Opinions 5 Points 1 Points Paper One example essay topic

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 2 Criteria 2 Allocation of Points 4 Reviews 4 Paper 1 4 Title: Virtuous Machines 4 Paper 2 6 Title: Putting 'hackers' to work on improving system security: 6 'sleeping with the enemy', or a vision of a new computer ethics? 6 Paper 3 7 Title: It takes more than ethics 7 Paper 4 9 Title: Information Ethics: eAI: Bearing Frankenstein's Children 9 Paper 5 11 Title: Information Ethics: Ethical Machines 11 Tribute 13 Appendix 1 14 Appendix 2 15 Appendix 3 16 Appendix 4 17 Appendix 5 18 Introduction The purpose of this paper is to review five literary works in the field of Ethics and Computers. These papers must be available from the internet and be post January 2001. Each work will be reviewed on its merit and a winner shall be chosen from these by the criteria stated below. Criteria Quality of Authorship It must be demonstrated that the author has sufficient experience and understanding to tackle the complex area of computing ethics. It is not enough in itself that an author is an academic although points will be allocated for this, there has to be a practical element also.

It must be demonstrated that the author is or has held some position which would be beneficial to the claim that the paper is of substance, for example a post at a Faculty of a University or professional experience in the field with a recognised company. Points will be awarded as follows: Academic qualifications maximum of 5 points Professional Experience maximum of 5 points Total Available maximum of 10 Points Ethical Analysis The Author must conduct an ethical analysis, marks will be allocated on how well the author explores the ethical issues, and this may be with or without direct subscription to a classical ideology. Above all the paper must have argued comprehensively all of the ethical issues that the scenario holds; the analysis must be comprehensive and understandable. Points will be awarded as follows: Quality of Analysis maximum of 5 points Total Available maximum of 5 Points Neutrality of Paper The bias of the paper must be centred, where there are conflicting opinions and views are the choice of route must be explained and / or justified comprehensively to attain full points. Comparisons of conflicting views and / or opinions maximum of 5 points Justifications of Ideologies and / or views used to examine topic maximum of 5 points Total Available maximum of 10 Clarity of paper for General Reading The paper must be understandable for general reading, where there are complex or technical issues these must be explained clearly, so that a non-technical reader with limited understanding can follow the writer, analogies and examples would be beneficial, as he tackles issues in the paper. The paper must flow and keep the content at a sensible rate for the reader to digest.

Quality of writing for clarity maximum of 5 points Explanations / Examples of complex issues maximum of 5 points Total Available maximum of 10 Points References There must be clear evidence that the paper has thoroughly researched with references to other works. Preferably this should be from a more than one medium, for example good papers will reference Books, Journals, Websites and other Papers. All references must be from reputable sources such as established journals and recognised authors. Quality of references maximum of 5 Points Scope (from different mediums) and volume of references maximum of 5 Points Total Available maximum of 10 Points Conclusion There must be a clear, concise and easy to understand conclusion.

The writer must justify their stance and recommendations relating to the ethical issues raised. Quality of Conclusion maximum of 5 Points Total maximum of 5 Points Allocation of Points Marking is subjective process and the marks will be allocated as follows: Below Average Average Good Exceptional 1-2 points 3 points 4 points 5 points Reviews Paper 1 Title: Virtuous Machines Author: Dr Mitch Parsell Date: No Date on Paper- references post 1 January 2000 URL: web This paper tackles the complex ethical issues faced when creating machines with Artificial Intelligence. It covers and discusses the two views that either AI based machines will be ethically beneficial to humans, using their pre-programmed ethical values to regulate their behaviour, or will conflict with human ethical reasoning by trying to enforce its own interpretations of the rules, thus promoting an overbearing benevolent society. There are many interesting ideas put to the reader especially on how AI based machines can interpret rules of ethics, Parsell uses Asimov's three rules of robotics, first written in the 1950 novel 'I, Robot', as one illustration, others are taken from academic papers.

This paper also discusses the boundaries and differing models of classical AI and Connectionist AI and the ethical implications of using either to develop intelligent agents. Criteria Maximum Points Points Awarded Comments Quality of Authorship Academic Qualifications 5 points 4 points Author holds a PhD from The University of Tasmania, has also studied at the University of Texas. (web / cv. pdf) Professional Experience 5 points 4 points Lecturer at the University of Tasmania Member of The Centre of Philosophy and Applied Ethics, University of Tasmania President of University of Tasmania Philosophy Society (1997-1998) Ethical Analysis Quality of Analysis 5 points 3 points Author has used an Aristotelian approach and a Utilitarian ideology. Reasonable analysis although did not explore in detail some issues. Neutrality of Paper Comparisons of conflicting views and / or opinions 5 points 4 points The author has consistently compared opposing views throughout this paper Justifications of Ideologies and / or views used to examine topic 5 points 4 points All stances backed up with notes and references. Clarity of paper for General Reading Quality of writing for clarity 5 points 1 points The paper flows but is interrupted too often by notes which should have been put at the end of the paper, it could be much better structured.

