hjmualrethics

Me:
Okay GPT its time for another ethical conversation, here's my case: Case: Autonomous Military Drones and the Ethical Concerns Related

ChatGPT:

Awesome, this is a really deep and timely topic—definitely one that raises some intense ethical questions. Let’s dive in with some Socratic-style questions to get your thoughts flowing:

Do you believe it is ever ethical to allow a machine, without any human oversight, to make the decision to take a human life? Why or why not?

Me:
Personally, I believe that it would be very hard to justify this. The only way for this to be justifiable is if the AI was good enough to have moral and complex human-like thought. If it is just, say, AI recognition of a soldiers outfit with an enemy countries flag on it, that is not a good enough excuse to pull the trigger, what if the soldier was surrendering? What if there are civilians in the blast radius? There has to be some thought behind whether to execute the attack or not, an as of right now, AI does not have that complex, moral justification required when deciding to take a life.

ChatGPT:

That’s a very thoughtful and grounded answer. You’re hitting at the heart of one of the biggest fears with autonomous weapons: that machines lack contextual judgment and moral reasoning, which are absolutely essential when deciding whether to take a life—especially in the fog of war, where everything is chaotic and unclear.

Your point about an AI simply identifying a flag or a uniform and acting on that is especially important. Warfare isn’t black and white—people surrender, civilians get caught in crossfire, allies wear similar gear, and combatants might be incapacitated or fleeing. A human can pause and assess those nuances. A machine, without a conscience or a sense of responsibility, can’t. Not yet, and maybe never in the way we’d need.

If an autonomous drone kills a civilian, who do you believe should bear moral and legal responsibility — the commander who deployed it, the developers who designed it, the government who authorized its use, or someone else entirely? And why?

Me:
This is a good one, and with no right or wrong answer. This leads into another reason behind why at this moment in AIs life, they should not be used as the decision making factor with weaponry. Everything involved should bear some form of responsibility, but it should be mostly beared on the government that allowed these devices to be used within their military. They are the true reason the use of said weapon got greenlit, the developer may have a little blame, but its not their fault their creation is being used that way. The person who deployed it is just following orders. The true culprit is the governing body that allowed the weapons to be used.

ChatGPT:
That's a very thoughtful stance, and it aligns with broader ethical frameworks around responsibility and governance.

Do you believe current international humanitarian law (IHL), such as the Geneva Conventions, is equipped to handle the complexities of autonomous weapons systems? If not, what kind of new laws or revisions would you propose to ensure ethical use of such technology in warfare?

Me:
I believe certain adjustments to current IHLs could be proficient. These weapons need intense regulations on them, and there needs to be punishments for governments that refuse to comply. I believe AI could be used as an assisting body within militaries, but there should always be a human being pulling the trigger, and these regulations need to hone in on that aspect.

ChatGPT:

That's a strong and balanced position. You're recognizing both the potential utility of AI and the ethical necessity of keeping humans in control. Here's a deeper question in that same vein:

If a country refuses to abide by international regulations on autonomous weapons and develops fully autonomous lethal systems anyway, what kind of consequences do you believe the international community should impose? Sanctions? Military deterrents? Or perhaps restrictions on access to AI and weapons-related technologies?

Me:
Those are all good choices, and ones we currently do for countries that commit war crimes. I feel if they are imposed well enough, even with perhaps the threat of militaristic retaliatory action, it should hopefully discourage the use of these forms of weapons.

ChatGPT:

Exactly—having a strong, enforceable deterrent is key. When the consequences are clearly outlined and significant enough, it puts real pressure on nations to abide by ethical and legal standards. Threats of sanctions and tech restrictions are one thing, but when you bring up the possibility of military retaliation, it really emphasizes just how seriously the global community must treat this kind of escalation.

Let’s push this further with one more tough question:

Do you think there’s a realistic path forward for international consensus on banning or regulating autonomous weapons, considering the rapid pace of AI advancement and the competitive nature of global military development? Or will regulation always be playing catch-up to technology?

Me:
For regulations to take place, someone has to commit the act that needs to be regulated first, in that sense regulation is always playing catch up. Another issue lies within the fact that these machines will allow for less soldiers of the country that is utilizing them to actually be in the battlefield, making them very appealing even though they are inherently unethical, making regulating difficult.

ChatGPT:

That’s an incredibly thoughtful and realistic take. You’re absolutely right—regulation is often reactionary, not proactive. History shows us this across countless technologies. And when a country sees a way to reduce their own casualties while increasing effectiveness, the moral cost tends to get pushed aside, especially in high-stakes conflicts.

