differentcoffeetree-blog1

[differentcoffeetree-blog1]

HW6case

Q3

"The Facts of the case." Case is from the movie I, robot about a futuristic period where robots serve humans, which is protected by the three laws of robotics. The story falls a detective investigated one of the robots for possible murder. “Analysis.” The case does explore the ethics of whether or not robots can violate the three laws and the ethics of those responsible to the creation of robots. “My conclusions.” I, Robot does explore the complex relationship between humans and robots. “Future environment.” I can see a future where robots are more involved and helping with more tasks. The technology will be in place to hopefully the three laws will increase and their will be ways to prevent altering the laws. “Future scenario.” This case does bring to light robot ethics and the what if situations. There are more questions than answers at this point when it comes to robots in society.  

[differentcoffeetree-blog1]

HW6case

Q2

The case is based of the movie, I, Robot about a futuristic world where Robots work in public service and abide by the three laws three laws. 1. If a robot cannot permit harm to a human then how can it if a human orders it to? In the movie the robot Sonny committed murder, but did so because he/it was asked to. 2. Can robots evolve to actually develop feelings? This movie did show the complex relationship between mankind and robots. 3. Could a robot evolve to not abide by the three laws if they choose to? Ethically robots could evolve to make their own choices. 4. How likely it is that robots could be compromised to ignore the three laws? There is the possibility that robots could be used for unethical purposes.

1 For deontological ethics someone could take advantage of robots an that is not good morally can lead to something good. In this case for I, Robot we discover that it was Viki controlling the robots for the greater good to protect the humans. 2 For utilitarian ethics where we determine right from wrong by the outcomes. 3 As far as virtue ethics a person with good character and of moral judgement could have good intentions where it comes to robot ethics.

[differentcoffeetree-blog1]

HW6case

Q1 I, Robot(movie) since it is a good movie.

1. Robots abide by only three laws. 2. Highly intelligent robots fill public service positions and assist in the household 3. A robot was able to committ murder. 4. The Three laws of robotics. 5. Robots are to keep humans safe. 6. Robots are designed to be human-like. 7. Robots must protect its own exist but as long as it doesn't conflict with the First and Second Laws. 8. A robot can kill if ordered to by a human as they must obey orders given by a human.

1. If a robot cannot permit harm to a human then how can it if a human orders it to? 2. Can robots evolve to actually develop feelings? 3. Could a robot evolve to not abide by the three laws if they choose to? 4. How likely it is that robots could be compromised to ignore the three laws?

5. Well if anyone watched I, Robot we learned that VIKI was controlling the robots. If we have future with more robots we will need some computer security with fail safes to make sure not one system is in control.

[differentcoffeetree-blog1]

HW6proj

Continuing to analyze the ethical case on Metallica vs Napster. Napster did pave the way for the music streaming we have now and a way to pay for music. Are we anymore ethical now than we were with Napster? Are we ethical now because we must pay for it to download and stream music? Napster lost the case of course, which it was always going to lose. Napster flamed out in two short years afterwards but paving the way for music streaming. Napster did build a business by encouraging users to share files of music they do not own. No one probably thought about if what they were doing was ethical or not. Must probably did not care. Or if they did care getting free music was the better outcome. The argument that most would have is that these rock stars are already wealthy. I downloaded lots of music from Napster during this time, and I cannot say I ever thought about it being unethical. It was not a rebellion against record companies and to get free music. No, it was the endless songs you could find. Any song you wanted it was probably on Napster, and it was just so easy. We learn in school about do not plagiarize to list sources to give credit, but we probably never thought about giving credit to the artists and paying for their music. Lars Ulrich with Metallica did say in an interview, “it should be our choice to give our stuff away and our choice was taking away.” Some say Metallica were hypocrites for filing the lawsuit, but did they stand up for artists? There was a mix of support from artists though. Some were on board, but others supported Napster. Most people that Metallica only stood up to Napster because of money. Metallica may have been on to something and knew that music streaming was what was coming and that records, tapes, cd’s, etc would be going away and music streaming would be the main source of getting music. Metallica wanted to stop people from stealing music from all artist.

