Technology and Ethics

Anthony E. Gascoigne
Conference Coordinator
IEEE Asia Pacific Region

Extract from "An Automation Policy for Australia" by the Australian Robot Association Inc.

Automation and Human Need

Automation has the potential for radically improving the quality of life, as can be demonstrated from both an historical perspective and numerous present-day examples. The progressive elimination of many of the boring, repetitive, unsafe and demeaning work practices on the farm and in the factory fall into the first category; modern developments in surgery, road building, health care and fruit-harvesting in the second.

It is frequently contended that automation causes unemployment, but this is a very myopic view. It is also an age-old argument which by now should have lost all credibility. Long before the space age, every advance in technology was likely to attract objections of this sort; no doubt the man who invented the wheel was accused of destroying jobs!

While we do not wish to denigrate persons who sincerely hold such beliefs, we suspect that they (more often than not) have simply found a convenient scapegoat. In the words of Professor Helen Hughes, "It is not surprising that Ned Ludd and the original Luddites did not understand the beneficial effects of mechanisation. But some 200 years later there is little excuse for using essentially the same arguments to claim that advances in technology are the principal causes of unemployment".

With respect to an economy as a whole, precisely the reverse relationship is seen to hold: nations which make the greatest use of automation technologies tend to have low levels of unemployment. For example, Japan with some 350,000 industrial robots has an unemployment rate of less that 3%. Whatever interpretation is placed on these figures, they can hardly be dismissed as statistical abnormalities. Nor can they give any comfort to those who see a direct and inevitable nexus between automation and unemployment.

Of course, major changes in industry, including technological changes, have at times been associated with significant dislocations of parts of the work force. But this is related as much to the methods used for implementing change as to its technological basis. That such changes have had an adverse social impact does not eliminate the need for change per se. For example, very few people acquainted with, say, a 1930's-style production line, or a garment manufacturing "sweat shop", would be attracted to such a way of earning a living. Any informed observer would conclude that "there must be a better way" - on both humane and technological grounds. (Yet manufacturing operations in both of these categories still exist today.) Apprehensions about the undesirable consequences of automation do nothing to address the known human needs in such situations.

In our view, it is much more reasonable to identify particular opportunities proved by technology, and to plan pro-actively to overcome all attendant disadvantages. Far from neglecting social issues, such an approach provides the dynamic for orderly (and equitable) change in all levels of society.

Ethical Considerations

Despite our confident statements in the preceding section, we recognize that there will be some people with genuine ethical concerns - either relating to technology in general or to Automation technologies in particular. It is not practicable to deal here with ethical and philosophical issues in any comprehensive fashion. Accordingly, the following outline is restricted to only a few pertinent issues. For our present purposes, it is useful to distinguish between the two connotations: Ethics as a set of moral principles, on the one hand; and Professional Ethics, being the expected codes or norms of behavior of a particular profession or group, on the other.

Some ethical principles

There is no unanimity as to what ethical principles ought to apply in the present context. However, we expect that the following five propositions will have broad acceptance. Firstly, we might expect that technology will convey more advantages than disadvantages. Certainly, outright harm is to be avoided. "No robot shall harm a human being, or, through inaction allow a human to come to harm", states Asimov's First Law of Robotics. Secondly, the particular manner in which the advantages are manifested is important; that is, we should have a social conscience. As far as practicable, the benefits should be widely spread throughout the community. At the very least, we should avoid situations where the benefits available to one group or segment of society are at the expense of another group, and outright exploitation is to be deprecated.

Thirdly, we should expect that technology will involve a wise use of resources. This must necessarily include economic resources, since a wastage or reckless use of money cannot benefit anyone. But it must also extend to natural resources. We should not extract or consume resources simply because they are there, or because it is technologically possible to do so; nor should we willfully despoil our environment. In all these respects we must have proper regard for the future consequences of our actions.

Fourthly, we will doubtless require that technology will not detract to any significant extent from individual freedom. Before adopting a new technology we must be amply satisfied on this point. A mindless commitment to a machine culture is an affront to humanity and an unnecessary evil: we have no right to turn humans into automatons.

Fifthly, we might expect that technology will not detract markedly from the quality of life enjoyed by a particular community or group of citizens. This necessarily extends to the difficult (but valid) concepts of Aesthetics, along with other more quantifiable measures of community impact (air and water pollution; noise levels; traffic density; etc.).

