Study Guide Questions
Uniut 1
1. What ethical issues does Franklin say are associated with technological practices?
2. Give examples that are different from the ones mentioned by Franklin of “work-related”
and “control-related” technologies, and of “holistic” and “prescriptive” technologies.
3. What ethical values are involved in scientific research, according to On Being a Scientist,
and what is a “scientific standard”? How do scientific standards help to resolve ethical
issues in data collection and conflict of commitment?
4. According to Stevenson, what are the three senses in which scientific practice is often
considered to be “value-neutral”?
5. What reasons does Stevenson provide to argue that science is not “value-neutral”? Do
you agree with Stevenson? Why or why not?
6. Briefly summarize the critiques of science by Feyerebend, Marcuse, and Rifkin that are
discussed by Stevenson. Why does Stevenson find these critiques interesting but
unsatisfactory?
Unit 2
1. What does Callahan mean by the distinction between descriptive and normative
statements? Provide two examples of each.
2. How does Callahan characterize the distinction between conventional morality and
reflective morality?
3. How does Callahan distinguish ethics from law, religion, and custom? Explain each of
these distinctions that she draws with the use of examples.
4. Callahan discusses two kinds of ethical principle: teleological and deontological. Explain
these two kinds of ethical principle. Use an example to illustrate the application of these
two principles.
5. Explain how Callahan characterizes the structure of moral reasoning. Identify and explain
two ways in which a moral judgment could be challenged on the basis of this structure.
Unit 3
1. Under what conditions do Roy, Williams, and Dickens claim that it is morally justifiable
to use humans in scientific experimentation?
2. Would you say that Roy, Williams, and Dickens employ a teleological or deontological
approach to research ethics on humans? Justify your answer (you may find it help to
consult Callahan, pages 19–21, for this question).
3. What role do you think informed consent should play in research ethics involving human
subjects? Do you think informed consent is sufficient for covering all cases of research
on humans? Why or why not?
4. Under what conditions does the Canadian Council on Animal Care think it is justifiable
to use animals in research?
5. What does Singer mean by “speciesism”? Do you think it is a violation of the principle of
equality in the same way that racism and sexism are?
6. What is Singer’s “principle of equality”? Why does Singer think the principle applies to
members of species other than our own? How would society’s treatment of animals
change if we followed his principle of equality?
7. How does Singer employ use his principle of equality for determining when experiments
using animals are justifiable? Do you find the principle plausible? Why or why not?
Defend your answer carefully, referring to the steps of Singer’s argument.
Unit 4
1. Explain why Brunk thinks a new professional ethic is needed for professionals working
in the area of technology. What does he see as the major components of such an ethic?
2. Brunk identifies a second moral principle in “Professionalism and Moral Responsibility
in the Technological Society,” (p. 151), that he says should be part of the “ethic of
Conscientious Professionalism.” Identify the principle, and explain how Brunk argues it
should influence the thinking of scientists and technical people. Do you agree with his
argument? Why or why not?
3. How does James define “whistle-blowing,” and under what conditions does he think it is
justified?
4. What policies does James think corporations and institutions might adopt to make
whistle-blowing unnecessary?
5. What steps did the employees described in the article on the Challenger case take to try to
avert the disaster? How did their actions fit with the steps James says professionals
should take when they think activities of their organization may cause harm?
Unit 5
1. What are the similarities and differences between therapeutic and reproductive cloning,
as described by Bowring in “Therapeutic and Reproductive Cloning: A Critique”? On
what basis is therapeutic cloning widely considered to be morally acceptable? How does
Bowring argue that, if therapeutic cloning were considered morally acceptable, it would
be difficult to maintain that reproductive cloning is morally unacceptable?
2. How does Bowring argue that both sex selection and human cloning raise the same
ethical issue?
3. Critically analyze one of Bowring’s moral arguments against human reproductive
cloning. In your answer, be sure to incorporate the most important normative concepts,
such as autonomy, in his description of the effects of cloning on the child. Also, be sure
to indicate what kind of argument he is making. If necessary, re-read Callahan to refresh
your memory about the distinction between utilitarian and deontological moral reasoning.
4. In “A Genethics that Makes Sense,” Diprose argues that genetic engineering is based, at
least in part, on the assumption that sameness among individuals is desirable. What are
Diprose’s ethical worries regarding the “effacement of difference?” which is promoted,
she argues, by the very theory of genetics?
5. Diprose is concerned about the consequences to our notions of self that research in
human cloning could have. Through the concept of the “effacement of difference,”
Diprose argues that all genetic realizations necessarily express the impulse to mass
produce or objectify human beings. Do you agree with the factual claim that this impulse
is driving, if not determining, human genetic research? If you agree, do you think the
impulse ought to be resisted? If you disagree, what do you think is determining the
direction in which cloning research is going?
6. How do Moor and Weckert argue that there are ethical concerns with using
nanotechnology to extend the human life-span indefinitely? Is their argument teleological
or deontological?
7. On what grounds does Bennett-Woods argue there is reason to be concerned about uses
of nanotechnology for biological enhancement, even if these possibilities are mostly
science fiction?
8. Some people argue that we can separate research and development from application, and
put the brakes on a new technology if it is determined through research that it could be
harmful. Moor and Weckert claim, in Section 3 of “Nanoethics: Assessing the Nanoscale
from an Ethical Perspective,” that “when new technology provides us with new tools to
investigate and control others, we use them . . . That nanochips will be used for spying
and control of others is a practical certainty” (306–307). Can you think of any facts that
Moor and Weckert have overlooked in coming to this conclusion?
Unit 6
1. Fried draws a distinction between understanding privacy as intrinsically valuable (an endin-itself) and as instrumentally valuable (a means-to-an-end). Explain this distinction
with respect to the values of “wealth” and “happiness.” Do you think privacy is better
characterized as intrinsically valuable or instrumentally valuable? Explain your answer.
