请求事先选择一个伦理理论立场,以对算法系统所提出的伦理问题作出相关回应

Sylvie Michel, Sylvie Gerbaix, Marc Bidan
{"title":"请求事先选择一个伦理理论立场,以对算法系统所提出的伦理问题作出相关回应","authors":"Sylvie Michel, Sylvie Gerbaix, Marc Bidan","doi":"10.1109/NextComp55567.2022.9932235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this conceptual article is to show that one cannot propose measures, actions, and decisions to improve algorithmic systems ethics of without first choosing an ethical theoretical position. In this perspective, we proceeded in two stages. First, we identify the main ethical theorical positions proposed in the philosophical literature. Secondly, we characterize and synthetize three different ethical issues posed by algorithmic systems, and we show that the repercussions of the choice of an ethical theorical position for each category of ethical issues of algorithmic systems lead to different decisions. We show that for each category of ethical problems, the ethical decisions and their repercussions differ according to the ethical theory chosen. The value of this paper is to show that the literature on algorithmic systems ethics does not take into account the implications of choosing an ethical position. Indeed, before trying to solve ethical issues, agreements, discussions, are needed to take into account the different ethical theorical positions and their repercussions in terms of decision.","PeriodicalId":422085,"journal":{"name":"2022 3rd International Conference on Next Generation Computing Applications (NextComp)","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A plea for choosing ex ante an ethical theorical position for a relevant response to ethical issues posed by algorithmic systems\",\"authors\":\"Sylvie Michel, Sylvie Gerbaix, Marc Bidan\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/NextComp55567.2022.9932235\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this conceptual article is to show that one cannot propose measures, actions, and decisions to improve algorithmic systems ethics of without first choosing an ethical theoretical position. In this perspective, we proceeded in two stages. First, we identify the main ethical theorical positions proposed in the philosophical literature. Secondly, we characterize and synthetize three different ethical issues posed by algorithmic systems, and we show that the repercussions of the choice of an ethical theorical position for each category of ethical issues of algorithmic systems lead to different decisions. We show that for each category of ethical problems, the ethical decisions and their repercussions differ according to the ethical theory chosen. The value of this paper is to show that the literature on algorithmic systems ethics does not take into account the implications of choosing an ethical position. Indeed, before trying to solve ethical issues, agreements, discussions, are needed to take into account the different ethical theorical positions and their repercussions in terms of decision.\",\"PeriodicalId\":422085,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2022 3rd International Conference on Next Generation Computing Applications (NextComp)\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2022 3rd International Conference on Next Generation Computing Applications (NextComp)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/NextComp55567.2022.9932235\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 3rd International Conference on Next Generation Computing Applications (NextComp)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/NextComp55567.2022.9932235","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇概念性文章的目的是表明,如果不首先选择一个伦理理论立场,就不能提出改善算法系统伦理的措施、行动和决定。从这个角度来看,我们分两个阶段进行。首先,我们确定了哲学文献中提出的主要伦理理论立场。其次,我们对算法系统提出的三种不同的伦理问题进行了表征和综合,并表明对算法系统的每一类伦理问题选择伦理理论立场的影响会导致不同的决策。我们表明,对于每一类伦理问题,根据所选择的伦理理论,伦理决策及其影响是不同的。本文的价值在于表明,关于算法系统伦理的文献并没有考虑到选择伦理立场的影响。的确,在试图解决伦理问题、协议、讨论之前,需要考虑到不同的伦理理论立场及其对决策的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A plea for choosing ex ante an ethical theorical position for a relevant response to ethical issues posed by algorithmic systems
The aim of this conceptual article is to show that one cannot propose measures, actions, and decisions to improve algorithmic systems ethics of without first choosing an ethical theoretical position. In this perspective, we proceeded in two stages. First, we identify the main ethical theorical positions proposed in the philosophical literature. Secondly, we characterize and synthetize three different ethical issues posed by algorithmic systems, and we show that the repercussions of the choice of an ethical theorical position for each category of ethical issues of algorithmic systems lead to different decisions. We show that for each category of ethical problems, the ethical decisions and their repercussions differ according to the ethical theory chosen. The value of this paper is to show that the literature on algorithmic systems ethics does not take into account the implications of choosing an ethical position. Indeed, before trying to solve ethical issues, agreements, discussions, are needed to take into account the different ethical theorical positions and their repercussions in terms of decision.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信