatedly trying to achieve ethical outcomes through the same methods that don’t work. One of the most intractable problems in technology ethics is how to translate ethical principles into actual practice. This challenge persists for many reasons including a gap between theoretical and technical language, a lack of enforceable mechanisms, misaligned incentives, and others that this paper will outline. With popular and often contentious fields like artificial intelligence (AI), a slew of technical and functional (used here to mean primarily “non-technical”) approaches are continually developed by diverse organizations to bridge the theoretical-practical divide. Technical approaches and coding interventions are useful for programmers and developers, but often lack contextually sensitive thinking that incorporates project teams or a wider group of stakeholders. Contrarily, functional approaches tend to be too conceptual and immaterial, lacking actionable steps for implementation into product development processes. Despite best efforts, many current approaches are therefore impractical or challenging to use in any meaningful way. After surveying a variety of different fields for current approaches to technology ethics, I propose a set of originally developed methods called Structured Ethical Techniques (SETs) that pull from best practices to build out a middle ground between functional and technical methods. SETs provide a way to add deliberative ethics to any technology’s development while acknowledging the business realities that often curb ethical deliberation, such as efficiency concerns, pressures to innovate, internal resource limitations, and more.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72137,"journal":{"name":"AI and ethics","volume":"5 1","pages":"479 - 488"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI and ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-023-00371-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite many experts’ best intentions, technology ethics continues to embody a commonly used definition of insanity—by repeatedly trying to achieve ethical outcomes through the same methods that don’t work. One of the most intractable problems in technology ethics is how to translate ethical principles into actual practice. This challenge persists for many reasons including a gap between theoretical and technical language, a lack of enforceable mechanisms, misaligned incentives, and others that this paper will outline. With popular and often contentious fields like artificial intelligence (AI), a slew of technical and functional (used here to mean primarily “non-technical”) approaches are continually developed by diverse organizations to bridge the theoretical-practical divide. Technical approaches and coding interventions are useful for programmers and developers, but often lack contextually sensitive thinking that incorporates project teams or a wider group of stakeholders. Contrarily, functional approaches tend to be too conceptual and immaterial, lacking actionable steps for implementation into product development processes. Despite best efforts, many current approaches are therefore impractical or challenging to use in any meaningful way. After surveying a variety of different fields for current approaches to technology ethics, I propose a set of originally developed methods called Structured Ethical Techniques (SETs) that pull from best practices to build out a middle ground between functional and technical methods. SETs provide a way to add deliberative ethics to any technology’s development while acknowledging the business realities that often curb ethical deliberation, such as efficiency concerns, pressures to innovate, internal resource limitations, and more.

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