Legislation governing computer use

Although, there are already laws on specific fields or services of computer, I still find having a form of legislation to be enforced on computer use not necessary and will not be effective.

It is not necessary because computer usage is global, dynamic or changing. As I view it, computer use is more on our personal behavior and obligation. Computer use is a challenge to our own personal views or reflection than an obligation of the state/country to formulate laws or to have ordering principle. For me, it is more on education that we improve our human behavior and ethical views.

It will not be effective since computer use cannot be quantified and poses many significant technical challenges. Example, when a programmer creates an application for commercial use. The vendors of the application will not provide the source code to the buyers so it will be impossible for the buyers to verify that the application does what was suppose to do. So when failure occurs it will be impossible to assign the blame to the programmer. And also the failure can be blamed to the operating system or the libraries installed on the system.

Two Ethical Issues in computing

Spreading or creation of virus or worm.

Virus or worms can cause damage to computer resources and can also have a psychological effect to the affected person. Virus or worms are programs that damage the computer, applications or data thus can be very destructive to the society. This is a violation of the computer ethics in particular “Thou shalt think about the social consequences of the program you write.”

Spamming

Spamming is sending commercial email messages to a group of people. The target list of recipients (and other information) of these email are offered for sale to corporations who can afford or want to advertise without knowledge of the recipients. Span messages use some computer resources and it is annoying.This is a violation of the computer ethics in particular “Thou shalt not use other people’s computer resources without authorization”

Three precepts on computer use

“Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people.”

I think the ethical theory that underpins this precept is Ethical Absolutism. Ethical Absolutism state that there should be fixed or rigid factors in evaluating actions. Fixed factors are universal, constant and therefore unchanging reasons for judging an action as good or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust, among others. Doing harm to other people is universal or a fixed/rigid factor that can be used to evaluate an action.

“Thou shalt not use a computer to bear false witness.”

Moral law underpins this percept. Moral law dictates what sort of behavior or conduct that may or may not be expressed. It is the realm of generally recognized and desirable ethical norms and principles that control and rule the human conduct. Honesty, integrity and respect are moral conducts.

“Thou shalt not use a computer to steal.”

Utilitarianism underpins this precept. Utilitarianism states that actions that bring happiness are considered morally right while actions that inhibit happiness are considered morally wrong. Stealing is an action that inhibits happiness or stealing will result to pain or the reverse of happiness.
I think the ethical theory that underpins this precept is Ethical Absolutism. Ethical Absolutism state that there should be fixed or rigid factors in evaluating actions. Fixed factors are universal, constant and therefore unchanging reasons for judging an action as good or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust, among others. Doing harm to other people is universal or a fixed/rigid factor that can be used to evaluate an action.

“Thou shalt not use a computer to bear false witness.”

Moral law underpins this percept. Moral law dictates what sort of behavior or conduct that may or may not be expressed. It is the realm of generally recognized and desirable ethical norms and principles that control and rule the human conduct. Honesty, integrity and respect are moral conducts.

“Thou shalt not use a computer to steal.”

Utilitarianism underpins this precept. Utilitarianism states that actions that bring happiness are considered morally right while actions that inhibit happiness are considered morally wrong. Stealing is an action that inhibits happiness or stealing will result to pain or the reverse of happiness.

Most appealing Finalist Theories

1. On the three finalist theorist the Aristotle Ethics is the one that appeal to me most. In particular, I agree in him on the following points:
* That being virtuous man can attain happiness
* That what a man does or how he does his function is equally important to what he wants to attain.
* That life of reason is the happiest.

It was very impressive how Aristotle’s defines virtue (of character) and his list of requisite characteristic that describes a morally virtuous agent. Also, how he defined the man's true happiness and the virtues that man demonstrates on achieving happiness.

As a Catholic I believe that my ultimate happiness is do what is good and the good that I know is what the bible and the church teaches me. To be able to do what is good is to be virtueous and righteous.

2. I think Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperatives is predominant in the computing world. As Kant‘s philosophy goes,

Nothing in the world – indeed nothing even beyond the world – can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except in good will.

I think in the computing world there are ethical norms and laws that computer users are to recognize. We, as computer users and rational beings are able to discern and decide whether to obey these laws or norms. The will and the reason that will make us obey these norms is the reason that will make us happy or have a good life.

Also, the computing world recognizes what Kant said.

It is nothing less than the participation it affords the rational being in giving universal laws. He is thus fitted to be a member in a possible realm of ends to which his won nature already destined him. For, as an end in himself, he is destined to be legislative in the realms of ends, free from all laws of nature and obedient only to those he himself gives.

That as computer users we recognize the universal laws and that ourselves are ends. And we have the ability or the will to obey the law or to make the law in accordance to what we believe is good. Also in computing, the laws or norms are universally accepted and consistent.