Explanations / Examples of complex issues 5 points 3 points There are good explanations to most of the complex issues and there are good real world examples, there are a few occasions when the author fails to explain some complex ideas when mentioning them References Quality of references 5 Points 4 points Good quality references Scope (from different mediums) and volume of references 5 Points 4 points Reasonable volume of referencing materials which include journals, books, and the internet. Conclusion Quality of Conclusion 5 points 3 points Brief but reasonably good quality summary Total 50 points 34 Points Paper 2 Title: Putting 'hackers' to work on improving system security: 'sleeping with the enemy', or a vision of a new computer ethics? Authors: Jenny Webber & Paula Roberts Date: No Date on Paper- references post 1 January 2000 URL: web With the advent of computer and network security becoming more and more important to corporations this paper asks hackers can be ethically competent enough to work in the sector of computer security. It argues that hackers have had their own 'underground' ethical code since their appearance on the scene and wish to distance themselves from the unethical 'Cracker' who prides him / herself on malicious breaches of security.

The question this paper really asks is, are hackers an essential part of computing and ethical way to highlight shortcomings in security or are they just cyber burglars who break in and take nothing and can they be trusted in a corporate environment, which they used to hate so passionately. Would it be ethical for businesses to use such people who have in the past have illegally infiltrated such corporations, as a line of defence against their own kind? Criteria Maximum Points Points Awarded Comments Quality of Authorship Academic Qualifications 5 points 1 points The Authors academic qualifications were not readily available. Professional Experience 5 points 2 points Both are Lecturers at the University South Australia Ethical Analysis Quality of Analysis 5 points 5 points Good analysis covering all of the general issues, includes a small reference to Utilitarian and De ontological positions. Neutrality of Paper Comparisons of conflicting views and / or opinions 5 points 3 points Slightly biased toward defending hackers, could have had more about negative affect of security breaches Justifications of Ideologies and / or views used to examine topic 5 points 4 points All opinions backed up with references Clarity of paper for General Reading Quality of writing for clarity 5 points 5 points Excellent paper flows is interesting and easy to follow. Explanations / Examples of complex issues 5 points 5 points All issues are described clearly with much referencing for further reading References Quality of references 5 Points 4 points Good quality references Scope (from different mediums) and volume of references 5 Points 4 points Magazines, journals and books, no though Conclusion Quality of Conclusion 5 points 4 points Good conclusion, reaches sensible ethical conclusions Total 50 points 37 points Paper 3 Title: It takes more than ethics Authors: Chris R Simpson Date: No Date on Paper- references post 1 January 2000 URL: web This paper focuses on the lack of professional ethics taught in computer degrees and adopted by ICT professionals.

Although the paper states that professional bodies have codes of ethics there is no swearing in ceremony, whereby a member will try to be ethical in all their professional decisions and they lack authority as the bulk of ICT professionals are not affiliated to such bodies. The paper argues that even if all ICT professionals were affiliated the vast majority would have difficulty, as they are not schooled in the art. The paper also looks at other professions and raises some interesting points on how national, cultural and sectional boundaries can be bridged by identifying common values. It is a broad paper covering the ethics at grassroots and how tries to explain how primarily education is the key to a more proactive ethical society. Criteria Maximum Points Points Awarded Comments Quality of Authorship Academic Qualifications 5 points 1 point The Authors academic qualifications were not readily available Professional Experience 5 points 4 points Co-director of the Australian Institute of Computer Ethics (A ICE); Lecturer at the School of IT, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia Ethical Analysis Quality of Analysis 5 points 5 points Good analysis of issues Neutrality of Paper Comparisons of conflicting views and / or opinions 5 points 5 points Good comparisons and exploration of alternative opinions Justifications of Ideologies and / or views used to examine topic 5 points 5 points All arguments justified with good explanations Clarity of paper for General Reading Quality of writing for clarity 5 points 5 points Excellent clarity and structure, good pace of writing. Explanations / Examples of complex issues 5 points 4 points Good explanations easy to follow References Quality of references 5 Points 4 points Good quality references from a broad range of authors Scope (from different mediums) and volume of references 5 Points 4 points Most mediums present good use of sources Conclusion Quality of Conclusion 5 points 4 points Good summary and recommendations Total 50 points 41 points Paper 4 Title: Information Ethics: eAI: Bearing Frankenstein's Children Author: Henry Cribbs Date: No Date on Paper- references post 1 January 2000 URL: web The focus of this paper is on whether AI based machines will ever be able to posses consciousness, the author defends the view that a machine, in theory, could be created in such a way that it would have values and morals that would not just mirror human ethical reasoning, but have the subjectivity to surpass them.

