A responsibility ethics for audit expert systems
Journal of Business Ethics 30 (4):337 - 359 (2001)
| Abstract | To effectively pursue ethical action, the business community must recognize that the fundamental form of human association is not the "social contract" into which persons enter as atomic individuals, making partial commitments to each other for the purpose of gaining limited common ends or of satisfying certain laws. The fundamental form of human association is rather the face to face community in which ongoing commitments are the rule and in which aspects of every individual''s experience are conditioned by the continuing membership. The following discussion initiates a preliminary phase in the consideration of what constitutes ethical issues associated with the business applications of expert systems. The focus is on knowledge based expert system applications in public accounting, specifically in the audit domain. Prior research on the development and use of expert systems in auditing has focused on a limited set of ethical issues. Niebuhr''s theory of the "the responsible self" is used here to broaden the scope of what constitutes an ethical issue and provides a framework for identifying responsible action. Within this framework, an action is responsible if it takes into consideration ongoing relationships among the stakeholder groups affected. Actions prior to the development of the system along with the potential consequences for the system must be considered. The discursive requirements that provide the context and conditions necessary for implementing the proposed theoretical framework are presented and an illustration of how the responsibility ethic can be implemented in the audit expert system domain is developed. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesMichael Perkins (1997). Witness for the Plaintiff: Ethical Considerations of Being a Libel Plaintiff's Expert Witness. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 12 (2):69 – 81.
Risako Morimoto, John Ash & Chris Hope (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility Audit: From Theory to Practice. Journal of Business Ethics 62 (4):315 - 325.
E. Cave & C. Nichols (2007). Clinical Audit and Reform of the UK Research Ethics Review System. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (3):181-203.
Peter Kok, Ton van der Wiele, Richard McKenna & Alan Brown (2001). A Corporate Social Responsibility Audit Within a Quality Management Framework. Journal of Business Ethics 31 (4):285 - 297.
Ton van der Wiele, Peter Kok, Richard McKenna & Alan Brown (2001). A Corporate Social Responsibility Audit Within a Quality Management Framework. Journal of Business Ethics 31 (4).
Kristi Yuthas, Jesse F. Dillard & Rodney K. Rogers (2004). Beyond Agency and Structure: Triple-Loop Learning. Journal of Business Ethics 51 (2):229-243.
Emma Rooksby (2009). How to Be a Responsible Slave: Managing the Use of Expert Information Systems. Ethics and Information Technology 11 (1).
Willard Downs & Kelley Ann Newton (1989). Legal Implications in Development and Use of Expert Systems in Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2 (1):53-58.
Jesse F. Dillard & Kristi Yuthas (2002). Ethical Audit Decisions: A Structuration Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 36 (1-2):49 - 64.
Omar E. M. Khalil (1993). Artificial Decision-Making and Artificial Ethics: A Management Concern. Journal of Business Ethics 12 (4):313 - 321.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads9 ( #114,124 of 549,119 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,119 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
