Notes for PHIL 463 – 9/6/2001

• Ethics of Computer Use as a Variety of Applied Ethics, traditionally conceived
• Traditional Conception of Applied Ethics.
• This is the most common view: that of traditional moral theory (Aristotelianism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism) applied to a specific set of practical moral issues issues.
• Example:
• (There are various problems with this view.)
• Ethics of Computer use as a Variety of Philosophy of Technology. Another approach to the Ethics of Computer Use is to view it as a sub-field of the philosophy of technology, noticing that technology always has a moral dimension.
• Philosophy of Technology as a Variety of Ethics. Yet another approach to is to consider the Philosophy of Technology as a sub-field of, or at least closely related to ethics. This is an argument that I would like to pursue for a moment.

• The thing to notice about technology is that it is about imagining different possible worlds
• Technologies always involve the transformation of human roles, relationships, and human life in general
• There are several reasons for this:
• Technologies cannot be deployed effectively unless people modify their habits to accommodate those technologies
• Example:
• Perhaps most significantly, technologies are essentially social. Although they involve artifacts, technologies are essentially social phenomena. They are the embodiment of possible ways of living.
• Example:
• The social aspect of technology is especially manifest when with respect to mediating technologies, a category which not be limited to communications technologies such as telephones and computers.
• Example of non-communications but socially mediating technology:
• Finally, because a technology is always a technology for something – that is, embodying some human end -- technologies are the concrete expressions of value.
• Because technological systems and artifacts are always concrete expressions of value, the creation of and consideration of new technologies involves imagining new ways of living and their implications for human existence.
• Example:
• Thus, the production and use of technology is always a moral endeavor
• And philosophy of technology is a variety of ethics insofar as it involves the reasoned consideration and evaluation of the values embodied by specific technologies.

• Insofar as “The Hacker Ethic” is an attempt to express a set of mores that emerged from a specific set of technological innovations (recalling that technological innovations are often primarily social phenomena), it is an example of both philosophy of technology and the ethics of computer use.
• “The Hacker Ethic” is particularly interesting because it is one of the few examples (?) of an explicit consideration of the social possibilities embodied in a specific set of technologies that has emerged from the technological field itself.
• In other words, the Hacker Ethic was developed more or less explicitly by Hackers as a way of reasoning about the social and ethical implications of computer technology.
• It is important to note, however, that “The Hacker Ethic” need not be limited to the field of computers (as we shall see when we read the selection by Pekka Himanen).
• In other words, “The Hacker Ethic” is conceived, at least by some, as a way of life – a fundamental set of mores and approach to life – that extends well beyond the technological field from which it developed. One can, on this view “hack” philosophy, politics, art, or any endeavor about which one can be passionate. More about this later.

--

Hacker (tentative definition): A slang term for a computer enthusiast, i.e., a person who enjoys learning programming languages and computer systems and can often be considered an expert on the subject(s). Among professional programmers, depending on how it used, the term can be either complimentary or derogatory, although it is developing an increasingly derogatory connotation. The pejorative sense of hacker is becoming more prominent largely because the popular press has coopted the term to refer to individuals who gain unauthorized access to computer systems for the purpose of stealing and corrupting data. Hackers, themselves, maintain that the proper term for such individuals is cracker.

Note that given its inclusiveness (i.e., of derogatory sense, as in someone who 1) does a shoddy job or 2) breaks the law) this definition is much broader than that implicitly expressed in “the Hacker Ethic”.