cyberstudent 1 | - Student
Dec 29, 2018 | #1
The Internet is a fundamental element of our lives today. Using the Internet, we can engage in multiple day-to-day activities, such as paying bills, shopping, communicating with friends, or even attending classes! This ubiquity has opened up new horizons in availability of information and has increased access to a number of resources. People today have broader access to information than ever before. However, it has also provoked new ethical dilemmas that must be addressed. It sometimes becomes too simple to use the Internet for unethical means, even in situations where in what we term "real life" we would not make such a decision. Some of the situations in which this might happen include social networking communications issues such as flaming and cyber bullying, hacking, and plagiarism. Each of these three represents a different type of ethical violation - against the person, against property, and against intellectual honesty. All of these activities could of course be engaged in without using the Internet, but the high information availability and low social context of the Internet allows for these issues to become increasingly common. This seems like bad news, but actually, the answer is relatively simple. In order to avoid engaging in unethical actions in networked contexts, it is simply possible to ask yourself - would I do this in "real life"?
One of the clearest, and the most damaging, violations of ethics that may occur in a networked context is that of cyber bullying. Cyber bullying can be defined as follows. "Online bullying, called cyber bullying, happens when teens use the Internet, cell phones, or other devices to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person (National Crime Prevention Council)." According to the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC), at least half of American teenagers have experienced cyber bullying. This can take a number of forms, like leaving bullying messages or sharing private or personal information in an attempt to harass or humiliate the victim (National Crime Prevention Council). There have been a number of cases of cyber bullying that have recently been the focus of news reports. One such case is that of Phoebe Prince. Prince, a 15-year old who moved to Hadley, Massachusetts from Ireland, was subjected to bullying both in person and online (Walsh). Specifically, Prince was subjected to bullying on Facebook, through vicious personal attacks levied by other students regarding boys she had previously dated (Walsh).
On January 14, 2010, Prince committed suicide, specifically citing the bullying she had endured online as a reason for her action (Walsh). In this case, the ethical implications are clear, as the actions definitely caused harm to another, but it would not require such an extreme reaction to others. According to Kantian ethics, one ethical duty is to "not behave with contempt toward others, to defame, mock, or ridicule them (Wood 148)." Thus, bullying in general falls short of the ethical duties required of individuals. By deliberately causing harm to another, an ethical duty is avoided. Thus, this cannot be an appropriate course of action. Of course, bullying is not a problem unique to a networked environment. Instead, it happens in everyday life as well. In both cases it is possible for those that are tempted to bully another to again apply Kant's ethics to the problem of avoidance. Specifically, one may ask what would happen if the actions we were about to take were a universal law; Kant states that most likely "we will find that we do not really will that our maxim should be a universal law (Kant, quoted in Wood 139)." That is, simply thinking about how the world would be if everyone engaged in bullying - cyber or otherwise - can yield an answer as to whether we should continue.
A related, but less clear-cut, example of social networking ethics is the issue of flaming. Flaming is a behavior that is seen almost exclusively in the online context. Flaming can be defined as "the use of profanity to inflict harm (Johnson, Cooper and Chin 660)" in an online discussion or negotiation. Flaming is different from bullying in a number of ways. First, rather than being a concentrated campaign like bullying, flaming is almost always spontaneous activity born from anger and frustration (Johnson, Cooper and Chin 660). Although of course anger and frustration are not limited to online communications, the networked communication environment increases the likelihood that these feelings will be expressed (Johnson, Cooper and Chin, The effect of flaming on computer-mediated negotiations 434). Flaming can have serious consequences not only for the individual it is directed at, but also for the groups in which it occurs. For example, flaming is one of the mechanisms by which online negotiation and democratic participation is undermined (Wright and Street 852). Instead, the existing views of a given audience are likely to be reinforced through this mechanism. This results in a lack of true deliberation, as the majorities of replies to a given message are either flames or are agreement with the existing post (possibly as a means of avoiding conflict) (Wright and Street 852). This ethical nature of this type of action can be considered using a utilitarian approach. Mill (37) defined utilitarianism using the greatest happiness principle, by which the ethical value of an action is judged "not [by] the agents' own greatest happiness, but by the greatest amount of happiness altogether." Thus, the act of flaming can be considered under the guise of who gains happiness from it, and at what price. The flamer may gain some momentary pleasure from the flame, admittedly, and may experience relief from the anger or frustration that has plagued him. However, the rest of the discussion - not simply the target of the flame, but onlookers and other participants - will suffer because they have been treated with scorn and without a significant basis for disagreement. At its extreme, flaming could represent a stifling of democratic process formation in online groups. Given the nature of the online group, it is highly likely that this would not be an optimal outcome according to the principle of greatest happiness. Thus, the act of flaming, although born from emotions that are at times very understandable, cannot be considered to be an ethical action. Thus, this action should also be avoided wherever possible.
