EthicsEthics. In your own words, define ethics. Social Sciences

1. In your own words, define ethics.
2. How is ethics different from the law?
3. Why do you think it’s important that individuals and organizations not only follow the law but act ethically as well? Why might this be particularly important in our digital age?
4. Think of an example of one of the following scenarios:
A company or individual acted in a way that was ethical but illegal.
A company or individual acted in a way that was unethical but legal.
5. Describe the scenario and why you think it’s ethical or unethical.
2 videos to watch and readings:
https://youtu(dot)be/_8juebyo_Z4
https://youtu(dot)be/kBdfcR-8hEY
https://saylordotorg(dot)github(dot)io/text_introduction-to-the-law-of-property-estate-planning-and-insurance/s05-01-what-is-ethics.html
https://ethicsunwrapped(dot)utexas(dot)edu/glossary/ethics
https://ethicsunwrapped(dot)utexas(dot)edu/glossary/consequentialism
https://ethicsunwrapped(dot)utexas(dot)edu/glossary/deontology
http://moralmachine(dot)mit(dot)edu/
Commentary:
Digital ethics examines questions concerning technologies that are unique in the 21st century. Such concerns often have little to no precedence in many social institutions, principles, mores, etiquette, moral judgement, or law. As such, these questions are difficult to resolve. There are, in short, no traditional standards of behavior already in place governing how we should conduct ourselves on the Internet, via devices that are interconnected, or through mass media, precisely because we have never been connected to one another in such complex and immediate ways. In many cases, there simply is no “precedent” on how to utilize technology, or even what is legal in using such technology. Additionally, the same technology that connects us with one another also allows us to hide from one another, giving us anonymity to comment, interact, interfere, or abuse others without revealing ourselves as the “agency,” or the person behind an action. We can invent an online persona in many cases without interference, and when one tries to discover who may be behind the technological persona, all sorts of “right to privacy” issues are potentially invoked. Yet some ethical critics counter that such an attitude is like protecting a criminal who wears a mask to keep from showing his or her face. Wearing a mask is not a “right.” It’s a disguise, designed specifically to conceal, rather than reveal, a truth.

What is remarkable, in the advent of ethics in a digital era, is that the issues involved become problematic on many different levels. There is the level of individual to individual, the relationship of corporations to the individual, the relationship of government to the individual and to corporate interests, as well as the relations of nations to other nations. The interconnectedness of media technologies makes the laws and social norms that define various societies porous, and it impacts copyright laws, right to privacy laws, and ethics of interpersonal conduct.
Our topic is a complex one, and in many ways, a new one. That does not mean, however, that ethical standards from previous eras do not apply. For the sake of getting the topic under some control, let’s consider the major categories of ethics that pre-date the digital revolution. These are what are termed “deontological ethics” and “consequentialist ethics.”
Deontological ethics holds that a rational principle must govern, control, and temper every other form of policy or ethical procedure. Thus if lying is wrong, it is always wrong, on any level. This does not, however, suggest there are not degrees to which the violation of an ethical mandate is to be judged. The legal system is perhaps the best example of this. Murder is wrong under the law, in all cases. However, there is first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter—different levels under which taking a life is prosecuted. Despite the degree, this does not make the violation less wrong. It is wrong on all levels. However, it may be prosecuted under varying degrees of the violation, and even intent to commit murder or conspiracy to commit murder may be prosecuted.
Consequentialist ethics holds that an action is to be judged by its consequences. Thus lying may be wrong, but in a case where a lie may have turned out to benefit a given group, it is justifiable. Lying in and of itself is therefore not wrong. It is the consequence of the lie that is either right or wrong.
Having divided these two types of ethical standards, we can categorize the other types of ethical approaches under these two types. Deontological ethics tends to be specified by law, and what may be against the law in one nation is not necessarily so in another. Consequentialist ethics on the other hand often depends on who is deciding what does, and does not, constitute harm.
One of the oldest ethical oaths deals directly with the nature of harm and comes from the Hippocratic oath common to medical ethics. That oath, simply stated, is “do no harm.” This simple formulation, however, raises the crucial underlying principle of all ethics. That is, what is it that governs what we should do, not only in cases concerning technology or the practice of a profession, or even in interpersonal relationships, but in general in a way that constitutes a sound and moral position in our way of life. What we should do, however, does not necessarily have much to do with what we have to do. The latter implies obligation by force, or disobedience punishable by force or fine. These are legal issues, matters of law. Again, most matters of law fall under one of two categories: those that are misdemeanors, or relatively minor infractions punishable by less severe consequences; and those that are felonies and punishable by more severe means, including imprisonment, and in some nations, death.
Ethics and law do not always match up. For example, some believe the death penalty as a means of enforcing law is itself unethical. Some believe that their ethical principles may oblige them to disobey what they consider to be unethical laws. A famous case of this kind of civil disobedience was practiced by the American philosopher Henry David Thoreau, who refused to pay taxes that supported what he considered to be an unethical war.
The legal issues get even more complex in the digital age, where one nation may violate what another considers to be law without any means by which to enforce that law beyond the borders of their own nation. This example is precisely why digital media ethics is considered to be on the forefront of 21st century ethics. How do you enforce codes of conduct and rights between nations that have no existing legal system between them? This is a problem throughout international relations. In the 20th century, such disputes were primarily settled through treaties and wars. Two massive world wars may have demonstrated the ineffectiveness of such solutions. In the 21st century, the resolution has often been the imposition of economic sanctions of one nation or a group of nations against another.
What begins then as a simple question of interpersonal rights, how to enforce them, and when they are violated in a social media environment such as Facebook shares a common problem that nations and commercial interests face (e.g., false reporting on a product or service, copyright violations). Hacking your e-mail account may share a common problem with hacking into the military or security operations between nations. Keeping terrorist groups off the Internet for coordinating their activities may also relate to undesired violations of your own privacy on social media. From the comparatively great to the individual and particular, all are parts of ethics in a digital age—the subject of this course. Compound this with what we “should” do and what should be legally adapted or a matter of law, and what appears to be a simple straightforward subject becomes a complex one.
This is an exciting adventure that begins with a new horizon of ethical issues that very well might set the pace for new standards of conduct individually and globally. Welcome to the forefront of a challenging, yet also promising, stage of development in world civilization.