[differentcoffeetree-blog1]

HW5case

Q3

"The facts of the case." Article discussing Russian Firehose of Falsehood. Russian campaign of progaganda supporting the Russian agenda in Ukraine and Syria and likely influencing the US presidential election. The new propaganda model is distinguished by four characteristics: high volume, rapidity and continuousness, falshood, and no commitment or consistency.

"Analysis." The consequentialist approach suggests in this case that the action is good or bad depending on its outcome. Those spreading this propaganda can possibly believe they are doing this for Russia and the action is good based on the outcome. The deontological approach seems to imply that rules distinguish between right and wrong.  

My conclusions" Russian high volume of propaganda that has no kernel of truth or consistency and spreading virally. There is no credibility but it works. Reasons why it works is that researchers say it is the quantity and not quality of the information and hearing from someone like you. Once we accept it, it is hard to change our mind.

"Future Environment." We will be able to block this kind of sleazy rhetorical devices and propaganda.

"Future scenario" People would have a more ethical understanding on what they read about and make their own ethical decisions.

[differentcoffeetree-blog1]

HW5case

Q2 Article written by RAND's Christopher Paul discussing the Russian Firehose of Falsehood. Firehose meaning high volume. Russia's propaganda model with the attempt to influence the recent US Presidential election.

1. What purpose would this serve the Russians? One may ask what purpose does this serve to Russians? One speculation is a way to influence people's choices for the Russian government to have more control over people and to elect whom they wish. 2. How can the US stop this? Although, not much of a solution to prevent this. The US can respond in kind by spreading misinformation as well and barring access to compromised channels. 3. Why do people believe it? Research shows that the quality of information and not the quality equates to believability. 4. Why is hard for us to change our mind once we accept it? Once we hear something and accept it, it is hard to change our mind.

1. Deontological ethics could apply here if individuals believe the acts are right regardless of their consequences. 2. Utilitarianism ethics can be apply here if individuals believe right from wrong by the outcomes. 3. Virtue ethics could apply here in some way if one has good moral character one would not believe what they hear without seeing actual facts.

[differentcoffeetree-blog1]

HW5case

Q1 https://www.rand.org/blog/2016/12/beyond-the-headlines-rands-christopher-paul-discusses.html

1. Article about Russian influence in the 2016 US presidential election 2. Firehouse of Falsehood - Russian propaganda 3. Four characteristics to describe the Soviet-era propaganda methods 4. Seeking to undermine US democracy 5. It is rapid, continuous, and repetitive, and it lacks commitment to consistency. 6. Pollute discussions on social media and other internet forums 7. The quantity makes is believable 8. Russian Propaganda Is High-Volume and Multichannel

1. What purpose would this serve the Russians? 2. How can the US stop this? 3. Why do people believe it? 4. Why is hard for us to change our mind once we accept it?

5. Computer security relates as this could prevent any kind of hacking.

[differentcoffeetree-blog1]

"Last Lecture" Discussion Questions.

Justin Rogers

1. Although, he does mention the talk is for his kids, This can be intended for all people not just his kids, but for everyone. I like the brickwall reference - they are there to show how dedicated we are.

2. - Never give up - Critics are the ones telling you they still love you and care

[differentcoffeetree-blog1]

Notes on "The Last Lecture" of 10-28-2020

I was shocked to see the first slide was his cat scans and mentions he has ten tumors in his liver. Couldn't believe how in good spirits he was knowing the doctors told hiim he had three to six months of good health left. I liked seeing his child dreams and going over them. I like his reference to the brickwall. Intersting person and seemed like a great professor.