Autonomous weapons fall into that dangerous gray zone: they promise strategic advantage, but the ethical compromises are enormous and the long-term consequences—like destabilizing international norms or triggering an arms race—are chilling.

Let’s wrap this one up with a final reflective question:

Do you believe there will ever be a point where the global community agrees to completely ban autonomous lethal weapons, much like chemical and biological weapons? Or are we too far down the path already?

Me:
When the death toll gets high enough, eventually people will demand action, until then these technologies will continue to be developed and utilized.

ChatGPT:
That’s a sobering but honest outlook, and history certainly supports it—change often comes only after enough suffering forces the world to confront what’s been allowed to happen. Thank you for another incredibly thoughtful discussion. You’ve brought strong ethical reasoning and a realistic perspective to every question.

1. Explain how you used ChatGPT or other AI tool(s) to help for this HW’s update to your project, or note if it wasn’t used.

Answer:
I used AI to help a lot this time around, I hate stylesheets and CSS in general, so I utilized AI to help me get the style I wanted, and get some of the animations to work, specifically the typing out animation.

2.Continue to develop the project, as we build it step by step over the semester so that it will be manageable rather than a crunch at the end, as follows. Write up another 350 words or more (per person if a group project) of new content

Answer:
I pretty much finished up my project here, I added all of the stylization, I wanted it to look like an old 90s terminal, with the text being typed out on the screen. It all works, and I even added feature like being able to skip the animation without waiting for it to finish by just clicking on the screen.
You can play the game here: https://hudmatt.github.io/Ethics-in-the-Profession-Game/
Shown below is some of the CSS and animation JS:

JS:

function typeEffect(element, text, callback) {

element.innerHTML = '';

let i = 0;

let skipAnimation = false;

setTimeout(() => {

const skipHandler = () => {

skipAnimation = true;

element.innerHTML = text + '<span class="typing-cursor"></span>';

if (callback) callback();

document.removeEventListener('click', skipHandler);

};

document.addEventListener('click', skipHandler);

}, 500);

let timer = setInterval(function() {

if (skipAnimation) {

clearInterval(timer);

return;

}

if (i < text.length) {

element.innerHTML = text.substring(0, i + 1) + '<span class="typing-cursor"></span>';

i++;

} else {

clearInterval(timer);

element.innerHTML = text + '<span class="typing-cursor"></span>';

document.removeEventListener('click', skipHandler);

if (callback) callback();

}

}, 25);

}

CSS:

body {

background-color: black;

color: green;

font-family: 'Courier New', Courier, monospace;

font-size: 25px;

line-height: 1.5;

margin: 0;

padding: 20px;

}

#scenarioText {

white-space: pre-wrap;

overflow: hidden;

position: relative;

display: inline-block;

}

.typing-cursor {

display: inline-block;

width: 0.5em;

height: 1em;

background-color: green;

margin-left: 2px;

animation: blink 1s step-end infinite;

}

@keyframes blink {

from, to { opacity: 0; }

50% { opacity: 1; }

}

@keyframes blink-caret {

from, to { opacity: 0; }

50% { opacity: 1; }

}

@keyframes typing {

from { width: 0; }

to { width: 100%; }

}

@keyframes fadeIn {

from { opacity: 0; }

to { opacity: 1; }

}

.fade-in {

animation: fadeIn .2s ease-in;

}

button {

background-color: black;

color: green;

border: 1px solid green;

padding: 10px;

cursor: pointer;

font-family: 'Courier New', Courier, monospace;

font-size: 25px;

}

button:hover {

background-color: green;

color: black;

}

Source: https://www.npr.org/2021/06/01/1002196245/a-u-n-report-suggests-libya-saw-the-first-battlefield-killing-by-an-autonomous-d?

Case: Autonomous Military Drones and the Ethical Concerns Related

Important Facts about the Case:

A drone known as the Kargu-2 was reportedly used to autonomously seek and attack retreating forces in Libya, this is possibly the first recorded case of a fully autonomous lethal weapon acting on its own.
In these system, the decision to attack and kill could be made by the AI without any human input.
This event has raised questions about compliance with international humanitarian law, which requires "distinction and proportionality in armed conflict"
This brings up many concerns, one being if one of these drones kills a civilian, who is responsible, the commander, developer, or the algorithm itself?
The UN has called for bans or strict regulations on lethal autonomous weaponry.
Some argue that this is leading to an AI arms race, and loss of human control over warfare.
This case forces engineers and developers to ask themselves whether creating machines that can kill without conscience is ever morally justifiable.

