3/31/2011

Rights

Positive right specifies a duty on others to supply the right.
Negative right specifies that others must leave you alone to exercise your right.

Negative right, positive right?
• Freedom to peaceably assemble
• Choice of domicile
• Choice of dress
• Pass a college class
• Take a college class
• Education K-12
• Summer school
• Pre-school education

Consider the following in the context of negative/positive rights. Who are the parties involved?
• Right to upload content to wikipedia
• to download maps from google.com/maps
• to copy your lecture notes for a friend
• to give a friend a copy of your homework solution.
• plagiarism
• to rip a song from a CD (you purchased) onto your MP3 player.

Here's a problem. Some hacker develops a worm that exploits a security hole in Windows machines that are on the Internet. A different hacker develops a different worm that uses the same security hole. The second worm locates and destroys the first worm, then installs a patch that closes the security hole. Should the second hacker release his worm?

Microsoft develops and authorizes the release of the second worm. Is that ok? The second worm is buggy and opens a second security hole. What do you think now? What do intentions have to do with this?

Most people agree that it is next to impossible to develop perfect software (of any significant size). Knowing software is buggy, though you don't know where the bugs are and they haven't manifested in your testing, is it ethical to release software?

Ethical Models

Kantianism (Categorial imperative)

• treat humanity in oneself and others always as an end and never merely as a means,
  Theft is wrong (see wikipedia article). No person can consent to theft
  (because if he consented, it wouldn't be theft).
  Since victim cannot consent, the victim is a means and not an end to the theft.
• act only on a maxim which could will to be a universal law.
  Intent to deceive is wrong (see wikipedia article). I make a promise with the intention of reneging on it. Suppose everyone made promises with intention of reneging. There is a logical contradiction centering on the definition of "promise." Hence it is wrong to promise without intending to satisfy the promise.

Why we like Kantianism
• Relies on logic
• Categorical imperative produces universal guidelines.
  If something is wrong in the US in 2008, it is wrong in Tepotzlan in 1400.
• All individuals are equals.

Downside of Kantianism
• The categorical imperative tests a rule. Often an action is based on many rules. Eg. "Iam going to steal food to feed my starving children". What are the rules involved? It is bad to steal. It is good to feed children.
• If two rules pass the test, how does one decide between rules? See above example
• No exceptions. A rule is good or bad -- no room to bend.

According to categorical imperative is it wrong?
• to upload content to wikipedia?
• to give a friend a copy of your homework solution.
• to plagiarize
• to load a music CD to a friend

Act Utilitarianism

We like Act Utilitarianism because:
• We intuitively think the purpose of life is to be happy -- act utilitarianism focusses on happiness.
• Usually very grounded in instinctively felt opinions on what increases happiness.
• Can consider all factors (ie., don't have the problem Kantianism does of weighing rules

Downside
• Who all and what all should be included in the calculation of total happiness -- can easily extend to the entire universe of people.
• Hard work! Even for simple moral decisions, a good answer requires a lot of energy.
• Where does duty and honor fit in here? No where!
• Sometime actions have unintended consequences. Since consequences are all that matters in utilitarianism, what happens when there are bad (and unintended) consequences?

Rule utilitarianism

We like rule utilitarianism because
• The calculation is simpler than act utilitarianism because you get to consider the big picture and long term consequences of universal adoption.
• If you rely on rules of behavior for most things, you don't have to analyze every particular action for right.
• exceptional situations are exceptional and don't overthrow rules.
• Unintended consequences aren't an issue for rule utilitarianism
• Has broad appeal to many people.

Downside of rule utilitarianism (and also act utilitarianism)
• Must use a single scale to evaluate different things. Eg. compare high divorce rate among law enforcement and military versus public safety.
• Unjust distribution of good consequences is ignored. Utilitarianism calculates on total happiness. Indeed, some can suffer if total happiness is great enough.

What comprises "happiness"
• intensity: magnitude of the experience
• duration: how long the experience lasts
• certainty: probability it will happen
• propinquity: how close it is in space and time
• fecundity: its ability to create more experiences of the same kind
• purity: extent to which happiness is not diluted by pain
• extent: number of people affected
  Problems with utilitarianism:
  • one scale to evaluate completely different kinds of consequences
  • unjust distribution of happiness is ignored

A high-ranking Bush administration official weighed in Thursday on anti-piracy efforts domestically and abroad, indirectly chastising Sony BMG Music Entertainment for its digital rights management (DRM) software, which computer security analysis say uses tactics typically employed by virus writers to hide its components and resist their removal. . . .

Seated on a panel that featured entertainment and technology executives Mitch Bainwol, chairman and chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), as well as Susan Mann, director of intellectual property policy for Microsoft, Baker wrapped up his opening comments with the following admonition for the industry:

"I wanted to raise one point of caution as we go forward, because we are also responsible for maintaining the security of the information infrastructure of the United States and making sure peoples' [and] businesses' computers are secure. ... There's been a lot of publicity recently about tactics used in pursuing protection for music and DVD CDs in which questions have been raised about whether the protection measures install hidden files on peoples' computers that even the system administrators can't find."

In a remark clearly aimed directly at Sony and other labels, Stewart continued: "It's very important to remember that it's your intellectual property -- it's not your computer. And in the pursuit of protection of intellectual property, it's important not to defeat or undermine the security measures that people need to adopt in these days.

"If we have an avian flu outbreak here and it is even half as bad as the 1918 flu, we will be enormously dependent on being able to get remote access for a large number of people, and keeping the infrastructure functioning is going to be a matter of life and death and we take it very seriously."