Throughout this semester I have considered many of the ethical pickles we are finding in our new digital era. Some of those are cheating in academia, organizations intruding in people’s private information, the consequences of violent role playing games. I still have a hard time finding a situation that is so foreign and new that cannot be directly correlated to a physical action that was possible before Al Gore gave us the internet. Thanks Al.

The most salient difference I find in pre-binary and post-binary ethics is the fact that we are continually interacting with a wide variety of people, from all cultures, geographical areas, and ideologies. Our ethics are not so simple and generally accepted as they were before.  We now find ourselves with a more pressing challenge to defy ethnocentrism and find moral standards than can be defended across the globe. A great example is that of Creative Commons. This initiative understands that for them to make a difference, they need to be applicable for person in different jurisdictions, which means the double challenge of language translation and ethical translation.

Still, at an individual level, I see e stronger tie between “real world” ethics and “virtual world” ethics. I use quote signs because I strongly believe, like virtue ethicists, that virtual world is just as real as flesh and bones for the moral stand of a person.

I think if anything, rethinking my digital ethics has been a strong critique towards my overall personal beliefs about what is good and bad, what is acceptable and not.

Hinman points to five virtues as foundation for an ethical academic life: Honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility. He further describes the new challenges that the web has provided for enacting this virtues as teachers and learners.

The story of Laura K Krishna describes how a college student looking for a way to plagiarize was publicly humiliated online. She basically asked a random stranger to write a paper for her, Nate (the stranger) provided her with a terrible paper and blogged about the encounter including a threat to contact her school.

I will not comment on the level of stupidity involved in the events. However, her actions were not hones to herself nor to others, she betrayed any trust that her professor may have offered her, she was unfair to the other students who did in fact write a paper, she disrespected her professor and her university by doing something dishonest, and she failed to show responsibility for her actions.

I can’t think of an ethical justification for cheating really, in higher education or any other education. We understand that education is a right, yet we sometimes frame it as an obligation. I believe that is part of the issue. As an almost 30 year old woman striving to walk across stage this December, I have a much different perspective on education than I did as a 19 year old freshman. Ethically, we mature and develop by understanding the nature of the world. More specifically in this case, we grow when we understand the nature of knowledge.

By helping students develop a significant vision of education we will enable them to be truthful learners either if they are pursuing a doctorate, or if they choose to be an excellent carpenter who did not finish fifth grade. Anyway, I am ranting.

Although a much stricter punishment would stem from a deontological perspective, correction is always the right option. This correction would probably be more forgiving and mentoring on the hands of a feminist.

I believe it is obvious that there is undesirable content on the internet. Examples that most people can agree on are pedophilia and sexual violence. However, there are different responses from some groups in society in regards to less definitive topics. These include pornography, and hate speech. Other topics have strong opponents and strong defenders, as Simpson points out. Topics like same sex marriage, abortion, and information about sexuality are seen in different light by different people. Simpson further argues that in the Australian context, groups that push for government backed filtering are strong religious groups. He fears that behavior that Christian groups disapprove of would be filtered out when other groups see such action as censorship.

It is my opinion that any type of filtering would constitute censorship. Yet, I see the need for libraries in particular to have filtering software in use. In regards to government, I believe there are many valid concerns about the validity and objectivity of filtering. Still, I am inclined to err on the side of protection and allow a possibly overreaching filter to avoid content that is damaging to society.

I guess, in part this is because Simpson’s article did not speak much to me. Is it because I am a Christian? Maybe. The things he pointed out as possible collateral damage in the effort to filter harmful content are not things I am interested in defending. However, I do see the problem in one limited group having the power to filter whatever they deem wrong. Any deontological approach will have a much more dominant approach as the group “in power” will impose its values on a population that may or may not agree with the decisions. Yet, deontology would approve of upholding such values regardless of opposition. What I see on the other side of this is that humanists also hold a deontological approach where tolerance is among the highest values. I don’t think different frameworks would necessarily give different answers as much as they would offer a way to interpret what is the prioritized value.

A feminist could say we need to care about those that are different and need a way to express themselves online by not filtering iffy content. On the other hand a feminist could say we need to care for children and adolescents by limiting the availability of certain content in public computers.

So as an American, what do you think is the higher value? Liberty, or protection?

I am on this side of Google: the pretty white page with a sometimes amusing logo and the promising rectangle that can answer my every question. Sort of.

If Google claims to follow the motto “Don’t be evil”, I have no reason to disbelieve. After all, how could I trust it to offer me endless knowledge if I thought it was evil? I am still not convinced, after reading Halavais, Blanke, and Vaidhyanathan, that Google or its employees have actively broken their own rule.

