Ethical Dilemma Relating to ICT

Question: Discuss about the Ethical Dilemma Relating to ICT. Answer: Introduction Ethical dilemma is a situation where a mental conflict arises, due to some complex situation, where a decision has to be made between two or more options, and where both the decisions might be correct, but are conflicting to each other. This choice between the two options is what gives rise to the ethical issues. In the Information Communication Technology (ICT), ethics play a crucial role. Ethics dilemmas are often faced by the mangers, especially in case of ICT (Burmeister et al., 2014). For instance, the introduction of driverless cars has brought down a variety of ethical dilemmas with it. In the following parts, the ethical dilemmas relation to the driverless cars has been analyzed. The Ethical Dilemma Driverless cars, as the name suggest are driven without a driver, through technology. These cars are reliant on a combination of sophisticated programming and sensors, so as to navigate the car in a safe manner. This is where the dilemma occurs. If in case a passenger or a pedestrian is likely to get hurt, the car would have to decide who to save (Stephens, 2016). Even the decision where the choices are limited and the car has to decide whether to smash in a loaded bus or on to a bicyclist (Marsh, 2016). And, the common man may not like the decision it makes, as such are pre-programmed. The ethical dilemma here is that whether this decision is the fault of the car or the programmer?' The very conflict between the personal self-interest and the moral values depict the complexity of the decisions that have to be made regarding the programming of such cars (Hobbs, 2016). In one of the studies conducted by Jean-Franois Bonnefon of the University of Toulouse, in USA, which was published in Science, the respondents of survey, conducted between June and December, 2015, were asked certain questions, one of which was how they would want their driverless car to behave (Stephens, 2016). The result further highlighted the dilemma. The respondents were of the view that the car should not sacrifice a passenger in such a case where only a single pedestrian had to be saved. But this view changed with the rise in number of lives which could be secured. And this view further changed, when such respondents were asked to visualize that their family member was in the car (Bonnefon, Shariff Rahwan, 2016). Toby Walsh, who is the Research Leader Professor of the National ICT, considered that since the survey was based on the residents of the USA, it would be difficult to speculate what this research could mean for the residents of Australia. But he viewed that the sentiments of the people would be quite similar. Another ethical issue highlighted by Professor Walsh, was the non-acceptance of such cars by the general public, out of the fear that one day their own car could decide to kill them (Stephens, 2016). Doing Ethics Technique In order to analyze the ethical dilemma identified above, the Doing Ethics Technique (DET) has been used, to clarify and highlight the actual problem. With the advancement in technology, the cars have been revolutionized. The next step in the car revolution is the self-driver or the driver-less cars. These cars are seemed as a convenience, as well as, a necessity for the coming time, in order to make the roads safe. But, when it comes to making the ethical choice, in case of a critical situation, the cars have to decide who to save (McBride, 2015). And this very decision may not be approved by the public. There are a number of companies going towards the driver-less cars route. These cars are reliant on a combination of sophisticated programming and sensors, so as to navigate the car in a safe manner. But in case of an accident, where the car has to decide between saving two different set of people, it makes the decision on the bases of its programming (Bradshaw-Martin Easton, 2014). But the validity of such decision is questionable. The ethical issue involved here relates to the choice between saving two sets of people, in case of a collision or accidental situation. The non-ethical issue relates to the non-acceptance of these cars on the basis of the ethical decision (Stephens, 2016). The general public, the pedestrians, the passengers, the people on the road whether they are driving or walking or are doing something else, the programmer, and the company are the people who would be affected (Marsh, 2016). The ethical decision relates to making of the decision, as well as, the validity of such decision in case of a situation where the car has to make the decision regarding who to save. The decision which even a human has difficulty in taking, is decided by the cars on the basis of their programming. So, who has to be blamed for such a decision is the very issue (Kirkpatrick, 2015). The affected people could get hurt, or even die. Even the programmer can have implications, as they might be blamed for the decisions made by the car. The programmers can develop such algorithms which could help in resolving such conflicting situations (Marsh, 2016). The regulators could also enforce such behavior, which is deemed to be the best global outcome of such situations (Hobbs, 2016). The options are limited and this is why the dilemma continues. This field is just starting up and it would need time to resolve all the issues it faces. The development of algorithms is one of the options (Marsh, 2016). But if such algorithm was possible, it would have been already included. The other option is to include a choice, where such ethical decision has to be made by the passenger. But this beats the whole purpose of driverless cars. The last option is the enforcement of global outcome behavior by the regulators. But this could make the people apprehensive about adopting such driverless cars which were utilitarian by law (Stephens, 2016). The best option is to develop such algorithms which could help in resolving such conflicting situations (Marsh, 2016). Just because such an algorithm has not yet been developed, does not mean that it is not possible. So, the best way to resolve this ethical dilemma is to create an algorithm, where the car knows the best decision to be made in case of a collision, and where the programmer is not blamed for such an algorithm. References Bonnefon, J., Shariff, A., Rahwan, I. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352(6293). 1573-1576. Doi: 10.1126/science.aaf2654 Bradshaw-Martin H., Easton, C. (2014). Autonomous or 'driverless' cars and disability: a legal and ethical analysis. European Journal of Current Legal Issues, 20(3). Retrieved from: https://webjcli.org/article/view/344/471 Burmeister, O.K., Al-Saggaf, Y., Schwartz, M., Johnson, L. (2014). Internet resources to help Australian ICT professionals identify and solve ethical challenges. Retrieved from: https://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/8039/acis20140_submission_243.pdf?sequence=1 Hobbs, B. (2016). Driverless cars: We don't know what we want when it comes to accidents. Retrieved from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-24/driverless-car-attitudes-what-do-we-want/7540512 Kirkpatrick, K. (2015). The moral challenges of driverless cars. Communications of the ACM, 58(8), 19-20. Doi: 10.1145/2788477 Marsh, P. (2016). Driverless cars will have to make 'ethical considerations' in the US. Retrieved from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-21/us-regulates-self-driving-cars/7864048 McBride, N. (2015). The ethics of driverless cars. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society - Special Issue on Ethicomp, 45(3), 179-184. Doi: 10.1145/2874239.2874265 Stephens, J. (2016). Who to kill? The ethical dilemma for driverless car manufacturers. Retrieved from: https://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/who-to-kill-the-ethical-dilemma-for-driverless-car-manufacturers-20160623-gpqkwk.ht