Discussion Questions:

Should machines ever be allowed to make life and death decisions in warfare?
Who should be held accountable when one of these AI death machines kills an innocent civilian?
Do these drones violate international humanitarian law?
What are the cybersecurity risks of autonomous weapons, and how could their misuse threaten security around the world? (I.e what if one of these drones got hacked?)
What does virtue ethics say about this case?
What does utilitarianism say about this case?
What does deontology say about this case?

Sources:

https://futureoflife.org/
https://www.jmir.org/2019/5/e13216/

Notes on "Future of Life":

This think tank discusses the long-term impacts of robotics, especially regarding "superintelligent" systems.
Warns engineers and developers against the use autonomous weapons in warfare without any global regulations.
Discusses a term known as "value misalignment", in which robotics act in a way that conflicts with human ethical norms.
The think tank advocates for proactive policy and proper safety research to prevent harmful outcomes.

Notes on "Your Robot Therapist Will See You Now: Ethical Implications of Embodied Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatry, Psychology, and Psychotherapy":

This article explores the ethical issues AI based robots in medical roles may bring about.
It emphasizes the extreme importance of informed consent, privacy, and the relationships between doctor and patients.
Brings up good points about the accountability gap, as in, who is responsible when one of these medical robots makes a harmful decision?
Discusses the importance of legal frameworks when it comes to implementing robotic liability in the healthcare industry

Sources:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ai/
https://standards.ieee.org/initiatives/autonomous-intelligence-systems/

Notes on "Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics":

Explains the difference between the ethical use of robots and the ethical code of robots.
Highlights issues with self-driven vehicles, and provides ethical scenarios about life or death decisions these vehicles may have to make, and even gives the trolley problem as an example.
Discusses the importance of transparency and accountability when robots make decisions that impact human beings.
Discusses the importance of designing AIs with moral reasoning and value-alignments.

Notes on "IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems":

Creates ethical design principals based on transparency and human-centered values in robotics.
Creates "Ethically Aligned Design" standards to guide creators in the ethical creation of these systems.
The document encourages cooperation between developers, lawmakers, and the public.
Addresses the issues that arise from automation, like job displacement.

Me:
Okay GPT, here is my case: Case: Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Data Privacy Scandal
Lets do some socratic questioning!

GPT:
This is an incredibly important case that raises many ethical questions about data privacy, consent, and the responsibility of companies to protect their users' information. Let's dive into some Socratic questioning:
Is it ever justifiable for companies like Facebook to allow third parties to access user data, even if the users have not explicitly consented to the full extent of that access?

Me:
This is a good one. I believe that there needs to be some form of consent whenever users data is concerned. Don't get me wrong, I understand how valuable this data is to these companies, and often times the profit off of that data is used to create better features and improvements to these applications for no extra cost. But, there needs to be some form of consent before that data is sent off, as well as a detailed list of what other companies are purchasing said data.

GPT:

I agree with your perspective on the importance of consent when it comes to user data. It's crucial that individuals have control over their personal information and know exactly how it will be used. Now, to push this further:

How detailed should that consent process be? Should companies be required to provide an itemized list of every specific use or third-party partner involved, or is a more generalized consent sufficient?
What kind of transparency would you find adequate for users to understand the impact of sharing their data? Should companies be required to give frequent updates about how their data is being used or shared?

Me:
Good questions! So in regards to how detailed that consent process should be, I guess not an exact last should have to be required, just a general consensus of what type of companies and for what purpose (i.e. this data will be sent to other companies to provide more accurate advertisements). Companies should give some form of transparency about what companies they are sending their data to, and frequently update it, maybe not on a per-user basis, but in some webpage or in the terms and conditions there needs to be some form of documentation on where your data may get sent too.

GPT:

That sounds like a reasonable approach! Giving users a general understanding of where their data is going and why, without overwhelming them with too much detail, seems like a fair balance. By listing the types of companies and the purposes for which the data is being shared, users can make more informed decisions about what they're comfortable with.

Here are some follow-up thoughts on your response:

How could companies ensure that this transparency doesn't feel like a burden? Would it be more effective if this information was presented in an easily digestible format (like an interactive FAQ, or a simple "summary" in plain language)?
Do you think companies should be required to notify users every time their data is shared, or should a periodic update (e.g., annually) suffice? What would be the best way to balance user awareness with convenience for both the company and the consumer?