2. Fried does not think that privacy fits neatly into the category of either being intrinsically
or instrumentally valuable, but he does favour a certain version of the instrumentalist
conception. Explain his instrumentalist conception of the value of privacy by focusing
upon his account of what kinds of morally desirable ends are only made possible by
privacy.
3. What reasons does Fried provide for arguing that probationary monitoring can be morally
justifiable while electronic monitoring of the general public is not?
4. Name and explain three reasons that Fried provides for thinking that electronic
monitoring of the general public is morally problematic.
5. Consider the following passage from Fried’s article:
“It is my thesis that privacy is not just one possible means among others to insure
some other value, but that it is necessarily related to ends and relations of the most
fundamental sort: respect, love, friendship, and trust. Privacy is not merely a good
technique for furthering these fundamental relations; rather without privacy they
are simply inconceivable. They require a context of privacy or the possibility of
privacy for their existence. To make clear the necessity of privacy as a context for
respect, love, friendship, and trust is to bring out also why a threat to privacy
seems to threaten our very integrity as persons.” (Fried, p. 140)
In one paragraph explain Fried’s thesis to someone who has not read Fried’s article. In a
following paragraph explain why you agree or disagree with Fried’s thesis.
6. Apply Fried’s analysis of the significance of privacy to the Facebook case study that
opened Unit 6. On what grounds might Fried allege that Facebook’s data sharing
“threatened our very integrity as persons”? How might a Facebook representative
respond to such an allegation? Explain, with reasons, whose side you would defend, and
present possible alternatives for mitigating Fried’s concerns.
7. What are three reasons that Anderson and Anderson provide for the importance of
studying machine ethics?
8. Why do Anderson and Anderson think that machine ethics “makes philosophy honest”?
9. Why do Anderson and Anderson reject the theory of Ethical Relativism as a viable
approach to machine ethics? Do you agree or disagree with this line of reasoning?
10. In two to three sentences, explain Act Utilitarianism. What three reasons do Anderson
and Anderson provide for claiming that AI machines have advantages over human beings
in following Act Utilitarianism? Provide an example to help illuminate your explanation.
11. How do Anderson and Anderson respond to the criticism that machines cannot be ethical
because they do not have any of the following: (i) free will or (ii) consciousness or (iii)
emotions? Explain their response to each of these three criticisms, and critically evaluate
their response to one of these points by asking yourself whether you agree or disagree
with their response.
12. Of the ethical theories that Anderson and Anderson consider, which account do they
believe is “the best approach to ethical theory” (p. 18)? Explain this approach and present
two leadings challenges that this approach faces.
13. Anderson and Anderson conclude that “of the many challenges facing those who choose
to work in the area of machine ethics, foremost is the need for a dialogue between
ethicists and researchers in artificial intelligence” (p. 25). What do they think this
interdisciplinary dialogue should entail? What benefits can be gained from such a
dialogue?
Unit 7
1. Name and explain three leading arguments for the use and development of military robots
today.
2. Drawing upon the case study that opened Unit 7, what is the “main reason” that those
involved in this area are concerned with arming military robots?
3. Name and explain the three principles that Singer argues should guide the development
of military robots. Do you agree or disagree with his suggestions? Why or why not?
Explain your reasoning.
4. Why does Singer argue that “the human creators and operators of autonomous robots
must be held accountable for their machine’s actions” (p. 162)? Do you think this claim is
something that Anderson and Anderson would agree with, even though they claim that AI
machines should be considered “moral agents”?
5. Do you think armed and autonomous military robots should be developed? Why or why
not? Give reasons in support of your position.
6. In the play In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer, how does the character of
Oppenheimer argue that, although he was responsible for developing the atomic bomb, he
was not responsible for the decision to use it to inflict mass destruction? Do you think
that Oppenheimer did anything that was morally wrong? Explain why or why not.
7. Consider again Conrad Brunk’s principle of “Conscientious Professionalism” (Unit 4 of
this course, see especially Brunk, p. 151). Explain how Brunk’s principle could apply to
In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Consider especially this line in your application
of Brunk’s principle: “It is as appropriate for the nuclear physicist to warn of the dangers
of nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons as anyone else, indeed, she usually has a
greater obligation as anyone else to do so” (Brunk, p. 151). How might Oppenheimer
respond to Brunk’s principle?
8. Drawing upon both the P.W. Singer essay and the Kipperhardt play, discuss the scope
and nature of the moral responsibility of scientists working in the military for the
outcomes of their work. Do you think scientists are in no way morally culpable for
harmful outcomes, or are they in some sense morally responsible for such outcomes?
Explain your answer with reasons that can support your position.
Unit 8
1. In the first reading for this unit, an ex-Google executive is quoted as saying: “It’s Homo
sapiens minds against the most powerful supercomputers and billions of dollars . . . It’s
like bringing a knife to a space laser fight . . . We are going to look back and say, ‘Why
on earth did we do this to ourselves’?” Explain this comment by tying it into the research
that is presented concerning the human proclivity for novelty bias, insecurity, and
addiction. What kinds of abilities, if any, do human beings have for mitigating against
these forces? Do you think emerging technologies have enhanced or frustrated those
abilities? Why or why not?
2. What does Thomas mean by the Aristotelian ideal of “companion friendship”? What
reasons does he present for thinking that digital technology is a great facilitator for
communication but not for conversation? Why does he think those considerations
severely inhibit the possibility of “companion friendship” in the digital age? Do you
agree with him? Why or why not?
3. Consider the following passage from Thomas’s essay:
There is simply no denying the extraordinary wonders of technology as a vehicle
for communicating information. The mistake lies in losing sight of the truth that
in so very many instances what matters enormously to human beings is not just
that the right information is communicated to us, but also the way in which we
experience that information being communicated to us. (Thomas, p. 388)
Explain this passage by drawing upon the phenomenon of a parent saying “I love you” to
a child. Can digital communication capture the depth and meaning of such a phrase in the
same way that a face-to-face encounter can? Why or why not?
