Digital Ethics As An Instrument For The Technological Challenges Regulation

Initial development of the digital ethics: N. Wiener and J. Weizenbaum

For the first time the problems of technology impact on humans and society were analyzed in the works of Norbert Wiener – an American mathematician and philosopher. Wiener is also known as the founder of cybernetics. His famous work «Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine» (Wiener, 1961) was published in 1948. The second work in this field – «Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society» (Wiener, 1988) – was published in 1950. Strictly speaking, the term of «computer ethics» didn’t exist at that time. It began to be used later, around the seventies of the XX century. But Wiener was the first who identified a new problem field connected with the using of machines and computer systems. He also developed methodology and strategies for ethical analysis of these problems, formulated the main ethical principles and values, predicted an appearance of the new ethical problems connected with increasing development of technology in the nearest future.

In 1976 a German American computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum published his work «Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation» (Weizenbaum, 1976) that has made a great contribution to the development of computer ethics. Weizenbaum made the following conclusion in this work: many problems of electronic computing development have an exclusively ethical nature. Therefore, the question of replacing a human by computer systems is not only a question of potential technical realization, but also of ethical legitimacy. Weizenbaum, as well as Wiener, attracted attention to the ethical problems connected with computer creation and using. Since that time, it became clear that the social significance of computer ethics can be compared with the significance of the nuclear energy. The discussion was initially focused on the moral responsibility of computer specialists. Then, discussing an impact of computer technology on human life, Wiener and Weizenbaum meant it affected society as a whole.

Alarmism and non-alarmism in the digital ethics

Alarmism is a wide-spread phenomenon in the field of the modern digital ethics. It is closely related with the whole history of the moral philosophy. One of the well-known modern alarmists is Nick Bostrom – a famous Swedish philosopher-transhumanist. The main question of Bostrom's conception is the same: What happens when our computers get smarter than we are? And his answer is really pessimistic: If machines become smarter, they will enslave us. It’s necessary to mention that this position on the impact of the modern technological revolution is typical for many modern scientists and philosophers. Bostrom qualifies artificial intelligence (AI) as one of the global risks to the humanity existence itself (Bostrom, 2014).

Philosopher is sure, if machine brains surpass human brains in general intelligence, the new superintelligence will appear. And it can easily replace humans as the dominant lifeform on the Earth (Bostrom, 2014). In the worst-case intelligent machines will improve their own capabilities faster than human computer scientists. And this will be a real existential catastrophe for the humanity. In order to prevent such a scenario Bostrom advises to pay maximum attention to successful solving of the «AI control problem». This should be already done in relation to the first superintelligence. Solving the «AI control problem» is a difficult task. But it’s very important too for the future human survival as it can make the new superintelligence tolerant to the goals of human well-being.

Alarmism opponents – a number of non-alarmist scientists and philosophers – are sure, artificial intelligence is a tool to improve the high quality of human life. For example, an American philosopher John Searle thinks, machines will never get self-consciousness (Searle, 1992). Searle develops the ideas of biological naturalism. According to it, we can create a conscious being only if we duplicate the real physical and chemical processes the human brain goes through. In the case of computer intelligence, it’s impossible. As soon as a certain kind of software is running on a computer, it’s doesn’t mean a conscious being is thereby created.

Modern humanity is standing on the way of creating a digital environment. So, the norms of communication within the digital environment, in the fields of artificial intelligence and self-learning systems should be immediately developed. M. Anderson and S. L. Anderson try to focus the discussion about the digital ethics not on the traditional opposition between the humans and the machines they create but on the need for thoughtful engineering. The last one should be really useful and trustworthy for the modern humanity (Anderson & Anderson, 2011). It’s necessary to point, the Andersons’ conception has a rather unemotional character. The authors believe, it’s necessary to complete traditional arguments about responsibility of the human as a user and developer of the intelligent systems with an interdisciplinary discussion about the machine ethical decision-making. At least, we are increasingly involved into the process of autonomous mechanisms’ production. Therefore, we are vitally interested in fact that these mechanisms might have an algorithmically verified idea of the moral side of their «behavior».

Digital ontology of R. Capurro and L. Floridi

Conceptions of digital ontology are very popular today. Their appearance is a reaction to an increasing impact of digital technology on human existence and social life. The most famous works in this field belong to Capurro (2006) and Floridi (2010). They both study information ethics basing on the ontological approach, but they have different views on axiological problems arising in the process of information using. Floridi offers an ecological approach, while Capurro analyzes the problems of information ethics through the ontology of information environment. According to Capurro, digital globalization should teach us to interact with each other in conditions of the united world. This relativization of the digital possibilities he calls the «digital ontology» (Capurro, 2006).

