Computing Ethics, Intercultural Comparisons

Computers are a vehicle for the information age, and are central to the dispersal of descriptive accounts of technology, and to interactive discussion between growing communities. Despite the commitment of all countries to free flow of information and access to knowledge sources based upon social justice there are still ethical problems of the digital divide. The attitudes of respondents towards science and computers in both Japan and Thailand is compared between 1993 and a decades later. There is more positive support towards science and technology in general in Thailand than in Japan, but both countries continue to be positive in attitude. There is a clear social mandate in both countries for their government policies promoting the development of information technology and science and technology in general. The perception of benefits and the worries about computers are discussed, as are some emerging issues.

Universal Information Ethics? Ethical Pluralism and Social Justice

The explosive, global diffusion of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and computer-mediated communication (CMC) confronts us with the need for an information ethics that can resolve ethical problems evoked by ICTs and CMC in ways that provide shared, perhaps (quasi-)universal responses. At the same time, however, in the name of a transcultural social justice that preserves diverse cultural identities, such an ethics must also reflect and sustain local values, approaches, and traditions. Important ethical claims from both within Western and between Eastern and Western cultures exemplify an ethical pluralism that is able to meet these requirements as this pluralism represents important ethical differences as issuing from diverse judgments and applications of shared ethical norms.

Justifying Intellectual Property Protection

I argue that the law should provide limited protection of intellectual property interests. To this end, I argue that whether the law ought to coercively restrict liberty depends on an assessment of all competing interests. Further, I argue that the interests of content creators in controlling the disposition of the content they create outweigh the interests of other persons in using that content in most, but not all, cases. I conclude that, in these cases, morality protects the interests of content creators, but not the interests of other persons and hence would justify limited legal protection of the content creators’ interests.

Computer Ethics

This chapter introduces two distinct models of morality, namely, constitutive which is available in traditional moral philosophy and consequential which surrounds the present day computer ethics discourse. It shows how constitutive morality thoroughly rehearses possible problems arising out of new developments or introduction of new products before accepting a moral rule, whereas consequential morality, propelled by liberalism, allows freedom for new products without deliberation and attends to problems only when they arise. The chapter, looking from the point of view of constitutive morality, highlights some of the structural problems associated with computer ethics. In conclusion it suggests how societies, like India, that are not fully modern, can learn from both of these two models, thereby instituting additional terms to a new discipline like computer ethics.

The Digital Divide within the Digital Community in Saudi Arabia

This chapter looks at the effects of the widening of the gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’, in terms of the digital divide, in Saudi Arabia. It focuses on the divide among members of the Saudi society who already have access to the Internet and synthesises results from four studies about the Internet in Saudi Arabia conducted between 2000 and 2005. It discusses the factors that could be blamed for the digital divide in the country and some of the groups of people who have access to the Internet but are still among the ‘have-nots’.

Digital Disempowerment

The digital divide involves fundamental ethics issues concerning how democracy and democratization are related to computer-mediated communication (CMC) and its role in political communication. As the roles of CMC/ICT systems expand in political communication, existing digital divide gaps are likely to contribute to structural inequalities in political participation. These inequalities work against democracy and political empowerment and produce social injustices at the same time as they produce expanded opportunities of political participation. Our guiding premise is that CMC/ICT policies that minimize inequalities of access, usage, and participation are more ethical than policies that neglect the democratization of new communication technologies and networks.

The Digital Divide in Australia

In this paper, the authors examine the problem of the digital divide in Australia, drawing substantially on a study by carried out for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government by the authors. While this study was limited to the ACT region, many of the findings are relevant to rural areas across Australia as well, and also to rural areas of other developed countries. The authors conclude that there is a digital divide problem in Australia, and discuss some initiatives taken to date to address the problem.

Social Justice and Market Metaphyics

A book on the topic of information technology and social justice would seem to be based on several implicit assumptions. One of these is that there are unequal distributions of technology and access to technology, which can be called ‘digital divides’. Another one is that these digital divides are a problem for justice. A final one is that a philosophical debate of these issues can be beneficial. This chapter aims to question the validity of these assumptions. It asks what philosophy contributes to the debate about digital divides. In order to do so, it briefly reviews the debates concerning justice and digital divides. It then discusses the question whether markets or states are better suited to overcome the unequal distribution of technology. The purpose of these brief restatements of some of the opinions found in the literature is to show that philosophy alone cannot inform us of what we should do. The chapter concludes by suggesting that, in order to address problems of digital divides, we need to go beyond philosophical debate and enter the political space.

Discourses in Gender andTechnology

The majority of women are not involved in the design, manufacturing or shaping of technology in many Western societies. This is at a time when governments globally see technology as an enabler to economic success. Using feminist scholarship and discourse analysis, this chapter questions why patterns of gender segregation prevail in technology related fields in the United Kingdom. The chapter critically analyses why government policy, and equal opportunities initiatives, have so far largely failed to increase women’s participation. Using examples taken from two educational settings, the chapter uses the narratives of individual’s experiences of technology, their engagement, or lack of engagement with it, to examine the dominant discourses of the field. It is argued that technology discourses, which shape our understanding and identity with technology, are gendered. It is argued that current policies and initiatives, based on giving women equality of access will continue to make little difference. That until gendered dominant discourses of technology are deconstructed and examined; we will not have the tools to address the current situation of gender segregation.

Global Digital Divide, Global Justice, Cultures and Epistemology

The problem of global digital divide, namely disparity in internet access and use among the various regions of the world, is a growing concern. Even though, according to some reports, the gap is getting narrower, this does not mean that the problem is disappearing, because the problem does not just consist in getting more people to become ‘wired’, so to speak. This paper investigates the various relationships among the global digital divide, global justice, cultures and epistemology. Very briefly stated, not getting access to the Internet constitutes an injustice because the access is a social good that can lead to various other goods. Furthermore, as information technology is a second-order technology, one that operates on meaning bearing symbols, access to the technology is very much an issue of social epistemology, an attempt to find out the optimal way to distribute knowledge across the social and cultural domains.