4. Why does Turkle think that our reliance upon digital technology has frustrated not only
our social relationships but also our capacity for self-reflection? What kinds of strategies
does Turkle suggest we employ for addressing these challenges in the digital age?
Breakdown
If you have done all the readings, this should be easy summary. IF not familiar, address the
reading itself.
Unit 1: Ethics in Science and Technology
•
•
•
Ursula Franklin’s The Real World of Technology – I’m familiar with Franklin’s
lectures on the social and ethical implications of technology. She emphasizes how
technology shapes society and values, drawing a distinction between prescriptive and
holistic technologies.
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy – On Being a Scientist (2009)
– A key resource on responsible conduct in research. I’m familiar with the sections you
listed, including research ethics, data handling, and conflicts of interest.
Leslie Stevenson – “Is Scientific Research Value-Neutral?” – This is a classic piece
questioning whether science can ever be value-free, a central debate in the philosophy of
science.
Unit 2: Ethics and Moral Reasoning
•
Joan C. Callahan – “Basics and Background” from Ethical Issues in Professional
Life – I know this chapter; it provides a primer on key ethical theories and moral
reasoning, relevant for case analysis.
Unit 3: Research Ethics: Human and Animal Experimentation
•
•
•
•
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy – On Being a Scientist (2009)
– Familiar with the section on research ethics.
Roy, Williams, and Dickens – Research Ethics: Historical Background – This covers
major ethical milestones like the Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki.
Canadian Council on Animal Care – “Ethics of Animal Investigation” – This
outlines ethical principles and guidelines for animal research.
Peter Singer – “All Animals Are Equal” and “Tools for Research” – Familiar with
Singer’s arguments for animal rights and ethical treatment, a key text in animal ethics.
Unit 4: Professional Responsibility and Whistle-Blowing
•
•
Conrad Brunk – “Professionalism and Responsibility in the Technological Society”
– Discusses ethics in professional roles within a technological society.
Gene James – “Whistle-Blowing: Its Moral Justification” – Discusses the moral
conditions under which whistleblowing is justified.
•
Boisjoly, Curtis, and Mellican – Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster – A case
study on the ethical dimensions of the Challenger disaster, a classic case in engineering
ethics.
Unit 5: Bio-Engineering and Nanotechnology
•
•
•
•
•
Government of Canada – Assisted Human Reproduction Act – Familiar with its key
sections on ethical boundaries for reproductive technologies.
Finn Bowring – “Therapeutic and Reproductive Cloning: A Critique” – A critique of
cloning technologies, drawing on ethical frameworks.
Rosalyn Diprose – “A Genethics that Makes Sense: Take Two” – A philosophical
reflection on genetics and embodiment.
Moor and Weckert – “Nanoethics” – Familiar with this paper’s exploration of ethical
issues at the nanoscale.
Bennett-Woods – “NBIC and Human Enhancement” – Discusses the ethics of
nanotech, biotech, info tech, and cognitive science convergence.
Unit 6: Computer Ethics and Machine Ethics
•
•
•
Charles Fried – “Privacy: A Rational Context” – A foundational text on privacy as a
moral concept, relevant to debates on data and technology.
Callahan – “Basics and Background” (again) – Same foundational ethics content as
above.
Anderson and Anderson – “Machine Ethics” – A key paper on developing ethical
frameworks for AI and machine agents.
Unit 7: Military Technology and Ethics
•
•
P.W. Singer – “Military Robots and the Laws of War” – I’m familiar with Singer’s
work on robotics and military ethics.
Heinar Kipphardt – The Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer – A dramatic portrayal of
Oppenheimer’s moral dilemmas regarding the atomic bomb.
Unit 8: Technology and Humanity
•
Eric Andrew-Gee – “Your Smartphone is Making You Stupid…” – A popular press
piece on the social impacts of smartphone use.
•
•
Laurence Thomas – “Friendship in the Shadow of Technology” – Discusses how
technology shapes and distorts human relationships.
Sherry Turkle – TED Talk “Connected, but alone?” – I’m very familiar with this talk
and Turkle’s broader work on how technology affects intimacy, autonomy, and social
connection.
Study Guide Questions
Unit 1
1. What ethical issues does Franklin say are associated with technological practices?
Ursula Franklin (2004) argues that technology is not morally neutral but deeply intertwined with
social and ethical concerns. She identifies two main ethical issues: first, the impact of
technological systems on society—technology shapes power structures, labor relations, and
human interaction. For example, "prescriptive" technologies impose strict control and
standardization, often diminishing worker autonomy. Second, there is the ethical responsibility
of those who develop and implement technology—choices made in design affect social justice,
environmental sustainability, and human well-being. Franklin warns that technological
development frequently prioritizes efficiency or profit over ethical considerations, potentially
leading to social alienation and loss of human values. Hence, ethical reflection is needed not only
on the outcomes of technology but on the processes and values embedded within technological
practices.
2. Give examples that are different from the ones mentioned by Franklin of “work-related”
and “control-related” technologies, and of “holistic” and “prescriptive” technologies.
Building on Franklin’s framework:
•
•
Work-related technologies facilitate direct physical tasks, e.g., a power drill for
carpentry or a mechanical plow in agriculture, enhancing worker skill and autonomy.
Control-related technologies regulate and monitor activities, like biometric attendance
systems or assembly line robotics that enforce uniformity and strict control over workers.
Regarding types:
•
•
Holistic technologies involve users understanding the whole process and adapting
flexibly, such as traditional pottery-making or artisan baking. These empower creativity
and individual judgment.
Prescriptive technologies dictate exact procedures and limits, e.g., fast-food chains’
standardized cooking machines or automated factory assembly lines that reduce worker
discretion.