The issue is that with great power comes great responsibility (thanks Uncle Ben). Google, as the provider of answers for my and almost everyone else’s answers, has to make decisions that fall in a great plain of gray. And when Google chooses to allow hate speech to be among the top three results for a specific search, they are found to be doing evil in the eyes of many. But if they choose to suppress such content, then they are cataloged as evil in the eyes of those who champion free speech.

So, what is poor old Google to do? I think that their standard of avoiding evil is something good, something great. Would it be better for them to say “Don’t cause too much controversy”? I don’t think so. But, as consumers we should not put our trust on companies and their claims. It does not matter how good they claim to be. Same with politicians, but that’s another post.

As internet users and media consumers in general, we need to understand that mindless acceptance does not lead to good. By good, I mean the opposite of evil. We need to actively question the actions of anyone that claims to be doing good. I believe anyone that has transitioned successfully from puberty into adulthood has learned that nothing is what seems to be at face value. We, as internet users, need to see the reflection of this reality in the digital age. Amazon makes you happy, Google is not evil, Facebook is for connecting. Or not.

So let’s allow, and encourage companies to have great claims. Let’s hold them accountable, as much possible, to their promises. But let’s not forget that we need to make an individual assessment in order to determine if a page is being evil or not.

Considering their background, it is understandable that Ess’ and Lessig’s arguments come from different perspectives. This is true, even when they are talking about the same issue, namely, copyright in the digital age.

Lessig, as a lawyer, analyzes the ethical implications of a set of laws that have seeped from intended protection in the professional world into severely punishing amateur everyday use. His response is a much more tangible, specific approach to what to do next.

Ess, as an ethicist, looks at the reality of digital sharing and copying, from a much more philosophical standpoint. Of course, any practical proposal, whether from Ess, Lessig or anyone else, should have a strong and clear theoretical support.

Both Ess and Lessig give alternatives that encourage more sharing and less controlling than our (American/Western) current copyright system.

Ess, highlights the importance of social contribution to a shared work as part of the emphasis of community well-being as means to individual well-being. This echoes the principles of Confucian thought. In his description of FLOSS, these principles lead to free availability of resources that one can edit, hopefully for improvement.

Lessig, on the other hand, does not defend the abolition of copyright, but advances that there is a strong need for reform. This reform is not intended to shift weight from individual gain to social gain but to defend individual interests both for publishers and consumer, which are usually two sides of the same person, I may add. He presents steps for a balance that conserves individual rights to protect content and to use content fairly.

The documentary Copyright Criminals draws a connection between culture and repetition of texts. In fact, the documentary advances that culture is continually created by changing old things, not making new things. They offer evidence such as the long list of Disney movies that are based on stories that are not owned by one person but are part of what the common public considers common culture.

They use this argument to defend the practice of sampling, particularly in the hip-hop world, which is basically using pieces of previous records by other artists in creating new songs.

The people that support sampling see it as a continuation of culture. They do not see the reason in copyrighting sound, when the same sound could be recorded by them and used in the same way. Furthermore, they argue that the steep fees required to be able to use samples of a record don’t go to the artist but to the recording labels. These labels are more interested in dollar signs than in the development of music as a social property.

Their approach is certainly based on Confucian ideals of social relations and on the progress of society as a pathway to personal growth.

Those on the opposite front argue that laws are set for protecting people and it is not right for anybody to take the work of another person and use it for their personal gain, whether that be money or fame. This is a deontological approach, exemplified by a judge ruling based on the Biblical command of “thou shalt not steal”.

One interesting point were the words by artist Clyde Stubblefield as he defended that he got no recognition, and advanced that acknowledgement was more valuable than money. To him, it is a somewhat utilitarian approach where the use of his work by someone else is a minimal cost to the benefit of musical cultural production.

Lessig, in his book Remix, contrasts two types of culture: read only and read and write. He points out the current situation in which young people are engaging in an illegal activity that they deem ethical, such as music downloading. He argues the idea of a war on piracy has calcified our position to go hard and go all the way. However, he believes the effort should be aimed at finding the right balance between protecting certain rights while allowing the development of culture through individuals that choose to take part in the writing (and rewriting) of culture. Lessig argues that as new generations construct their idea of culture, they are more open to the idea of texts that are not fully and permanently controlled by their creators.

I think the whole picture of this book is based on what we call Confucian ethics as it highlights the relationships in society above the individual. Well, I would even say not so much above as determining. There is no individual without relationships. There is no ethics if it is not exemplified through actions within a social context.