Unlike the other ethical dilemmas discussed here, hacking is a purely network-based action. However, it continues to have analogues in the real world. Hacking is discussed here in the negative sense, including activities such as "intrusion, violation, theft and sabotage (Yar 23)," rather than in the more positive sense sometimes used for exploration or manipulation of computer systems. It includes, according to Yar, activities like creation and distribution of viruses and worms, gaining illicit access to computer systems, and theft of data and funds from secure computer systems. The ethicality of hacking can best be discussed on the basis of private property crimes issues, due to this focus on theft and trespassing. (Waldron). Private property is an ethical freedom that, in the philosophies of Hegel and Green, was seen as "as ultimately positive freedom-freedom to choose rationally and responsibly for the wider social good (Waldron)." That is, the ownership of private property was required in order to promote the ethical development of the individual (Waldron). Under Kantian terms, this would represent a categorical imperative, as the ethical development of the individual is always an ultimate goal for development. Thus, the rejection of the ends of individual moral development (or the means of private property) would be considered unethical under Kantian philosophical norms (Wood 148). This is also consistent with moral norms and the legal system - according to not only philosophical standards of ethicality, hacking is an unethical action. Given that it requires a degree of expertise to engage in, this is not a problem that is commonly faced in the networked environment, except as a victim of a phishing attack or other hacking attack. Nonetheless, it presents an ethical dilemma that is not at all unique to the networked environment of the Internet, but one in which many people have everyday experience.
Finally, there is the issue of plagiarism. Plagiarism is by no means an online-only ethical violation, and it has been common in writing by both students and professionals in the past. One notable case involved Stephen Ambrose, a noted historian and scholar who was found to have plagiarized passages of his work in 2002 (Marsh 9). This case demonstrates that plagiarism is not solely an online problem, nor is it solely a student problem. The frequency of plagiarism is also in question; studies have found that while 36% of students have admitted to plagiarism, this was matched by a 75% estimation of the frequency of cheating by friends and classmates (Marsh 124). Regardless of the frequency with which it occurs or is perceived to occur, plagiarism can certainly be seen to be an unethical action. In this case, the issue is once again a property issue; this time, however, it relates to the issue of intellectual property. That is, the use of plagiarism results in the theft of the ideas and words of others. This can be seen to be unethical under both utilitarian and virtue-based approaches. Under a Kantian or virtue-based approach, it would be difficult to defend the theft of ideas from another, since as a universal maxim this would result in a situation with no accountability for a given idea or piece of information. Under the utilitarian approach, this would result in the enrichment of one individual at the expense of many others. These same arguments of course apply to plagiarism that is not facilitated by the network, but the ability to copy and paste text makes this both easier and more tempting to engage in.
Conclusion
This paper has discussed four areas of networked life in which ethical conundrums may routinely arise. Cyber bullying, or persistent harassment of online users, can be exceptionally damaging and can be regarded as an infraction of the categorical imperative. Flaming, or negative verbal interaction driven by anger, is likely to be less damaging, but nonetheless violates the norms of civility and online citizenship. Hacking is a purely online property crime. Finally, plagiarism is a long-standing ethical violation that is facilitated by the relative ease of access of information on the Internet as compared to traditional information channels. None of these behaviors (except for hacking) is performed in a strictly online context, and all such behaviors have equivalents in the real world. For example, cyber bullying can be compared to in-person bullying, flaming to outbursts of anger, hacking to property crimes like stealing, and plagiarism is of course plagiarism regardless of where the information originates.
Given this similarity to real-world crimes, it is possible to come to ethical conclusions regarding each of them using the same standards used in "real world" contexts. From a Kantian perspective, the question can be asked: what if everyone did this? From a utilitarian perspective, of course, the question becomes: what will result from these actions, and who will enjoy the most good from it? In both cases this can be seen to be a negative outcome, and thus these actions should be considered unethical regardless of the context in which they occur. Thus, network ethics are not significantly different from the ethics we use every day in the "real world".
Works Cited
Johnson, Norman A., Randolph B. Cooper and Wynne W. Chin. "Anger and flaming in computer-mediated negotiation among strangers." Decision Support Systems 46 (2009): 670-672.
"The effect of flaming on computer-mediated negotiations." European Journal of Information Systems 17 (2008): 417-434.
Marsh, Bill. Plagiarism: Alchemy and Remedy in Higher Education. New York: SUNY Press.