These examples illustrate how technology shapes not only work but also social relations and
autonomy.
3. What ethical values are involved in scientific research, according to On Being a Scientist,
and what is a “scientific standard”? How do scientific standards help to resolve ethical
issues in data collection and conflict of commitment?
The National Academy’s On Being a Scientist (2009) emphasizes ethical values including
honesty, objectivity, integrity, carefulness, openness, and respect for colleagues. A scientific
standard is a community-accepted criterion ensuring research validity and reliability, such as
reproducibility and transparency. These standards guide researchers to collect data accurately,
report results honestly, and avoid bias. In cases of conflict of commitment—when personal
interests may interfere with professional duties—scientific standards provide a framework to
prioritize impartiality and transparency, helping researchers manage competing values without
compromising integrity. For example, declaring financial conflicts or following rigorous peer
review uphold ethical research conduct.
4. According to Stevenson, what are the three senses in which scientific practice is often
considered to be “value-neutral”?
Leslie Stevenson (1989) identifies three meanings of value-neutrality in science:
1. Methodological neutrality: Scientific methods themselves do not incorporate moral or
social values; they aim for objective, empirical facts.
2. Epistemic neutrality: The content of scientific theories is unbiased by ethical or political
values; theories are evaluated solely on evidence.
3. Contextual neutrality: The social context or uses of science do not affect the truth
claims or validity of scientific knowledge itself.
Together, these suggest that while science produces objective knowledge, its application may
involve values.
5. What reasons does Stevenson provide to argue that science is not “value-neutral”? Do
you agree with Stevenson? Why or why not?
Stevenson challenges value-neutrality by noting:
•
•
Choices about what to study are influenced by societal, political, and ethical values.
The interpretation and application of scientific findings inevitably involve value
judgments, affecting policy and ethical decisions.
•
Scientific research is embedded in social institutions that shape funding, priorities, and
access, reflecting value-laden decisions.
Thus, he argues science is intertwined with values at multiple stages, not purely objective or
detached.
I agree with Stevenson: science as a human endeavor cannot be fully separated from values
because choices, funding, and use reflect human goals and ethics. Recognizing this helps ensure
responsible science that serves society’s broader interests.
6. Briefly summarize the critiques of science by Feyerabend, Marcuse, and Rifkin that are
discussed by Stevenson. Why does Stevenson find these critiques interesting but
unsatisfactory?
Stevenson discusses:
•
•
•
Feyerabend’s critique that science is anarchistic and no single method is superior,
challenging rigid scientific authority.
Marcuse’s view that science serves dominant capitalist interests, reinforcing social
control and oppression.
Rifkin’s concern about the ethical and ecological consequences of unchecked scientific
progress.
Stevenson appreciates their critical insights on science’s social role and limitations but finds
them unsatisfactory because they either reject science wholesale or overemphasize negative
aspects, neglecting science’s achievements and potential for self-correction. He advocates for a
balanced view recognizing both science’s strengths and ethical responsibilities.
Unit 2
1. What does Callahan mean by the distinction between descriptive and normative
statements? Provide two examples of each.
Callahan distinguishes descriptive statements as those that describe how things are, focusing on
facts without judgment, while normative statements prescribe how things ought to be, expressing
values or moral judgments.
•
Descriptive examples:
1. “Many people use smartphones daily.”
2. “The average global temperature has risen by 1 degree Celsius in the past
century.”
•
Normative examples:
1. “People ought to reduce their smartphone use to avoid addiction.”
2. “We should take urgent action to mitigate climate change.”
The key difference is that descriptive statements report reality, whereas normative statements
involve ethical evaluation or guidance.
2. How does Callahan characterize the distinction between conventional morality and
reflective morality?
Callahan describes conventional morality as the set of moral beliefs and practices accepted by a
society without much questioning—it’s the “common sense” ethics we learn through
socialization. In contrast, reflective morality involves critical examination and thoughtful
analysis of those conventional norms. It requires individuals to question assumptions, justify
moral claims, and revise beliefs based on reasoned argument rather than tradition or authority
alone. Reflective morality aims for a more deliberate and principled ethical understanding
beyond mere conformity.
3. How does Callahan distinguish ethics from law, religion, and custom? Explain each of
these distinctions that she draws with the use of examples.
Callahan draws clear distinctions:
•
•
•
Ethics vs. Law: Laws are rules enforced by governments with penalties for violations,
whereas ethics are broader moral principles guiding right conduct, which may or may not
be codified legally. Example: It might be legal to jaywalk, but ethically unsafe.
Ethics vs. Religion: Religion provides moral guidance based on divine commands or
sacred texts, while ethics relies on reasoned argument and universal principles
independent of religious authority. Example: Ethics can critique or support practices
across religions.
Ethics vs. Custom: Customs are social habits or traditions that may not involve moral
judgment, whereas ethics critically evaluates customs to determine if they are just or
harmful. Example: Some customs like slavery were once accepted but are now ethically
condemned.
Ethics is thus a rational inquiry into right and wrong that transcends social rules or beliefs.
4. Callahan discusses two kinds of ethical principle: teleological and deontological. Explain
these two kinds of ethical principle. Use an example to illustrate the application of these
two principles.
•
•
Teleological ethics (from “telos” meaning goal) judges actions by their outcomes or
consequences. An act is right if it leads to the best overall results (utilitarianism is a
common form).
Deontological ethics focuses on duties, rules, or obligations regardless of outcomes—
some actions are inherently right or wrong.
Example: Imagine lying to protect someone’s feelings.
•
•
Teleological view might justify the lie if it produces the greatest happiness (avoiding hurt
feelings).
Deontological view would oppose lying as inherently wrong, regardless of consequences,
because honesty is a moral duty.
5. Explain how Callahan characterizes the structure of moral reasoning. Identify and
explain two ways in which a moral judgment could be challenged on the basis of this
structure.