When it comes to creation and culture, a Confucian approach would value the sharing on insight and shared knowledge above whatever wealth or fame a person may receive from hoarding the rights over their text (be it a song, a book, a program, etc). Many people find this to be a clearer picture of the digital reality we live in. Ess mentions FLOSS (free/libre/open source software) as evidence that many people, particularly younger generations, ascribe to this type of thinking by believing that it is much more enriching to the whole of society to release one’s rights over a certain element than it is to cling to one’s capacity to scream “MINE!” like an out of control toddler.

I do see value in his argument, but I have my doubts about how this would work as a general rule (and not like an exception) in our present society were ownership is so closely tied to the capacity of a person to achieve happiness (thanks Locke).

Utilitarian and deontological approaches seem to be rather rational. Under deontological views, actions are determined by universal laws, and once these are determined, it is somewhat simple to find if a specific action is ethical in reference to those principles.

Under utilitarian views, a person will make an analysis that determines if an action is ethical based on the benefits and costs associated with it. Enter the feminists. They bring up an element that definitely existed, but had not been added in the descriptions offered by the other theories: emotions. Feminists defend that caring for oneself and for others is crucial in forming ethical persons that consider their responsibilities in relationships.

The more I read about ethical frameworks, the more complicated it is to draw lines between them. In fact, I have the tendency to want to say: they are all saying the same, just in different words. Utilitarian considers costs and benefits, deontological maintains that actions should reflect static principles, virtues argue that we are forming who we are as a person with every action and therefore our actions should point to a complete and happy (eudaimonia) person, feminist ethics focuses on the positive role of feelings, particularly caring for others and for oneself.  However, from my Christian perspective I see all of these at play.

Image source: http://tinyurl.com/9zkw2s8

This is what drives my ethics: “Love the Lord your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your strength and with all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27). In openly declared Biblical rules, like “do not steal” (Exodus 20:15), there is a basic deontological ethics at work. God said it, therefore it must (or must not) be done. Yet, the same action is defendable from the biblical perspective of Matthew 7:12: “do to others what you would have them do to you”. This is a somewhat Kantian deontology. Furthermore, as the bible requires to “examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good”, it does not specifically call for a cost-benefit analysis, but in my experience I have found myself applying biblical principles to analyze the expected outcomes of two possible courses of action to determine which one is the right decision. Virtue ethics are also reflected in biblical principles as Paul says, “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things… practice these things” (Phillipians 4: 8-9). He is calling each person to dwell and meditate on good things, to make them a continuous practice. All of these lead to Christlikeness, which is the ultimate virtue, a reflection of the perfect character of God (Ephesians 4:13). Finally, going back to the verse I first used, the driving force in my Christian ethical perspective is one that is based on love, and what is love, if not real care for another person. In this case, the person is first God, then my neighbor. Feminist ethics emphasizes caring and feelings as part of a well-rounded ethical framework.

I would be interested in knowing if other people whose ethics are not related to Christianism find the same interconnection, or even any interconnection, between these approaches to ethics.

Think about this unusual video game premise: You are an al-Qaeda member and your goal is to hijack an airplane and fly it into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Your reaction in one word? Maybe shocked, disgusted, appalled? Don’t worry, that video game doesn’t exist (yet).

However, I am trying to make a comparison with a game that is currently available online called Super Columbine Massacre RPG. In this game, the player is one of the shooters in the Columbine massacre. You can listen to the creator of the game talk about his motivation here.

Beyond the purpose of the creator, we have to ask if it is ethical to create and play such a game. I will try to answer these questions departing from the Aristotelian perspective, in which actions taken not only affect others but, most importantly, shape who we are as humans. In other words, what we do builds or tears up the virtues we need to be a fulfilled and complete (good) person. So, what virtue is a person reinforcing when s/he plays a game like SCMRPG?

First, I have to say, that to assume that such a video game will be the kick start of a bad virtue would be naïve. If someone is willing to engage in role playing a murderer who is going on a killing spree in a high school, then there are already some questionable characteristics in his person. The video game would be, then, feeding such a vice. So, what is that bad part of his/her character? Primarily, it would be violence towards innocent people. Supporting the idea that whatever level of disturbance gives leeway to shoot at another person is simply wrong. Allowing oneself to entertain such thoughts, even if in a make believe world, perpetuates feelings. I can’t help but link this Aristotelian idea to a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more a person plays such a role and increases the level of comfort with such ideas, the more corrupt his/her view of such action would become.

Building on that, it is easy to conclude that dedicating the time necessary to design the game, would lead to further nurturing the quality of comfort with irrational violence. However, that is not what the designer said. He argues, the more he got into creating the game, the more he realized that type of violence would not be “the right way to go”.