Computer ethics for Capurro is first of all an applied science. It tries to solve the actual problems that require their application in practice. These are the problems of digital inequality, moral regulation in the Internet and the Internet myths. These are also the questions arising in the areas of computer technology using, ethical regulation of the media, moral and normative regulation of the information business environment, etc. Meanwhile, information ethics is not only a set of norms, but a critical reflection on the possibilities of a better human life in the modern world. So, Capurro poses a question: Who are we in the digital age (Capurro, 2017c)? Today different cultures are undergoing digital hybridization. This process affects social life in all its aspects, determines interaction of human and society with nature. The main task of information ethics is to acquaint us with the problems and alternatives of the personal and public life formation. According to Capurro, the study of ethics should help us to overcome ethical problems and find reasonable solutions for the technological challenges of the digital age (Capurro, 2017a).

In his turn, Floridi explores the problems of computer ethics basing on its metaphysical foundations. The terms of «computer ethics» and «information ethics» are the concepts close in meaning for him. He is sure, information ethics is a part of environmental ethics. Information technology and information systems are incorporated into the environment through a value system. The scientist identifies three components of the information ethics: information as a resource, information as a product and information as an environment (Floridi, 2010). According to Floridi, every object of the information environment has its own information value. Therefore, the main purpose of ecological control in this area is to grow information objects and make them successful in the information environment. The purpose of information ethics is to explain the basics and to analyze critically the moral values of information using. It should also realize critical interpretation and empirical study of the ethical questions related to information.

In general, the works in digital ontology created by R. Capurro and L. Floridi promote the development of digital ethics as an independent scientific discipline.

Ubiquitous robotization and the problem of machine ethics

Development of robotics is a necessary element of digitalization. The newest advances in the field of robotics are widely used in our everyday life as well as in industrial, medical, military and other social spheres. This greatly changes the way of human life. Modern robots can take care of patients, help us in infrastructure and agriculture and realize many other important services. They take part in automatizing business and education processes, in modernizing of the service sector. Despite this, intellectual and ethical dialogue between the humans and the robots is still on the stage of its infancy (Capurro, 2006). The process of robots turning into the «moral machines» requires special reflection. As well as the process of creating a special «roboethics» for them (Capurro, 2017b).

The intensive development of robotics poses a number of actual questions for the digital ethics. They are detailly discussed by P. Lin, K. Abney and G. A. Bekey in their work «Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics» (Lin, Abney, & Bekey, 2011). First of all, they mention the following fact: if we talk about robots as about the moral machines, we must consider the certain sphere of their application. For example, the drones involved in the military operations don’t use in their actions the same moral dimension as the medical robots do in the health sector. Secondly, each industry where robotic objects are used (military affairs, health system, etc.) and each social practice where they are involved (for example, practice of violence, care, concern and assistance), has its own interpretation of the term of «ethical». And this interpretation is not constant.

Strictly speaking, people can’t reach an agreement on moral questions even at the level of human relations (for example, is the murder always a crime?) Therefore, they are not able to teach robotic systems some universal ethical norms. These rules will be always situational and dependent on specific legal settings. This means their potential danger to those who have another worldview based on the different conventions. Besides, the robotic component of the digital environment denies traditional foundations of the social world. For example, the machine reproducing the practice of «care» may destroy the previous institutes of social relations between the humans.

Modern researchers actively discuss the binary opposition of the humans and the robots. The most important ethical questions here are the same: will the people need human friendship or love if the robotic equivalents will become more accessible for them? And if we create the machines which are «close», «similar» to the humans, why don’t we protect their rights? And if we don’t do this, we stimulate an aggressive behavior towards these complex systems. Thus, the very development of online / offline realities including the robotic systems leads to the ethical nihilism (Lin, Abney, & Bekey, 2011). And if we can’t qualify exactly some robots’ actions as ethical or unethical (for example, what is an ethical assessment of the actions of the military drone?) does it mean that ethics is unimportant in the digital world?

All these questions need special discussion and resolution in the nearest future. This is necessary to create a right development strategy of the digital society.