Callahan presents moral reasoning as a process linking moral principles (general rules) with
factual beliefs (descriptions of the situation) to reach a moral judgment (specific ethical
conclusion). For example, from the principle “One should not harm others” and the fact “This
action causes harm,” one judges the action wrong.
Two ways to challenge a moral judgment:
1. Challenge the factual premise: Argue that the facts are incorrect or incomplete, e.g., the
action may not actually cause harm.
2. Challenge the moral principle: Question the relevance or validity of the principle, e.g.,
argue that under certain conditions, harming others might be permissible or justified.
These challenges test the reasoning chain, ensuring moral judgments are both factually and
normatively sound.
Unit 3
1. Under what conditions do Roy, Williams, and Dickens claim that it is morally justifiable
to use humans in scientific experimentation?
Roy, Williams, and Dickens assert that human participation in scientific research is morally
justifiable when several key conditions are met:
•
Voluntary Informed Consent: Participants must willingly and comprehensively consent
to the research without coercion.Quizlet
•
•
•
Scientific Adequacy: The research must adhere to rigorous scientific standards, ensuring
that the study is methodologically sound and that preliminary studies (e.g., animal
testing) have been conducted to justify human trials.
Risk Minimization: Potential harms to participants should be minimized, and any risks
must be outweighed by the anticipated benefits of the research.Quizlet
Ethical Justifiability: The study should align with the moral and ethical values of the
community, ensuring that it respects human dignity and rights.
These conditions collectively ensure that human experimentation is conducted responsibly and
ethically.
2. Would you say that Roy, Williams, and Dickens employ a teleological or deontological
approach to research ethics on humans? Justify your answer.
Roy, Williams, and Dickens primarily adopt a deontological approach to research ethics. This is
evident in their emphasis on the intrinsic moral duties researchers have toward participants, such
as obtaining informed consent and minimizing harm, regardless of the potential outcomes of the
research. Their framework underscores the importance of adhering to ethical principles and
respecting individual rights, aligning with deontological ethics, which focus on the morality of
actions themselves rather than their consequences.
3. What role do you think informed consent should play in research ethics involving human
subjects? Do you think informed consent is sufficient for covering all cases of research on
humans? Why or why not?
Informed consent is fundamental in research ethics, serving as a manifestation of respect for
individual autonomy and ensuring that participants are aware of the nature, risks, and benefits of
the research. However, informed consent alone may not be sufficient in all cases. For instance, in
situations involving vulnerable populations (e.g., children, individuals with cognitive
impairments), additional safeguards are necessary to protect participants who may not fully
comprehend the research implications. Moreover, informed consent does not address broader
ethical concerns, such as the social value of the research or potential long-term impacts on
communities. Therefore, while essential, informed consent should be part of a comprehensive
ethical framework that includes considerations of justice, beneficence, and respect for persons.
4. Under what conditions does the Canadian Council on Animal Care think it is justifiable
to use animals in research?
The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) stipulates that the use of animals in research is
justifiable only when:
•
•
•
•
Necessity: The research cannot be effectively conducted without the use of animals.
Application of the Three Rs: Researchers must demonstrate efforts to Replace animals
with alternative methods, Reduce the number of animals used, and Refine procedures to
minimize suffering.
Ethical Review: All animal research protocols must undergo rigorous ethical review and
approval by an institutional animal care committee.
Animal Welfare: Animals must be provided with appropriate care, housing, and
handling to ensure their well-being throughout the research process.
5. What does Singer mean by “speciesism”? Do you think it is a violation of the principle of
equality in the same way that racism and sexism are?
Peter Singer defines "speciesism" as a bias in favor of one's own species, leading to the
unjustified preference for human interests over those of other animals. He argues that this bias is
analogous to racism and sexism, as it involves arbitrary discrimination based on species
membership rather than morally relevant characteristics. According to Singer, such
discrimination violates the principle of equality, which demands equal consideration of interests,
regardless of species.
Whether speciesism constitutes a violation of equality akin to racism and sexism depends on
one's ethical framework. From a utilitarian perspective, which emphasizes minimizing suffering,
speciesism is morally indefensible. However, others may argue that differences between species
justify different moral considerations. Nonetheless, Singer's comparison challenges us to
critically examine our treatment of non-human animals.The New YorkerTheCollector
6. What is Singer’s “principle of equality”? Why does Singer think the principle applies to
members of species other than our own? How would society’s treatment of animals change
if we followed his principle of equality?
Singer's "principle of equality" asserts that equal consideration should be given to the interests of
all beings capable of suffering, regardless of species. He contends that the capacity to suffer, not
intelligence or other attributes, is the relevant criterion for moral consideration. Therefore, nonhuman animals, as sentient beings, deserve equal consideration of their interests.
If society embraced this principle, it would necessitate significant changes in our treatment of
animals, including the abolition of practices that cause unnecessary suffering, such as factory
farming, animal testing for non-essential purposes, and certain forms of entertainment involving
animals. It would promote a shift towards more compassionate and ethical interactions with all
sentient beings.
7. How does Singer use his principle of equality to determine when experiments using
animals are justifiable? Do you find the principle plausible? Why or why not?
Singer applies his principle of equality to argue that animal experimentation is only justifiable
when the benefits significantly outweigh the harms and when similar experiments would be
considered acceptable if performed on humans with comparable capacities for suffering. He
emphasizes that the moral consideration should be based on the capacity to suffer, not species
membership.
The plausibility of Singer's principle depends on one's ethical perspective. From a utilitarian
standpoint, it offers a consistent framework for evaluating the morality of actions based on their
consequences for all sentient beings. However, critics may argue that it overlooks morally
relevant differences between species or the practical implications of applying such a principle
universally. Nonetheless, Singer's approach compellingly challenges us to reconsider the ethical
justification for animal experimentation.
Unit 4
1. Why does Brunk argue for a new professional ethic in technology, and what are its key
components?