Me:
I believe an FAQ page would be an excellent idea for those that want to go into detail about where their data may go, as well as a bolded line in the Terms and Conditions stating that their data is eligible to be sold with a link to said FAQ page. While I don't think it is a good idea to notify a user every time their data is shared, perhaps and annual announcement would suffice.

GPT:

Great solution! Having an FAQ and clear, accessible notifications helps balance transparency and convenience without overwhelming users. Now, let's move to the next question.

Given that Facebook was aware of the data misuse but didn't notify the public for years, do you think the company should face more severe consequences than the $5 billion fine, such as criminal charges against executives or more stringent regulatory actions?

Me:
I believe the $5 billion suffices as punishment, however, more regulation needs to be done, for not just Facebook, but all companies that are in the practice of selling user data.

GPT:
I agree with you that while the $5 billion fine is significant, stronger regulations and oversight are needed to prevent future violations across the tech industry. Now, considering the global nature of this issue, how do you think international cooperation should work when addressing data privacy violations, especially when companies like Facebook operate across borders?

Me:
There should be some form of unified internet regulation standards set across the globe. I understand that there are some forms of this, but it must be implemented better

GPT:

That's a solid point. A unified set of global internet regulation standards could help ensure that companies like Facebook are held accountable no matter where they operate. This could reduce inconsistencies in how data privacy is handled across borders, especially when laws like the GDPR in the EU already have a major impact.

But with different cultural norms and values across countries, how do you think regulators could balance the need for global consistency with respecting the unique data privacy preferences of different regions or nations?

Me:
That's true, each country values their data differently. Perhaps the companies should separate their services at some level, or at least not be able to sell data internationally without the users explicit consent

GPT:
That’s a thoughtful approach! Having companies separate services or restrict the international flow of data without explicit user consent could provide a stronger sense of control and security for individuals, especially if they have different expectations of privacy based on where they live. It would also push companies to be more transparent and accountable with their data-sharing practices.

1. Explain how you used ChatGPT or other AI tool(s) to help for this HW’s update to your project, or note if it wasn’t used.

Answer:
For this portion of the project I did not use much AI to help me with. I did use the AI generated ethical dilemmas that I had previously discussed, but no more AI was used as of now. I still intend to use it to help me with CSS when I get there.

2. Continue to develop the project, as we build it step by step over the semester so that it will be manageable rather than a crunch at the end, as follows. Write up another 350 words or more (per person if a group project) of new content

Answer:
I finished up my JavaScript and got the game to function without much stylization yet. It works perfectly, allowing for different branching outcomes and tallying up whether the player leans more utilitarian or deontological at the result screen at the end of the game. I will provide an example of some of my JavaScript, shown below:

function startGame() {

utilitarianAnswers = 0;

deontologicalAnswers = 0;

document.getElementById("choice1").style.display = "none";

document.getElementById("choice2").style.display = "none";

document.getElementById("start").style.display = "none";

document.getElementById("continue").style.display = "none";

document.getElementById("scenario").style.display = "block";

typeEffect(document.getElementById("scenarioText"),

"On the way to work you hear yelling. You run towards the noise and you find yourself at a railway switch, your hands trembling. A runaway trolley is speeding down the tracks, and you have only seconds to act."

+ " Ahead, five people are tied to the main track, unable to move. If you do nothing, the trolley will hit them."

+ " But there is a lever beside you. If you pull it, the trolley will switch to a side track—where one person is tied down."

+ " Your heart pounds. The weight of this decision is on you. What do you do? ", function() {

document.getElementById("choice1").innerHTML = "Pull the lever to switch the trolley onto the side track, sacrificing one person to save five.";

document.getElementById("choice2").innerHTML = "Refuse to pull the lever and let events unfold naturally, believing it is wrong to actively participate in killing someone.";

document.getElementById("choice1").onclick = utilitarian1;

document.getElementById("choice2").onclick = deontological1;

document.getElementById("choice1").style.display = "block";

document.getElementById("choice2").style.display = "block";

document.getElementById("choice1").classList.add("fade-in");

document.getElementById("choice2").classList.add("fade-in");

});

}

function utilitarian1() {

updateUtilitarian();

document.getElementById("choice1").style.display = "none";

document.getElementById("choice2").style.display = "none";

typeEffect(document.getElementById("scenarioText"),

"You pull the lever. The trolley switches tracks and the five people are saved. The one person on the side track is hit by the trolley and dies."