Free access to the Internet as a fundamental ethical principle

In 1982 the computer network named «Internet» was created in the USA. Initially, the Internet was only a military project. Until 1990 it was impossible to use it in business and communication spheres. Then the situation has changed, and the control over Internet has passed to private structures. The Internet access services were provided by private companies. Since that time, the network has been constantly growing, increasing a number of connected users. Telecommunication technologies and other communication resources have developed too. In the very beginning, the Internet was used only for e-mail transmission, but finally it acquired capacities of the significant data transmission.

Today the Internet is a main infrastructure of social communication at the local and global levels. This has brought obvious benefits to its users: it has become easier and more convenient to communicate and receive information; the free digital products and the new forms of leisure have appeared; the forms of business communication have simplified much. A sense of deep social relation and global community has also appeared. According to the World Bank, the number of the Internet users has grown more than three times over the recent ten years: in 2005 it was 1 billion and in 2015 – already 3.2 billion of people. In 2017 every second inhabitant of the planet was connected to the Internet. And in the next 20 years, according to the forecast of McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), up to 50% operations in the world will become automated (Digital Russia, 2017).

However, these processes are not ubiquitous. There are digital divides in the fields of availability and using of the digital technologies. Digital revolution has a small impact on the lives of the most part of modern people. Only about 15% of them can pay for the Internet access. Mobile phones are the main resources of Internet access in developing countries. But only about 80% of the world’s population have mobile phones nowadays. Almost 2 billion people don’t have mobile phones at all, and about 60% of the world’s population doesn’t have access to the Internet (Wiener, 1988). Today, there are not only digital divides between different countries, but the deep divides within each local country. We talk about the divides between the poor and the rich people, between urban and rural areas, between the young and those whose age is over 45. The last divide is also known as a divide between “digital natives” and “digital immigrants”. The only way to resolve this conflict by the generation of digital immigrants is to acquire the new skills and to integrate themselves into a new digital reality (Prensky, 2009).

The authors of the present research are sure, today the free access to the Internet is a fundamental ethical principle. It is similar to the principles of the free speech and the free press. In the digital society the free access to the Internet must be equaled to the inalienable human rights such as the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Perhaps, the traditional list of inalienable human rights must be corrected and added by the new components in the modern conditions. But in any case, the ethical problem of free access to the Internet must be solved in the nearest future. The digital divides can’t be overcome without it.

Digital technologies’ impact on social life and human existence

Digital technologies influence greatly the social life and the human existence. And they have a number of the far-going existential consequences. Most of them are connected with an ethical area. For example, an absence of equity in using the digital achievements leading to the new forms of social discrimination. Without paying attention to this problem, it can cause serious risks of social inequality and instability. In the similar ethical context, it’s necessary to mention the problem of human interaction with different kinds of technical intermediaries, including the problems of interpersonal relations and professional ethics; the problem of a labor market (we are talking about the fact that a number of professions will soon disappear due to the replacement of human labor by the automated mechanisms’ working).

There are also the changes in moral norms of human behavior caused by the widespread and accessible character of information about activities of social and political structures, institutions and commercial companies (Shestakov, Stotskaya, Mingulov, & Zaitseva, 2017). Digital society faces the following ethical risks: the risk of changing of the confidential boundaries both in professional and private spheres, up to disappearance of the privacy itself; the risk of unethical using of the digital achievements for commercial or political goals realized by individuals or social groups; the risk of the privacy violation and creation the total control system on this base. And finally, there is a danger of automatic systems out of control, such as computer errors that can cause technogenic catastrophes.

Under an influence of the digital technologies the human himself changes much (Guryanova, Khafiyatullina, Kolibanov, Makhovikov, & Frolov, 2018), acquires new qualities and properties. So, he’ll become a real «homo digital» in the nearest future. Mark Prensky wrote about these anthropological changes in his classical work «Homo sapiens digital: from digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom» (Prensky, 2009). In his interpretation «homo digital» is such a human who considers technology as an integral part of his own life in a wide variety of aspects. He may be a representative of the «digital natives’» generation or a well-adapted «digital immigrant». In any case he will realize a fundamentally new way of human existence characterized by new requirements, for example, for a leadership.

To become a leader in the digital society it’s necessary acquire a number of specific qualities. D. Tapscott in his famous work «The Digital Economy: Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence» discusses this question thoroughly. He points the most important characters for the digital leadership. They are a constant focus on transformation; an ability to learn quickly and constantly and to work in the team; always showing willingness to use digital networks and to take a personal part in all the transformations (Tapscott, 2014). All these requirements help to form a real «homo digital» as a subject of the new digital ethics ready to respond adequately to the technological challenges of the modern life.