[differentcoffeetree-blog1]

HW 5proj

At a time in the world when there was no music streaming, and we were using records, tapes, and cd’s we were all passing those around to friends and family. You could easily burn a cd or copy a tape. There was no way to track who was doing that. Did we feel differently taking music then versus when Napster came along. The artists and record companies had to know what people were doing. We should know that this still violates copyright law, but was it viewed differently. We can look back at the ethical theories. The easiest of course is virtue ethics where to be ethical is to develop good character, but then that does bring up the question what good character is? Not the best theory in this situation is so not. If I had to say which theory best relates to this situation would be Utilitarian ethics because it focuses on right from wrong based on outcomes. If people were sharing tapes, and cd’s from friends so they in turn could copy or burn to them it was right because the outcome was getting free music. Why would artists and record companies care so much once Napster came along? One possibility is with technology it is easier to keep track of this where before there was no way to do that once a tape, cd, or record was purchased. As I am older and wiser now, I believe that artists should be compensated for their music. Can music really be streamed ethically with the technology? There are also those that think unethical and believe you should not have to pay for streaming music and are looking for ways now to get around that. Not just to not pay for something, but more as in protesting the record companies. With all the streaming options available now is it anymore ethical to use a streaming music service such as spotify? You do pay for a song but the myth that artists earn $0.0001 cents per play would ask the question what is the point and why not continue to illegally download music?

[differentcoffeetree-blog1]

HW4case

Q3

"The facts of the case." Facts of the case are that this is the code of ethics for the Arkansas Department of Transformation and Shared Services.

"Analysis." Although, I did not list every code of ethics the ones I did mention seemed to be the most significant. As a State agency there is more scrutiny because of being in the public eye. Employees have a moral obligation to follow the code of ethics.

"My Conclusions." As an employee of the Arkansas Department of Transformation and Shared Services I feel that these code of ethics align with moral code of right or wrong.

"Future Environment." Technology does already play a part, but in this environment I would say that there are ways of keeping track of employees. With the State we are also subject to FOIA.

"Future Scenario" I can see in the future there to be a requirement for all employees to take an ethics training or course.

[differentcoffeetree-blog1]

HW4Case

Q2 This case is an actual code of ethics for the Arkansas Department of Transformationa and Shared Services.

1. TSS serves the State of Arkansas and the code of ethics supports the culture of ethical and efficient service to the citizens of the State.

2.  It is the responsibility of all employees to be honest, ethical, and follow the policy.

3. All employees should report all suspected violations of federal and state law.

4. No employee shall use their position for any personal gain.

5. Employees can have outside employment as long as it is not a conflict of interest.

6. Employees can not be employeed by the private sector while an employee of TSS.

7. No providing services for pay outside of TSS.

8. No accepting of any gifts, kickbacks or personal favors.

1. Applying deontological ethics on this code of ethics, which is rule based could suggest that an indvidul could break the code of ethics if one decides their actions are good or bad according to these rules.

2. Utilitarian ethics theory determines right from wrong by the outcomes.

3. Virtue ethics theory suggests that someone with good moral character would be able to follow the code of ethics.

[differentcoffeetree-blog1]

HW4case

Q1

The source of my case is https://www.transform.ar.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/TSS-Code-of-Ethics.pdf

1. The TSS code of ethics supports the culture of ethical and efficient service to the citizens of the State. 2. TSS employees have a responsibility to comply with the policy and procedures that aid in the prevention of fraud and support TSS’s culture of honesty and ethical behavior. 3. TSS employees have a responsibility to report all suspected violations of federal or state law involving TSS employees or anyone contracted to provide services to TSS. 4. TSS employees must not use their position or knowledge gained from their position for personal gain. Arkansas Code Annotated § 21-8-304 lists activities that are ethically prohibited for state employees and officials. 5. An employee may have outside employment provided it does not constitute a conflict of interest or interfere with the performance of duties for the state and the employee has notified their supervisor prior to engaging in any outside employment. 6. TSS employees must not engage in private employment during the work time he or she is being paid by the state. 7. All TSS employees, regardless of position, are prohibited from providing any services for pay that are related to the business of TSS. 8. Employees shall not accept entertainment, gifts, personal favors, or preferential treatment that could influence, or appear to influence, their decisions in performing job functions.