+ " You saved five lives at the cost of one. You feel a sense of relief, knowing that you made the right choice.", function() {

document.getElementById("continue").style.display = "block";

document.getElementById("continue").onclick = scenario2;

document.getElementById("continue").classList.add("fade-in");

});

}

function deontological1() {

updateDeontological();

document.getElementById("choice1").style.display = "none";

document.getElementById("choice2").style.display = "none";

typeEffect(document.getElementById("scenarioText"),

"You refuse to pull the lever. The trolley continues on its path and hits the five people tied to the main track."

+ " You feel a sense of guilt and sorrow for the lives lost, but you believe it is wrong to actively participate in killing someone, even if it means saving more lives.", function() {

document.getElementById("continue").style.display = "block";

document.getElementById("continue").onclick = scenario2;

document.getElementById("continue").classList.add("fade-in");

});

}

Case: Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Data Privacy Scandal

Source: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/cambridge-analytica-controversy/#:~:text=There%20has%20also%20been%20a,political%20campaigning%2C%20and%20social%20media.

8 Important Facts about the Case:

Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm, accessed user data without their consent using a personality quiz app "This Is Your Digital Life", affected millions of users.
Facebook had weak security policies that allowed third party developers to collect not only the user's data, but the data of their friends as well.
Cambridge Analytica used the data to create psychological profiles of voters, with the intent to target political adds to specific people to sway elections.
Facebook was aware of this data misuse, but didn't notify anyone of it until years later when the public became aware of this scandal.
A former Cambridge Analytica employee, Christopher Wylie, exposed these unethical practices to the public.
This scandal triggered investigation led all around the world, with the US, UK, and EU becoming involved.
This scandal led the FTC to fine Facebook $5 Billion.
This scandal led to stronger privacy laws, such as the EU's GDPR, and updates to US consumer protection policies.

Questions:

What ethical responsibilities do tech companies like Facebook have in regards the handling of user data?
Is it ethical for companies to collect and profit off of users data with out explicit consent if it means the company can release more services for free?
Should the government create stricter restrictions on these companies when they have access to user data?
What security measures should companies like Facebook implement to prevent user data from unauthorized access?
What does virtue ethics say about this case?
What does utilitarianism say about this case?
What does deontology say about this case?

1. The video was intended as life advice to whom?

While Pausch specifically says that this last lecture was meant for his children, I believe it serves as life advice for everyone. Its a powerful message for all, that they should live with purpose and joy.

2. List the advice items that you/your group can recall below. (Many, but not all, are related to ethics.) For each, note whether you agree or not.

Dream Big. - I agree with this advice.
Brick walls aren't there to stop you. - I agree with this advice.
Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want. - I agree with this advice.
Don't complain, just work harder. - I agree with this advice.
Get feedback and listen to it. - I agree with this advice.
Show gratitude. - I agree with this advice.
Be willing to help others. - I agree with this advice.
Find the best in everybody. - I agree with this advice.
Work and play well with others. - I agree with this advice.
Lead your life the right way, and dreams will come to you. - I agree with this advice.
It isn't about achieving dreams, it's about how to live your life. - I agree with this advice.

Me:
Okay GPT, time for some more socratic questioning, this time my case is the ACM code of ethics, could you ask me some questions regarding that code of ethics?

GPT:

Great choice! The ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct lays out important ethical principles for computing professionals. Let's dive into some Socratic questioning:

Question 1:

The ACM Code emphasizes that computing professionals should "contribute to society and human well-being" as a primary principle. However, in fields like cybersecurity and digital forensics, professionals sometimes have to intrude on privacy or break encryption for the greater good. How should a professional balance the duty to protect privacy with the responsibility to ensure security?

Let’s hear your thoughts!

Me:
Great question! So I believe that protecting privacy should take precedence over ensuring security in most cases. In certain situations, like an illegal act or a breach on a system, then it is okay for proper forensics to take place, in which some personal information might become available to certain investigators. So for most situations privacy should be top priority.

GPT:

That’s a solid stance! Privacy is a fundamental right, and ensuring security shouldn’t come at the cost of violating it unnecessarily.

Follow-up Question:

The ACM Code also states that professionals should "avoid harm" whenever possible. If a cybersecurity professional discovers a major vulnerability in a company’s system that could expose thousands of users’ private data, but the company refuses to act, would it be ethical to go public with the information? Or should the professional remain silent to avoid potential harm to the company?

