March 2018 marked the first reported pedestrian death from a self-driving car [10]. The possibility of such events caused by significant technological advances has stimulated interest in ethical issues. Many people think of these situations as brand-new problems requiring unique solutions. The truth is we have been here before, many times. Each technological change has created ethical challenges—should we use remote-controlled technology to take lives? Should we allow computers to decide our medical treatment? Do we want unethical people to have access to computer power? The difficulty and complexity of each new technical advance's ethical problems distract each generation from the fact that these problems are just different species of a common problem, namely the problem of ethically managing the interaction of technology with humanity. The rising interest in ethics is positive, but the belief that these issues are brand new or unique to a specific sector is potentially harmful.

Narrow Notions of Computing Ethics Considered Harmful

In February 2018, Natasha Singer's article "Tech's Ethical `Dark Side': Harvard, Stanford and Others Want to Address It" [12] portrayed the interest in computing ethics as a recent development by describing several new courses that are in development at a number of universities. A closer look at the courses described by Singer indicates another trend—many of the courses in computing ethics that are under development are focused narrowly on a specific technology. This and similar articles [6] attribute to the computing profession a failure to previously be concerned about ethical issues. Both articles seem to ignore three different aspects of computing ethics that have been co-evolving with the advances in computing technology. Over time the development of important, relevant scholarship, the incorporation of "computing ethics" into the computer science curriculum, and the establishment of codes of ethics for computing professionals have generated a broad base of interest in computing ethics and its relation to those impacted by computing. The narrow range of courses listed in Singer's article raises concerns. Neglecting the significant history of broad-based computing ethics scholarship, curriculum, and codes of ethics from the past sixty years contributes to a view of computing ethics that sees it as a narrow fad related only to current advances in artificial intelligence (AI). Not building on decades of scholarly work means that people do not take advantage of techniques and ethical standards used to help computing professionals address ethical issues in computing. (In this article we will use the term "computing ethics" broadly, including topics sometimes labeled "computer ethics," "technology and society," and "ethics and technology.")

• COMPUTING ETHICS SCHOLARSHIP, BROADLY CONSTRUED

There is surely a recent rise in interest in computing ethics and professionalism that is related to AI. But we have seen this sort of thing before. There is a long history of scholars and practitioners becoming interested in ethics when faced with new technologies. In his excellent article on the history of computer ethics [3], Terry Bynum starts with Norbert Weiner. During World War II in the 1940s Weiner was involved with the development of automated cannons. This experience led him to write a book that addressed ethical issues associated with computers. Thus, computing ethics scholarship reaches back to at least 1948 and the publication of Cybernetics: or control and communication in the animal and the machine by Norbert Weiner [15].

Computing ethics is an applied study. Computing has broadened from the development of large mainframes operating in relative isolation to complex sociotechnical systems that mediate most facets of social interaction. From communication technology to medical prosthetics, computing matters. As computing has developed, research in computing ethics has also had to diversify and mature; we have moved from Weiner's concern with automated cannons to issues with the use of remotely controlled drones in warfare. Computing professionals in general, and ACM members, specifically, have been addressing their ethical responsibility and the potential social impacts of their work for a long time. Indeed, the ACM Digital Library lists 2,119 publications related to ethics, the earliest one dating back to 1962. Google Scholar lists over 12,000 articles relevant to "computer ethics."

---

"[s]ince 1988-89, the Department of Computer Science at Stanford University has offered CS201 (Computers, Ethics, and Social Responsibility) as part of its undergraduate curriculum."

---

The development of advanced technology in ubiquitous domains requires an increasingly sophisticated analysis of the impacts of these applications. For example, a concern with the use of computers in battle in the early 1980's led to the development and growth of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR). CPSR established the Norbert Wiener Award for Social and Professional Responsibility in 1987. The Special Interest Group on Computers and Society (SIGCAS) established the Making a Difference Award, and by 1992 produced the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct to guide computing professionals in the making of ethical decisions. The development of the World Wide Web in the 1990's led to many ethical and legal issues, such as cyberstalking; the wide distribution of pornography, especially to minors; and bots masquerading as social media users. Each of these issues has been and is still being studied, discussed at conferences dedicated to computing ethics, and explored in peer-reviewed journals that focus exclusively on such issues.