1. Why is it important for an agency like TSS to have a code of ethics? 2. Do any of the codes seem unfair? 3. Would this code of ethics be a deal breaker? 4. Would you feel obligated to report any suspected violations?

5. Where does computer security play into this code of ethics?    

[differentcoffeetree-blog1]

Ethical Code for class session of 10-19-2020

Coworkers code of ethics

Coworkers will treat each other fairly and respectful. Coworkers will not eat other coworker's food. Coworkers will respect each other's personal space and area. There will be no jealousy between coworkers. Be honest. Be dependable and consistent. Provide feedback and positive criticism. Follow company code of ethics.

[differentcoffeetree-blog1]

HW4proj

As we continue to discuss the case of Metallica vs Napster as it relates to ethics. The topic on Napster at that time raised many legal and ethical issues over the use of easily reproduced and copyrighted material. However, not all artists were upset with Napster. Metallica and record companies were since they saw Napster stealing their work and with it the money that would normally go with it and to them. We can’t forget this is their career and is how they earn a living. Those of us guilty of being on Napster and downloading free music did we feel the actions were morally right because we felt they were rich and wealthy living in mansions, and this wasn’t going to matter as they’ve already made their money? Maybe so but doesn’t change the fact that this music was not ours. Credit must be given where due. Are we still breaking our code of ethics though when many artists were not against Napster and came out in support of Napster? Their reasoning was they were for anything that brings their music to their fans regardless of the legal considerations. What is very interesting is that Napster is just a fancy way of trading tapes such as cassette tapes. Which trading was allowed by law. Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act, providing that people could copy and trade music so long as it was for "private," "personal," and "noncommercial" use. Metallica endorsed tape trading. Does this make Metallica hypocrites? It doesn’t make them wrong. Napster undermined intellectual property. Was Napster moral?

Napster very likely did not have a code of ethics to follow. Code of ethics are all around us and even though Napster may not of had one it doesn’t mean that we as people don’t have one. Did we break our own code of ethics by participating in downloading music? A code of ethics is influenced by the three ethical theories. Virtues ethics being of good moral character. Utilitarianism ethics it’s ethical if beneficial as getting free music. Deontology ethics ethical if actions are good or bad based off rules. Looking at the three theories of ethics it seems easy to have a code of ethics to live by. However, a code of ethics is not law and is easy to break a code of ethics.

  Source

https://www.beliefnet.com/entertainment/2000/10/the-ethics-of-napster.aspx

[differentcoffeetree-blog1]

Notes on Lecture of 10/14/2020

Discuss analyzing codes of ethics. Talk about a code of ethics. Although, I am aware that code of ethics is all around us it is nice to be reminded. There is even an ethical code for trails at Pinnacle Mountain. Learned two major theories of law as it relates to ethics. Code of Ethics items is based on utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics. Pretty much anything has a code of ethics.

[differentcoffeetree-blog1]

HW3case

Q3

Facts of the case - A research assistant was investigated for research misconduct. Respondent engaged in research misconduct and/or falsifying data. Respondent did not admit nor deny the findings by ORI. Respondent entered into an agreement and agreed to having research supervised for two years and faculty members will provide oversight and guidance.

Analysis - The consequentialist approach suggests that in this case that the respondent chose their actions being right or not by the consequences. The deontological approach seems to imply that the morality of the respondent's action is based on whether the action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules. The respondent clearly knew the rules of research conduct. A human analysis indicates that a person of good moral character is ethical, but we do not know the character of this person. They may be of good moral character.

Conclusions - The respondent was investigated for research misconduct. They falsified data, and resued and relabeled. It seems there were no accountability in this lab and no supervision to review this person's research.

Future Environment - Technology in the future could play a role in preventing or catching research misconduct by there being a more vetted process in submitting research. Research that it submitted online and is checked and verified by peers.

Future Scenario - In the future no research assistant work solely on their own and is also a two-person effort so each can verify work. Work is submitted to also be reviewed by higher people in the field. Similar to fact finding for journalist.