The paper argues that AI machines should have a parent / child rather than a master / slave relationship, further to this it is argued that artificial minds need nurturing when conceived and draws parallels with biological children. The paper discusses the feasibly of artificial minds and explores in depth issues raised by Lloyd (1985) and his vision of machines which will ultimately lead to ethical conflicts with human creators. Criteria Maximum Points Points Awarded Comments Quality of Authorship Academic Qualifications 5 points 3 Points Completing his PhD in Philosophy, Neuroscience, and Psychology MA Philosophy from Washington University Graduate Certificate Artificial Intelligence & Neural Networks from Washington University BA Honors English and Philosophy from the University of Alabama web Professional Experience 5 points 3 Points Visiting Instructor in Philosophy at the University of South Carolina Ethical Analysis Quality of Analysis 5 points 4 points Good investigations of topic Neutrality of Paper Comparisons of conflicting views and / or opinions 5 points 1 points Paper one sided, uses the word chauvinistic to discredit more cautious views of the topic Justifications of Ideologies and / or views used to examine topic 5 points 3 points Some concerns of Lloyd (85) could be justified, but dismissed as a matter of course Clarity of paper for General Reading Quality of writing for clarity 5 points 4 points Good flows well and reasonable pace of writing Explanations / Examples of complex issues 5 points 3 points Good analogies made and examples given, but let down by not explaining real complex issues. References Quality of references 5 Points 4 points Good quality of references Scope (from different mediums) and volume of references 5 Points 4 points Broad spectrum Conclusion Quality of Conclusion 5 points 5 Points Comprehensive Total 50 points 34 points Paper 5 Title: Information Ethics: Ethical Machines Author: J Good (I.J. Good) Note: Author has published this paper under the author's informal name Jack Good Date: No Date on Paper- (written in 2000) referenced by Artificial Intelligence and Objective Moral Values, H Cribbs.

URL: web There are many complex issues when instilling ethics within machines with artificial intelligence, in this paper the author highlights the major concerns in this field. This paper questions if a machine could behave ethically and which ethical principals it should adhere to, as there are no universal ones. It is argued that an ethically conscious machine cannot be blindly obedient to its master (s) nor totally independent, the whole scope of ethics is explored in the context of creating an artificial mind that would make decisions which is the preserve of mans sense of right and wrong, a machine with such sophistication, if it were instated within critical areas such as medicine or national security, could it act as ethically as the human mind? Criteria Maximum Points Points Awarded Comments Quality of Authorship Academic Qualifications 5 points 5 points B.A., Cambridge Ph. D., Cambridge (Mathematics) Professor (Research) of Statistics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Professional Experience 5 points 5 Points Distinguished Professor Emeritus, 1967-94 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Ethical Analysis Quality of Analysis 5 points 4 Points Very good, all major points considered Neutrality of Paper Comparisons of conflicting views and / or opinions 5 points 4 Points Many views considered, very balanced. Justifications of Ideologies and / or views used to examine topic 5 points 4 points Doesn't directly subscribe to any one view but discusses implications of each Clarity of paper for General Reading Quality of writing for clarity 5 points 5 Points Excellent structure, easy to read and follow.

Explanations / Examples of complex issues 5 points 5 Points Excellent examples, takes a novel approach to examples, uses science fiction, very effective References Quality of references 5 Points 3 Points Reasonable references Scope (from different mediums) and volume of references 5 Points 3 Points Average no references from Conclusion Quality of Conclusion 5 points 2 points Disappointing, too brief Total 50 points 40 points Tribute After competing with a strong field the winner of The Internet Literary Award for Ethics and Computers is 'It takes more than ethics' by Chris R Simpson. The paper's focus was the inadequacies of ethical education to prospective and current ICT professionals. The author boldly highlights the shortcomings of ICT professionals and looks to other professions for ideas on how best to remedy the situation. It is argued passionately that just one module in the final semester of a degree students education will not make them ready for ethical situations in a sector which is rapidly developing with new ethical questions being generated rapidly in the workplace. The author is firm about his stance that in order to give ethics the importance it needs and not for an ethical policy to remain on some dusty shelf, there has to be common ethical values which transcend the boundaries of race, tradition, culture and geography. The author successfully identifies the eight common values which are shared the world over, love, truthfulness, fairness, freedom, unity, tolerance, responsibility and respect for life.

The paper is structured well and the content flows at a near perfect pace as not to confuse the reader and all the issues highlighted are easy to understand and explained in ways, so that a non technical audience can follow the views and opinions expressed in the paper. The paper is pleasing to read at a length which is long enough to explain the issue in depth but short enough to keep the reader's attention fully. There is evidence of thorough research and with a wide range of references from respected sources. There is a strong summary and conclusion which lays down positive recommendations. There are no major flaws in the paper and it is a worthy winner.