Conrad Brunk contends that traditional professional ethics inadequately address the complexities
of modern technological society. He observes that professionals often limit their moral
responsibility to their immediate tasks, neglecting the broader societal implications of their work.
Brunk advocates for an "ethic of Conscientious Professionalism," which encompasses:
•
•
•
Expanded Responsibility: Professionals should consider the wider impacts of their work
on society and the environment.
Critical Reflection: Continuous evaluation of one's role within the larger institutional
and societal context is essential.
Moral Courage: Willingness to challenge unethical practices, even at personal or
professional risk.
This ethic emphasizes a holistic approach, urging professionals to engage with the ethical
dimensions of their work beyond technical proficiency.
2. What is Brunk’s second moral principle, and how should it influence scientists and
technical professionals? Do you agree?
Brunk's second principle is the "Principle of Humility and Fallibility." It urges professionals to
acknowledge the limitations of their knowledge and the potential for error. This principle
encourages:Course Sidekick
•
Openness to Critique: Welcoming feedback and alternative perspectives.
•
•
Continuous Learning: Engaging in lifelong learning to adapt to evolving ethical
standards.
Collaborative Decision-Making: Involving diverse stakeholders in ethical
deliberations.Docslib+14CliffsNotes+14SpringerLink+14
I agree with Brunk's argument, as recognizing one's fallibility fosters a culture of accountability
and ethical vigilance, crucial in high-stakes technological fields.
3. How does James define “whistle-blowing,” and under what conditions is it justified?
Gene G. James defines whistle-blowing as the act of exposing unethical or illegal activities
within an organization, either internally or externally. He asserts that whistle-blowing is morally
justified when:Studocu+3Taylor & Francis+3pdcnet.org+3
•
•
•
•
Significant Harm: The organization's actions cause serious harm to individuals or the
public.
Exhausted Channels: Internal reporting mechanisms have been utilized without
resolution.ethics.tamu.edu+1ethicalmarkets.com+1
Evidence: The whistle-blower possesses substantial evidence of wrongdoing.
Good Intent: The motive is to prevent harm, not personal gain.
Under these conditions, whistle-blowing aligns with moral obligations to protect others from
harm.
4. What policies does James suggest to make whistle-blowing unnecessary?
James recommends organizational reforms to preempt the need for whistle-blowing,
including:Quizlet
•
•
•
Transparent Communication: Establishing open channels for ethical concerns.Quizlet
Ethical Training: Educating employees on ethical standards and reporting procedures.
Protective Mechanisms: Implementing safeguards against retaliation for reporting
misconduct.
These measures aim to cultivate an ethical organizational culture where issues are addressed
proactively.
5. How did employees attempt to prevent the Challenger disaster, and how do their actions
align with James’s recommendations?
Prior to the Challenger launch, engineers at Morton Thiokol, notably Roger Boisjoly, raised
concerns about the O-ring seals' performance in cold temperatures. They recommended delaying
the launch, citing safety risks. Despite presenting evidence to NASA officials, their warnings
were overridden by management decisions.EHA Soft Solutions+4The
Times+4ProdPerfect+4ProdPerfect
Their actions reflect James's steps for ethical conduct:
•
•
Identifying Harm: Recognizing the potential for catastrophic failure.
Internal Reporting: Communicating concerns through proper
channels.Brainscape+23ethicalmarkets.com+23Professional Ethics Discussions+23
However, lacking further avenues or protections, their efforts were insufficient to avert the
disaster. This underscores the need for robust ethical frameworks and protective policies within
organizations.
Unit 5
1. Similarities and Differences Between Therapeutic and Reproductive Cloning
Therapeutic cloning involves creating an embryo to harvest stem cells for medical treatments,
without the intention of implantation. Reproductive cloning aims to produce a living human by
implanting the cloned embryo into a womb. Both use somatic cell nuclear transfer, but differ in
purpose and ethical considerations.Encyclopedia Britannica
Therapeutic cloning is often deemed morally acceptable because it targets disease treatment and
does not result in a living clone. Bowring argues that since both processes involve creating and
manipulating embryos, accepting therapeutic cloning while rejecting reproductive cloning is
inconsistent. If the moral objection is the creation and destruction of embryos, both should be
equally scrutinized.
2. Ethical Issues in Sex Selection and Human Cloning
Bowring contends that both sex selection and human cloning involve selecting specific traits,
reflecting a desire to control human characteristics. This raises ethical concerns about
commodifying human life and undermining the acceptance of natural human diversity.
3. Critique of Bowring’s Argument on Autonomy in Reproductive Cloning
Bowring argues that reproductive cloning compromises the autonomy of the cloned individual,
as their genetic identity is predetermined. This deontological perspective emphasizes the moral
duty to respect individual autonomy. The cloned person may face psychological harm due to
expectations tied to their genetic origin, challenging their ability to forge an independent identity.
4. Diprose’s Ethical Concerns on Genetic Engineering and “Effacement of Difference”
Diprose argues that genetic engineering promotes uniformity, valuing sameness over diversity.
This "effacement of difference" undermines individuality and could lead to societal pressures to
conform to genetic norms, eroding the richness of human diversity.
5. Reflection on Diprose’s Claim About Genetic Research Impulses
Diprose suggests that genetic research is driven by an impulse to standardize and control human
traits. If this is accurate, it risks reducing individuals to genetic templates, necessitating
resistance to preserve human diversity. Alternatively, if the research aims to alleviate suffering,
ethical oversight is essential to prevent misuse and ensure respect for individuality.
6. Ethical Concerns of Nanotechnology in Extending Human Lifespan
Moor and Weckert express concerns that using nanotechnology to extend life indefinitely could
lead to overpopulation, resource depletion, and societal stagnation. Their argument is
teleological, focusing on the consequences of such technological advancements.