Unfortunately, the real-life application of general principia along the foregoing lines is never easy and can be very nebulous. A single example will server to emphasize this point. The potential for harm of a given technological application is often extremely difficult to establish. Rather than a simple good/bad classification, we are typically confronted with various levels of risk, and it remains to determine whether the risk(s) are acceptable or not. Sometimes a considerable time must elapse before the ultimate consequences of use are known. Also, the consequences of rejection must be considered; for existing technologies and practices always carry some risk, as well as proposed innovations.

Even if the objective risks are well known (by no means a common situation) we are left ultimately with the subjective perceptions of risk by the parties involved. For it is a truism that if a person perceives that a risk is "too high", then for that person it is an unacceptable risk.

Professional ethics

Professional groups commonly have a code of ethics to which members are required to subscribe as a condition of membership. As an example, members of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc bind themselves:

... to accept responsibility in making engineering decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;

Other sections of these codes deal with matters such as a specialist knowledge and area of competence, personal probity, and refraining from malicious criticism of other engineers. (We make particular reference here to professional engineers because this group usually has a key role in respect of new technological applications). We do not wish to appear unduly critical of these excellent Codes; in fact, the conservative view (which we fully support) is that the engineering profession would be greatly diminished in stature in the absence of noble statements of this type. However, there are a number of difficulties which are pertinent in the present context, and which have been very much in evidence during recent controversies. We briefly draw attention to two such issues.

Firstly, there is the obvious problem of determining the public good. Which of the general criteria outlined above is to prevail? Alternatively, in what order of precedence are they to be ranked? And who is ultimately to decide? The matter of Public Safety is of special concern since it depends so much on the perceptions of those involved, as emphasized earlier. The perceptions of the general public are in turn affected by the stated views of politicians, industrialists, public officials, technical experts, lobby groups, media commentators, and all other parties in the public arena at the particular time.

Some lobby groups (and the experts they engage) seem to delight in making alarmist statements which elicit a "fear" response in the public mind. This may not always be intentional, but it is an inevitable consequence of unqualified statements and immoderate language in referring to complex technical issues. In terms of formal Codes of Ethics, it is difficult to see how the public good is ever well-served by widespread public fear: for this is the worst possible climate for rational decision-making.

Secondly, we refer to the problems of Expertise per se. It is well known that experts are sometimes wrong. A person may be eminently qualified and widely experienced (and so comply with all the customary requirements of professional Ethics) and still hold erroneous views. Also, an expert is probably no more immune to partisan influences or other forms of bias than is an unqualified individual.

Similarly, a professional is enjoined by Ethics not to unfairly denigrate a fellow-professional, but in practice this may be very difficult to avoid. If a debate on a complex technical issue has reached the public arena, then a certain amount of name-calling between adversaries is almost inevitable. Certainly, it is not a time when objective arguments and an informal exchange of technical opinions can readily take place. The spectacle is particularly demeaning if subsequent events show that the experts on both side of the argument were substantially in error!

Such difficulties have caused a certain degree of reaction against Expertise of all forms. To some, the very notion of "an expert" connotes undeserved status and privilege. We (in Australia) occasionally hear calls for key technological decisions to be made by lay people so that the decision-making process will thereby become "more democratic". (We emphasize that we consider all such proposals to be impractical and absurd: the thought of a Citizens' Panel deciding, e.g. whether to run the computer at 100 or 150 megahertz is mind-numbing!). Nevertheless, the general point is taken: ways need to be found for Experts to contribute more effectively to public debates on technology.

In summary, we recognize that the use of Automation technologies raises matters of possible contention on ethical grounds. These relate both to the general issues of Technology-in-Society, and to the behavior of professional engineers and other practitioners in particular contexts. Although broad ethical principles can be elucidated, the application of such Principles to Practice can be extremely difficult. Since there are no prescriptive ways of determining degrees of goodness or of rightness, ethical assessments are of necessity value-based and subjective.

We welcome all constructive debate on ethical and moral issues. Nevertheless, we might reasonably expect that the protagonists will:

• be well-informed on all the relevant technical aspects (both theoretical and practical);
• be generally aware of the many vagaries and subtleties of the socio-technological issues, as briefly outlined above;
• unequivocally reject "blind fear" arguments, in all their manifestations.

Interested in what information you can get from the IEEE over the Internet? Then email a message to the following address: email.guide@ieee.org