Mill, John Stewart. "From "Utilitarianism"." Consequentialism. Ed. Stephen L. Darwall. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2003. 32-63.
National Crime Prevention Council. Cyberbullying.
Waldron, Jeremy. "Property and Ownership." 6 September 2004. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Wood, Alllen W. Kant. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005.
Wright, Scott and John Street. "Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums." New Media and Society 9.5 (2007): 849-869.
Yar, Majid. Cybercrime and Society. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2006.
Cyber Bullying
One of the clearest, and the most damaging, violations of ethics that may occur in a networked context is that of cyber bullying. Cyber bullying can be defined as follows. "Online bullying, called cyber bullying, happens when teens use the Internet, cell phones, or other devices to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person (National Crime Prevention Council)." According to the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC), at least half of American teenagers have experienced cyber bullying. This can take a number of forms, like leaving bullying messages or sharing private or personal information in an attempt to harass or humiliate the victim (National Crime Prevention Council). There have been a number of cases of cyber bullying that have recently been the focus of news reports. One such case is that of Phoebe Prince. Prince, a 15-year old who moved to Hadley, Massachusetts from Ireland, was subjected to bullying both in person and online (Walsh). Specifically, Prince was subjected to bullying on Facebook, through vicious personal attacks levied by other students regarding boys she had previously dated (Walsh).On January 14, 2010, Prince committed suicide, specifically citing the bullying she had endured online as a reason for her action (Walsh). In this case, the ethical implications are clear, as the actions definitely caused harm to another, but it would not require such an extreme reaction to others. According to Kantian ethics, one ethical duty is to "not behave with contempt toward others, to defame, mock, or ridicule them (Wood 148)." Thus, bullying in general falls short of the ethical duties required of individuals. By deliberately causing harm to another, an ethical duty is avoided. Thus, this cannot be an appropriate course of action. Of course, bullying is not a problem unique to a networked environment. Instead, it happens in everyday life as well. In both cases it is possible for those that are tempted to bully another to again apply Kant's ethics to the problem of avoidance. Specifically, one may ask what would happen if the actions we were about to take were a universal law; Kant states that most likely "we will find that we do not really will that our maxim should be a universal law (Kant, quoted in Wood 139)." That is, simply thinking about how the world would be if everyone engaged in bullying - cyber or otherwise - can yield an answer as to whether we should continue.
Flaming
A related, but less clear-cut, example of social networking ethics is the issue of flaming. Flaming is a behavior that is seen almost exclusively in the online context. Flaming can be defined as "the use of profanity to inflict harm (Johnson, Cooper and Chin 660)" in an online discussion or negotiation. Flaming is different from bullying in a number of ways. First, rather than being a concentrated campaign like bullying, flaming is almost always spontaneous activity born from anger and frustration (Johnson, Cooper and Chin 660). Although of course anger and frustration are not limited to online communications, the networked communication environment increases the likelihood that these feelings will be expressed (Johnson, Cooper and Chin, The effect of flaming on computer-mediated negotiations 434). Flaming can have serious consequences not only for the individual it is directed at, but also for the groups in which it occurs. For example, flaming is one of the mechanisms by which online negotiation and democratic participation is undermined (Wright and Street 852). Instead, the existing views of a given audience are likely to be reinforced through this mechanism. This results in a lack of true deliberation, as the majorities of replies to a given message are either flames or are agreement with the existing post (possibly as a means of avoiding conflict) (Wright and Street 852). This ethical nature of this type of action can be considered using a utilitarian approach. Mill (37) defined utilitarianism using the greatest happiness principle, by which the ethical value of an action is judged "not [by] the agents' own greatest happiness, but by the greatest amount of happiness altogether." Thus, the act of flaming can be considered under the guise of who gains happiness from it, and at what price. The flamer may gain some momentary pleasure from the flame, admittedly, and may experience relief from the anger or frustration that has plagued him. However, the rest of the discussion - not simply the target of the flame, but onlookers and other participants - will suffer because they have been treated with scorn and without a significant basis for disagreement. At its extreme, flaming could represent a stifling of democratic process formation in online groups. Given the nature of the online group, it is highly likely that this would not be an optimal outcome according to the principle of greatest happiness. Thus, the act of flaming, although born from emotions that are at times very understandable, cannot be considered to be an ethical action. Thus, this action should also be avoided wherever possible.