7. Bennett-Woods on Nanotechnology and Biological Enhancement
Bennett-Woods warns that even speculative uses of nanotechnology for human enhancement
raise ethical issues. These include potential social inequality, loss of human authenticity, and
unforeseen health risks, highlighting the need for proactive ethical considerations.
8. Evaluating Moor and Weckert’s Claim on Nanochips and Surveillance
Moor and Weckert assert that nanochips will inevitably be used for surveillance, reflecting a
deterministic view of technology use. However, this overlooks the potential for regulatory
frameworks, ethical guidelines, and public resistance to shape the application of such
technologies, suggesting that misuse is not a foregone conclusion. Quizlet
Unit 6
1. Intrinsic vs. Instrumental Value of Privacy
Fried distinguishes between intrinsic value (valued for its own sake) and instrumental value
(valued as a means to an end). For example, happiness is often considered intrinsically valuable,
while wealth is instrumentally valuable as it can lead to happiness. Fried suggests that privacy is
not merely instrumentally valuable but is essential for fundamental human relationships like
respect, love, friendship, and trust. Without privacy, these relationships cannot exist, making
privacy a prerequisite for these intrinsically valuable ends.
2. Fried’s Instrumentalist Conception of Privacy
Fried views privacy as instrumentally valuable because it enables morally desirable ends such as
trust, affection, and love. He argues that these relationships require a context of privacy to
flourish. Without privacy, individuals cannot form the deep personal connections that constitute
these relationships. Quizlet
3. Probationary vs. Public Electronic Monitoring
Fried argues that probationary monitoring can be morally justifiable as it allows for the release of
individuals who would otherwise remain incarcerated, which is a more intrusive and unprivate
condition. In contrast, electronic monitoring of the general public lacks individualized suspicion
and infringes upon the privacy of innocent individuals, making it morally problematic.
Studocu+1CliffsNotes+1
4. Problems with Public Electronic Monitoring
Fried identifies several issues with electronic monitoring of the general public:
•
•
•
Invasion of Privacy: Monitoring without individualized suspicion infringes upon
personal privacy.
Chilling Effect: Surveillance can deter individuals from exercising freedoms, such as
free speech and association.
Erosion of Trust: Pervasive monitoring can undermine trust in societal institutions and
interpersonal relationships.
5. Fried’s Thesis on Privacy and Personal Integrity
Fried posits that privacy is essential for fundamental human relationships like respect, love,
friendship, and trust. Without privacy, these relationships cannot exist, and thus, a threat to
privacy threatens our very integrity as persons.social-epistemology.com
Personal Reflection: I agree with Fried's thesis. Privacy provides the necessary space for
individuals to develop and maintain deep personal relationships. Without it, the authenticity and
depth of these connections are compromised.Slaw+1Cambridge University Press &
Assessment+1
6. Applying Fried’s Analysis to Facebook’s Data Sharing
Fried would likely argue that Facebook’s data-sharing practices threaten personal integrity by
violating the privacy necessary for trust and authentic relationships. A Facebook representative
might contend that data sharing enhances user experience and is conducted with user consent.
However, to mitigate concerns, Facebook could implement more transparent data policies and
give users greater control over their information.
7. Importance of Studying Machine Ethics
Anderson and Anderson highlight three reasons for studying machine ethics:
•
•
•
Autonomous Decision-Making: As machines make more decisions, ensuring they act
ethically is crucial.AAAI
Moral Agency: Understanding how machines can be moral agents helps in designing
ethical AI.
Human-Machine Interaction: Studying machine ethics improves interactions between
humans and machines.
8. Machine Ethics Makes Philosophy Honest
Anderson and Anderson argue that implementing ethical principles in machines forces
philosophers to clarify and formalize ethical theories, making philosophy more precise and
applicable.
9. Rejection of Ethical Relativism in Machine Ethics
They reject ethical relativism because it lacks universal principles necessary for programming
machines to make consistent ethical decisions. I agree, as machines require clear guidelines to
function ethically across diverse situations.
10. Act Utilitarianism and AI Advantages
Act Utilitarianism posits that the right action is the one that maximizes overall happiness.
Anderson and Anderson suggest AI has advantages in:
•
•
•
Data Processing: AI can analyze vast data to predict outcomes.
Impartiality: AI lacks human biases.
Consistency: AI applies ethical rules uniformly.
Example: An AI in healthcare can prioritize treatments to maximize patient well-being
efficiently.
11. Addressing Criticisms of Machine Ethics
•
•
•
Free Will: AI operates under programmed autonomy, sufficient for ethical decisionmaking.
Consciousness: Consciousness isn't necessary for ethical actions; behavior matters.
Emotions: While AI lacks emotions, it can be programmed to recognize and respond to
human emotions appropriately.
Evaluation: I agree that free will isn't essential for ethical behavior; consistent ethical
programming can suffice.
12. Best Ethical Theory Approach
They advocate for a bottom-up approach, where machines learn ethics through case studies and
experiences.
Challenges:
•
•
Complexity: Real-life scenarios are nuanced, making programming difficult.
Unpredictability: Machines may encounter situations not covered in their
training.journals.law.harvard.edu
13. Importance of Interdisciplinary Dialogue
Anderson and Anderson stress collaboration between ethicists and AI researchers to ensure
machines are designed with ethical considerations from the outset. This dialogue ensures that
ethical theories are practically implemented in AI systems, leading to more trustworthy and
socially acceptable technologies.
Unit 7
1. Three Leading Arguments for the Use of Military Robots
Proponents of military robots argue they (1) save soldiers’ lives by reducing the need for
humans in dangerous combat situations, (2) increase operational efficiency by performing tasks
faster and more accurately than humans, and (3) minimize collateral damage by using precision
targeting, potentially making warfare more ethical by reducing civilian casualties. These
arguments focus on practical and ethical benefits, such as risk reduction and technological
superiority in modern warfare.