As AI researchers have become engaged in conversations about ethics, some have apparently mistakenly concluded that there was no prior interest in computing ethics in general, or interest particularly in ethical issues related to AI. As we have described, this is incorrect. The ACM Digital Library, for example, includes a 1995 paper about ethics that was presented at a conference about AI and Law [8].

• COMPUTING ETHICS CURRICULUM, BROADLY CONSTRUED

Scholars and the ACM have had a long and active interest in ethics and in AI ethics. Computer Science academics have also not ignored this area. ACM's Curriculum '78 [2] indicated that computer science students should study relevant computing ethics in core lower-division courses and that computer science programs ought to offer an upper-division course in computers and society. There is an explicit instruction that "[t]hroughout the presentation of this elementary material, meaningful actual computer applications should be cited and reviewed. In the process of so doing, reference must be made to the social, philosophical, and ethical considerations involved in the applications." Curriculum '78 goes on to suggest ten advanced level courses. The first course listed among the advanced course is "Computers and Society." The four objectives presented are prescient. One stands out, "to provide a framework for professional activity that involves explicit consideration of and decisions concerning social impact." Note the general nature of concern that is beyond any specific computing technology. While what is encapsulated by "computers and society" has changed and matured since 1978, its prominence in subsequent Computing Curricula has only become more pronounced. It is evident when one considers a recent list of programs with significant technology ethics content collected by Casey Fielder. It includes at least 150 courses [5]. It is important to note that the course at Stanford described by Singer as "new" has grown out of courses taught at that institution for at least 20 years. Eric Roberts, who taught that course with Terry Winograd and Helen Nissenbaum, reported that "[s]ince 1988-89, the Department of Computer Science at Stanford University has offered CS201 (Computers, Ethics, and Social Responsibility) as part of its undergraduate curriculum." [9]

Over time, many institutions have worked to develop ways to incorporate this course into their curricula. There is a long history at many institutions of teaching computing ethics to computer science students in a stand-alone course using practical computer examples. This evidence seems to belie Singer's statement that "until recently, ethics did not seem relevant to many students."

• COMPUTING CODES OF ETHICS, BROADLY CONSTRUED

In September 1961, the Communications of the ACM published a letter to the editor from C. M. Sidlo. The topic of the letter was "the making of a profession," and Sidlo included an explicit discussion of a code of ethics [7].

Today, the ACM has ethics and social impact at the core of its mission. The ACM homepage declares, "[w]e see a world where computing helps solve tomorrow's problems - where we use our knowledge and skills to advance the profession and make a positive impact." [1] The first ACM code was established in 1966 and was called "Guidelines for Professional Conduct." The expectation listed in the guidelines is that they would "evolve into an effecting means of preserving a high level of ethical conduct." The 1972 code again focused on professional conduct but included eighteen "ethical considerations." The current code, adopted in 1992, is called the "ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct" and consists of "24 imperatives formulated as statements of personal responsibility." While the guidance does mention specific computing technologies, the imperatives are broadly applicable. In 1999 the IEEE-CS and the ACM jointly produced the Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice [13] that has been broadly adopted by organizations like the Chinese Computer Federation and Spanish Software Engineering and Technology Society [14].

To support the Code adopted in 1992, the ACM established the ACM Committee on Professional Ethics (COPE) [4]. It conducts ethics-teaching workshops, gives computing ethics training, provides guidance in proactive ethical decision making, and promotes ACM's Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.

In recognition of changes in technology, the evolving literature on computing ethics, and advances in delivering computing ethics to undergraduates, COPE, on behalf of the ACM, is completing a three year international project to update its Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct to address a broad range of issues including working in the defense industry, producing self-modifying software, maintaining privacy and security, and ethical approaches to issues in data science [7]. The revised Code adopts several new Principles that address issues in specific computing technologies such as AI, machine learning, and autonomous machines making ethically significant decisions. The Principles of the Code remain general but will be presented with explanations and examples that draw on specific computing technologies, showing how they relate to concrete decisions of computing practitioners. The ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct is a guide to proactive action that helps us, as a profession, to promote good and reduce unanticipated negative impacts.