Hacking
Unlike the other ethical dilemmas discussed here, hacking is a purely network-based action. However, it continues to have analogues in the real world. Hacking is discussed here in the negative sense, including activities such as "intrusion, violation, theft and sabotage (Yar 23)," rather than in the more positive sense sometimes used for exploration or manipulation of computer systems. It includes, according to Yar, activities like creation and distribution of viruses and worms, gaining illicit access to computer systems, and theft of data and funds from secure computer systems. The ethicality of hacking can best be discussed on the basis of private property crimes issues, due to this focus on theft and trespassing. (Waldron). Private property is an ethical freedom that, in the philosophies of Hegel and Green, was seen as "as ultimately positive freedom-freedom to choose rationally and responsibly for the wider social good (Waldron)." That is, the ownership of private property was required in order to promote the ethical development of the individual (Waldron). Under Kantian terms, this would represent a categorical imperative, as the ethical development of the individual is always an ultimate goal for development. Thus, the rejection of the ends of individual moral development (or the means of private property) would be considered unethical under Kantian philosophical norms (Wood 148). This is also consistent with moral norms and the legal system - according to not only philosophical standards of ethicality, hacking is an unethical action. Given that it requires a degree of expertise to engage in, this is not a problem that is commonly faced in the networked environment, except as a victim of a phishing attack or other hacking attack. Nonetheless, it presents an ethical dilemma that is not at all unique to the networked environment of the Internet, but one in which many people have everyday experience.
Plagiarism
Finally, there is the issue of plagiarism. Plagiarism is by no means an online-only ethical violation, and it has been common in writing by both students and professionals in the past. One notable case involved Stephen Ambrose, a noted historian and scholar who was found to have plagiarized passages of his work in 2002 (Marsh 9). This case demonstrates that plagiarism is not solely an online problem, nor is it solely a student problem. The frequency of plagiarism is also in question; studies have found that while 36% of students have admitted to plagiarism, this was matched by a 75% estimation of the frequency of cheating by friends and classmates (Marsh 124). Regardless of the frequency with which it occurs or is perceived to occur, plagiarism can certainly be seen to be an unethical action. In this case, the issue is once again a property issue; this time, however, it relates to the issue of intellectual property. That is, the use of plagiarism results in the theft of the ideas and words of others. This can be seen to be unethical under both utilitarian and virtue-based approaches. Under a Kantian or virtue-based approach, it would be difficult to defend the theft of ideas from another, since as a universal maxim this would result in a situation with no accountability for a given idea or piece of information. Under the utilitarian approach, this would result in the enrichment of one individual at the expense of many others. These same arguments of course apply to plagiarism that is not facilitated by the network, but the ability to copy and paste text makes this both easier and more tempting to engage in.
Conclusion
This paper has discussed four areas of networked life in which ethical conundrums may routinely arise. Cyber bullying, or persistent harassment of online users, can be exceptionally damaging and can be regarded as an infraction of the categorical imperative. Flaming, or negative verbal interaction driven by anger, is likely to be less damaging, but nonetheless violates the norms of civility and online citizenship. Hacking is a purely online property crime. Finally, plagiarism is a long-standing ethical violation that is facilitated by the relative ease of access of information on the Internet as compared to traditional information channels. None of these behaviors (except for hacking) is performed in a strictly online context, and all such behaviors have equivalents in the real world. For example, cyber bullying can be compared to in-person bullying, flaming to outbursts of anger, hacking to property crimes like stealing, and plagiarism is of course plagiarism regardless of where the information originates.
Given this similarity to real-world crimes, it is possible to come to ethical conclusions regarding each of them using the same standards used in "real world" contexts. From a Kantian perspective, the question can be asked: what if everyone did this? From a utilitarian perspective, of course, the question becomes: what will result from these actions, and who will enjoy the most good from it? In both cases this can be seen to be a negative outcome, and thus these actions should be considered unethical regardless of the context in which they occur. Thus, network ethics are not significantly different from the ethics we use every day in the "real world".
Works Cited
Johnson, Norman A., Randolph B. Cooper and Wynne W. Chin. "Anger and flaming in computer-mediated negotiation among strangers." Decision Support Systems 46 (2009): 670-672.
"The effect of flaming on computer-mediated negotiations." European Journal of Information Systems 17 (2008): 417-434.
Marsh, Bill. Plagiarism: Alchemy and Remedy in Higher Education. New York: SUNY Press.
Mill, John Stewart. "From "Utilitarianism"." Consequentialism. Ed. Stephen L. Darwall. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2003. 32-63.
National Crime Prevention Council. Cyberbullying.
Waldron, Jeremy. "Property and Ownership." 6 September 2004. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Wood, Alllen W. Kant. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005.
Wright, Scott and John Street. "Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums." New Media and Society 9.5 (2007): 849-869.
Yar, Majid. Cybercrime and Society. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2006.