2. Main Concern About Arming Military Robots
The main concern is that autonomous military robots could make life-and-death decisions
without meaningful human oversight, raising issues of accountability, ethics, and the possibility
of unintended escalation or harm. This concern was highlighted in the opening case study, where
the loss of human judgment in lethal decisions is seen as a serious ethical risk.
3. Singer’s Three Principles for Military Robots
Singer argues for (1) meaningful human control over robot decisions, (2) accountability for
robot actions by their human designers and operators, and (3) design constraints ensuring robots
adhere to international laws and ethical norms. I agree with these suggestions because they
ensure responsibility, ethical conduct, and legal compliance remain central in the use of
autonomous weapons.
4. Singer on Accountability and Anderson & Anderson’s Perspective
Singer argues that creators and operators must be accountable for autonomous robots because
machines cannot bear moral responsibility. While Anderson & Anderson view AI as “moral
agents” in some sense, they would likely agree that ultimate accountability must remain with
humans, as machines lack consciousness, free will, and moral intent.
5. Should We Develop Armed Autonomous Military Robots?
I believe we should not develop armed autonomous military robots. Delegating life-and-death
decisions to machines undermines moral agency and increases the risk of unintended harm.
Human judgment, accountability, and empathy are crucial in warfare, and removing these
elements risks dehumanizing conflict.
6. Oppenheimer’s Argument on Responsibility
Oppenheimer argued he was responsible for building the atomic bomb, not for its use as a
weapon. He saw himself as a scientist fulfilling his technical duty, leaving the ethical decision
about deployment to policymakers. I think Oppenheimer was morally responsible—he knew
the bomb’s destructive potential and had a duty to warn and advocate against its use.
7. Applying Brunk’s “Conscientious Professionalism” to Oppenheimer
Brunk’s principle of “Conscientious Professionalism” holds that scientists have an obligation to
warn about the dangers of their work. Applied to Oppenheimer, this suggests he had a moral
duty to oppose the bomb’s use, not merely build it. Oppenheimer might respond that he was
following orders in a wartime context, but Brunk would argue this does not absolve him of
responsibility to speak out.
8. The Moral Responsibility of Military Scientists
Both Singer and Kipperhardt’s play emphasize that scientists bear moral responsibility for how
their work is used. While they may not directly deploy weapons, they enable their use and must
consider the consequences. I believe scientists are morally culpable for harmful outcomes
because they have unique knowledge and foresight. Silence or detachment is not morally
neutral—scientists must engage ethically with the impact of their work.
Unit 8
1. Human Limitations and Novelty Bias in the Age of Supercomputers
The ex-Google executive’s comment underscores the vast disparity between the biological
capabilities of the human brain and the immense computational power of modern AI systems.
The metaphor of “a knife to a space laser fight” reflects this imbalance: humans, driven by
novelty bias, insecurity, and addiction, are ill-equipped to resist the manipulative designs of AI-
driven platforms. Research shows that humans are naturally drawn to novelty and uncertainty,
which fuels behaviors like excessive social media use or compulsive checking of notifications
(Anderson & Anderson, 2011). While humans possess reflective capacities, such as critical
thinking and self-awareness, these abilities are often overwhelmed by the persuasive design of
digital technologies that exploit emotional vulnerabilities. Emerging technologies, rather than
enhancing these capacities, often frustrate them by creating environments that prioritize
immediate gratification over long-term reflection. As a result, our ability to regulate our desires
and resist manipulation is diminished, raising ethical concerns about autonomy and control in a
digital world.
2. Thomas on Aristotelian “Companion Friendship” and Digital Barriers
Thomas defines “companion friendship” as a deep, meaningful bond characterized by mutual
affection, shared experiences, and the exchange of ideas in a context of trust and respect—an
ideal rooted in Aristotle’s ethics. Thomas argues that while digital technologies excel at
transmitting information, they often undermine the conditions necessary for authentic
conversation: attentiveness, empathy, and vulnerability. Texts and emojis, for instance, may
convey information but fail to foster the embodied presence and emotional nuance central to
deep companionship. This limitation erodes the possibility of cultivating Aristotelian friendships,
which depend on shared time and emotional investment. I agree with Thomas’s critique; while
digital tools allow us to stay in touch, they often facilitate superficial exchanges rather than the
profound, face-to-face interactions essential for cultivating companion friendships. Digital
platforms can connect us, but they cannot replace the depth of real human presence.
3. The Limits of Digital Communication for Expressing Meaning
Thomas’s passage emphasizes that while digital technologies efficiently transmit information,
they often fail to convey the richness of human emotion and context that gives communication
meaning. For example, when a parent says “I love you” to a child, the tone of voice, facial
expressions, and physical presence provide layers of emotional resonance that digital text or
video cannot fully capture. While a text message may communicate the same words, it lacks the
embodied immediacy and emotional depth of an in-person interaction. The child’s perception of
being loved is shaped not only by the content of the message but also by the parent’s physical
presence, eye contact, and tone—elements largely absent in digital communication. Therefore,
digital technologies, while useful for maintaining contact, often diminish the relational and
emotional significance of our words.
4. Turkle on Technology, Relationships, and Self-Reflection
Sherry Turkle argues that digital technologies, while connecting us, have paradoxically
undermined the quality of our social relationships and diminished our capacity for self-reflection.
Constant connectivity fosters a culture of distraction, where individuals prioritize instant
messaging and superficial interaction over meaningful, face-to-face engagement. This, according
to Turkle (2012), erodes the depth of conversation and the ability to introspect, as the constant
barrage of notifications and updates leaves little room for solitude or contemplation. To address
these challenges, Turkle advocates for intentional “device-free” spaces, such as unplugged
family meals, and encourages cultivating habits of self-awareness, like setting boundaries on
screen time. By fostering practices that promote focused attention and genuine connection,
individuals can resist the pull of digital distractions and reclaim the reflective spaces necessary
for emotional well-being and authentic relationships.