Computer systems: Moral entities but not moral agents [Book Review]
Graduate studies at Western
Ethics and Information Technology 8 (4):195-204 (2006)
|Abstract||After discussing the distinction between artifacts and natural entities, and the distinction between artifacts and technology, the conditions of the traditional account of moral agency are identified. While computer system behavior meets four of the five conditions, it does not and cannot meet a key condition. Computer systems do not have mental states, and even if they could be construed as having mental states, they do not have intendings to act, which arise from an agent’s freedom. On the other hand, computer systems have intentionality, and because of this, they should not be dismissed from the realm of morality in the same way that natural objects are dismissed. Natural objects behave from necessity; computer systems and other artifacts behave from necessity after they are created and deployed, but, unlike natural objects, they are intentionally created and deployed. Failure to recognize the intentionality of computer systems and their connection to human intentionality and action hides the moral character of computer systems. Computer systems are components in human moral action. When humans act with artifacts, their actions are constituted by the intentionality and efficacy of the artifact which, in turn, has been constituted by the intentionality and efficacy of the artifact designer. All three components – artifact designer, artifact, and artifact user – are at work when there is an action and all three should be the focus of moral evaluation.|
|Keywords||action theory artifact artificial moral agent intentionality moral agent technology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Frances S. Grodzinsky, Keith W. Miller & Marty J. Wolf (2008). The Ethics of Designing Artificial Agents. Ethics and Information Technology 10 (2-3):115-121.
Philip Brey (2005). The Epistemology and Ontology of Human-Computer Interaction. Minds and Machines 15 (3-4):383-398.
Luciano Floridi & J. W. Sanders (2004). On the Morality of Artificial Agents. Minds and Machines 14 (3):349-379.
Douglas Birsch (2004). Moral Responsibility for Harm Caused by Computer System Failures. Ethics and Information Technology 6 (4):233-245.
Karen A. Forcht, Daphyne Thomas & Karen Wigginton (1989). Computer Crime: Assessing the Lawyer's Perspective. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 8 (4):243 - 251.
David Sanford Horner (2010). Moral Luck and Computer Ethics: Gauguin in Cyberspace. [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 12 (4):299-312.
Bryan R. Warnick (2004). Technological Metaphors and Moral Education: The Hacker Ethic and the Computational Experience. Studies in Philosophy and Education 23 (4):265-281.
John P. Sullins (2005). Ethics and Artificial Life: From Modeling to Moral Agents. [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 7 (3):139-148.
Deborah G. Johnson & Thomas M. Powers (2005). Computer Systems and Responsibility: A Normative Look at Technological Complexity. [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 7 (2):99-107.
Deborah G. Johnson & Keith W. Miller (2008). Un-Making Artificial Moral Agents. Ethics and Information Technology 10 (2-3):123-133.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads17 ( #78,069 of 726,777 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 726,777 )
How can I increase my downloads?