• The Co-evolution must continue

When taken together—a scholarly literature that reaches back at least sixty years, a call for incorporating computing ethics into the undergraduate computing curriculum for over forty years, and the ACM's support for over fifty years of codes of ethics based on professionalism founded on universal ethical principles—there is clear evidence of not only an interest in, but a serious commitment to computing ethics. This well-established paper trail can benefit those working in new computing developments in specific computing technologies such as AI. Furthermore, scholars working with specific technologies can make contributions to a broader understanding of computing ethics. Indeed, the demand for discussion of ethics in AI has brought more general ethics of computing to the forefront, and we welcome the inclusion of ethicists, philosophers, sociologists, and other interdisciplinary fields that help to explore ethical and social issues in the discussions we see at AI conferences and industry conventions.

The recent interest in ethics of specific technologies such as AI is a positive, encouraging development. It is an extension of a significant existing body of work on computing ethics. However, discussions about specific technology ethics like AI ethics should leverage relevant existing work by utilizing the established research literature in computing ethics, extant computing ethics curricula, and broad-based codes of ethics such as the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Grounding ethical issues in AI in the existing literature and codes of ethics will lead to new contributions to these co-evolving areas of computing ethics.

• Acknowledgements

Computing Ethics Card Catalog drawer sketch by Don Gotterbarn

References

1. ACM home page; www.acm.org. Accessed 2018 March 20.

2. Austin, R., Barnes, B., et al. Curriculum '78 Communications of the ACM 22, 3, (1979), 147–166 DOI:10.1145/359080.359083'

3. Bynum, T.W. A very short history of computer ethics. APA Newsletters on Philosophy and Computers 99.2 (2000).

4. Committee on Professional Ethics home page. https://ethics.acm.org. Accessed 2018 March 20.

5. Fiedler, C. partial list of computer ethics courses. https://twitter.com/cfiesler/status/931200575873490944. Accessed 2018 March 20.

6. Florentine, S. Should Software Developers have a Code of Ethics? CIO January 11, 2017; https://www.cio.com/article/3156565/developer/should-software-developers-have-a-code-of-ethics.html. Accessed 20 March 2018.

7. Gotterbarn, D. Bruckman, A. Flick, C., Miller, K.W. Wolf, M.J. ACM Code of Ethics: A Guide for Positive Action, Communications of the ACM, 61, 1 (2018), 121–128. DOI:10.1145/3173016

8. McLaren, M. and Ashley, K. Context sensitive case comparisons in practical ethics: reasoning about reasons. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL '95) College Park, MD, USA — May 21-24, 1995.

9. Roberts, E. Strategies for using technology in the teaching of ethics. ITiCSE'98 Proceedings, (Dublin City University). DOI:10.1145/282991.283127

10. Self-driving car fatality; https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html. Accessed 2018 March 19.

11. Sidlo, C.M. The making of a profession. Communications of the ACM, 4, 9 (1961), 366–367.

12. Singer, N. Tech's Ethical `Dark Side': Harvard, Stanford, and Others Want to Address It, New York Times, February 12, 2018; https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/business/computer-science-ethics-courses.html. Accessed 2018 March 20. The article is also summarized and repeated by Sam Hodgson On February 14, 2018 in ACM TechNews; https://cacm.acm.org/news/225294-universities-rush-to-roll-out-computer-science-ethics-courses/fulltext. Accessed 2018 March 26.

13. Software Engineering Code; https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/software-engineering-code/. Accessed 2018 March 20.

14. Spanish Software Engineering Society; https://www.sistedes.es/informes-recursos/codigo-etico-y-practicas-profesionales. Accessed 2018 March 20.

15. Wiener, N. Cybernetics: Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Technology Press (1948).

Authors

Don Gotterbarn, emeritus Department of Computing
East Tennessee State University
Johnson City, TN, USA
[email protected]

Marty J. Wolf
Department of Computer Science
Bemidji State University
Bemidji, MN, USA
[email protected]

Keith W. Miller
Orthwein Endowed Professor for Lifelong Learning in the Sciences College of Education
University of Missouri
St, Louis, MO USA
[email protected]

Catherine Flick
Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility
DeMontfort University
Leicester, UK
[email protected]

Figures

Figure 1. The Expanding Domain of Computing Ethics

Copyright held by author

The Digital Library is published by the Association for Computing Machinery. Copyright © 2018 ACM, Inc.

Contents available in PDF
View Full Citation and Bibliometrics in the ACM DL.  

To comment you must create or log in with your ACM account.