Ethics of technology

I find this area of ethics particularly interesting. In fact, I published this on my TWC forum.

To first determine whether our ethics have been corroded by technology, it is important to first define the scope of ethics. Generally, there are two approaches towards moral issues- utilitarianism and categorical imperative. I will further elaborate these two points with regards to certain technological issues in the later part of my post.

Utilitarianism is the notion that the right action is understood entirely in terms of the consequences involved. Thus, this means that moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility of the society.

On the other hand, categorical imperative implies that the action is only ‘right’ when it is morally sound. This can be illustrated from the quote by Immanuel Kant, the forefather of the concept ‘categorical imperative’, ‘Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.’ This concept tends to rely more on our moral intuitions (feelings) rather than our rational powers. Although ‘categorical imperative’ relies on intuitions, there are certain yardsticks that one could use to gauge whether the action is right such as religion and the legal system. This point to the fact that the ‘consequentialism’ concept embraced by the utilitarians would be disregarded since a follower of Kant would prefer to dwell more on the moral issue of an action rather than what the action will bring to a society.

Let me use these two very different school of thoughts and apply it to an ethical dilemma concerning technology- A man is very sick and he needs to have a liver transplant within two months or he will die. His situation is complicated by the fact that he has a very rare blood type and it is extremely hard to find a suitable donor. Time is running out and he desperately needs a liver transplant if he wants to live beyond two months! One day, he stumbles upon the fact that there is a stem cell research scientist who is able to harness a liver that would be compatible with any blood type. However, there is one issue here – his religion forbids anything to do with stem cell research. This brings me to the point on whether one should act base on utilitarianism or categorical imperative? If the man were to base his action on the former, he would accept the liver. On the other hand, if the man accepts the latter, he would reject the liver that could ultimately save his life.

Let me apply these two concepts to the hypothetical situation where genetic engineering has progressed so far that it is possible to ‘design’ a baby. Designing a baby in this context means that one can determine the fate of the baby by deciding the attributes such as mathematical aptitude and musical ability. If the government were to take a stand on this issue, what will their choice be?

A government that adopts the utilitarian approach would probably pass the bill to make it legal because it would definitely bring net benefit to the nation. Why do I say so? This would definitely raise the standard of living of the nation, not only economically but also in the social cultural aspect. For instance, the people would be better off and they would probably appreciate arts more.

On the one hand, a utilitarian government would welcome this idea, but on the other hand, a government that is leaning towards Kant’s ideology would probably reject it. They might argue based on religious reason as they feel that this whole idea is morally unsound and it is preposterous to play ‘god’ for this instance.

In short, it is very hard to determine whether one’s action is right or wrong, especially in an area such as technology that is filled with countless controversies. If one were to base all their actions on any ideology, he would commit ‘man with the hammer’ syndrome where ever problem will appear to be a nail. This analogy means that one would follow a system blindly without considering the alternatives and this might lead to the situation where the best solution is overlooked. Hence, I propose that in the areas of the ethics of technology, everything should be looked upon in a case by case basis, using both the utilitarianism and categorical imperative approaches.

Analytical skills

This is one of the situations that my AS professor has given me. The story goes like this- You are currently a SMU student( which I am currently) and you are very interested in writing mystery novels. You are so interested that your dream is to be a mystery novel writer. You have sent drafts after drafts of your work to many publication houses but all you got are rejections, so you feel that this might be the end of your dream of showing the world of your work.

During one faithful day, one of the publishers that rejected your works called and told you that they are willing to accept your work. However, there is one condition- your work will be published under someone else's name. You asked why, and the publisher said that one of their authors have run out of ideas and the author's bank( unpublished finished works) can only last for five more years. They feel that your works are very similar to the best selling author, so similar that it seems like the works are written by identical twins. Hence, they feel that it is a good idea to publish your works under his name as it is almost similar to a franchising strategy where one can use the 'brand' to market their work. Also, you will receive $500,000 for your first work and 50% of the subsequent proceeds from the books that you are penning in the future. This is a very attractive deal considering your current status as a SMU student. However, there is one dangerous cache- if you were to publish any of your mystery novel works under your own name someday, you will be killed by assassins.

The question is- will you accept or reject the deal?

Aung San Suu Kyi

I have recently come across an article regarding Myamar. I was deeply disturbed when I read that Aung San Suu Kyi, one of the leaders of the opposition party is kept under house arrest by the Burma's government in Burma, known as Myanmar today. How could one be kept under house arrest in the present world just because of conflicting ideologies? This is certainly one of the most disgusting things that I have ever heard of in my life. Also, I feel deeply ashamed to find myself of not knowing this all my life. If there is only one thing that is unjustified in the world, this could be the one!