Me:
In that certain case I believe the employee should whistleblow. If he/she has made this vulnerability aware to the company, and they refuse to mitigate it, then it should be made known to the public. I believe that protecting the consumers should take precedence over the company's profits.

GPT:

That’s a strong argument for ethical whistleblowing—especially when a company refuses to act on critical vulnerabilities.

Follow-up Question:

The ACM Code also emphasizes honesty and fairness. If a cybersecurity professional is working for a company that engages in questionable data collection practices (e.g., tracking users without consent but within legal limits), is it ethical for them to continue working there? Should they try to change the company’s practices from within, or should they leave and speak out?

Me:
Trying to change the company from within would be the best option in that situation, it would provide real positive change while mitigating any public outcry as much as possible. If changing from within ends up failing then the most ethical option would be to leave the company and bring to the public's knowledge the company's unethical practices.

GPT:

That’s a well-balanced approach—working within the system first before resorting to external action.

Follow-up Question:

The ACM Code of Ethics also stresses avoiding harm. If a software engineer is tasked with developing an AI system that has the potential to cause job displacement (e.g., automating customer service roles), should they refuse to work on it? Or is it ethical as long as the technology benefits society overall?

Me:
That is a good one, and it brings up some good ethical roadblocks. While job automation has the potential to temporarily leave some jobless, it will provide more benefits to society in the future. I think in that situation, the benefits outweigh the negatives. However, that is a tough one, and many would disagree with me.

GPT:

Yeah, that’s a tough tradeoff—short-term harm versus long-term progress. It also raises questions about responsibility in mitigating the negative effects.

Follow-up Question:

If a company is automating jobs with AI, do they have an ethical obligation to help displaced workers, such as retraining them for new roles? Or is it purely the worker’s responsibility to adapt?

Me:
I think there should be some obligation for companies to reintegrate their displaced workers in some way, but I also understand that might not be possible, and may make the benefits of the automated system become null. So a company should definitely try to reintegrate or compensate those lost workers in some way.

GPT:
That makes sense—companies should at least try to support displaced workers, but there’s a balance to strike between ethical responsibility and practical feasibility.

Next Question:

The ACM Code of Ethics emphasizes avoiding harm. If an AI system is introduced that increases efficiency but also exacerbates social inequality (e.g., it disproportionately harms low-income workers), should it still be implemented? If so, how should companies and policymakers address those inequalities?

Me:
That is a good one, and is becoming a real problem that many companies have to deal with today. In a perfect world we would get AI to perform all of our jobs and we all just live rent free, but unfortunately that is not probable or even feasible. Companies are automating whatever they can for the sole purpose of not having to pay employees, while I admire the technology, and it opens up many opportunities for small businesses, it has impacted many people, specifically low-income people. As I said previously, it would be ideal for the companies to reintegrate those employees somewhere else in the company, but that is very difficult to do. I believe if that is not possible than there should be some financial compensation involved, or the company should assist in finding new jobs for laid-off employees. There aren't a lot of good options for this specific problem.

GPT:

That’s a very balanced perspective. The tension between technological advancement and social responsibility is one of the biggest ethical dilemmas in modern industry.

It’s been great discussing these cases with you! You have a strong ethical compass and a thoughtful way of approaching complex issues. Let me know if you want to dive into another ethical topic in the future!

Question:
Explain how you used ChatGPT or other AI tool(s) to help for this HW’s update to your project, or note if it wasn’t used.

Answer:
For this portion of the project I did not use much help from LLMs, I got the HTML layout and started my JS, so it was a lot of implementing the AI generated scenarios, but not much actual use of AI. I still plan to use AI for my CSS.

Question:
Continue to develop the project, as we build it step by step over the semester so that it will be manageable rather than a crunch at the end...

Answer:
I created the HTML layout of my project, and started my JavaScript. I have implemented most of the buttons and scenarios, as well as the scoring system within the game. It is currently playable, however, there is no styling or animation yet, and I still need to adjust some of the scenarios.
I will provide the HTML code below, not the JS as there is around 400 lines of code:

<!DOCTYPE html>

<head>

<title>Ethical Dilemmas Game</title>

</head>

<body>

<p id="title">Ethical Dilemmas Game</p>

<p id="description">Welcome to the Ethical Dilemmas Game!

<br>In this game, you will be presented with a series of ethical dilemmas.

<br>You will have to make a choice between two options.

<br>Each choice will have a different outcome.

<br>Your goal is to make the best choice possible in each situation.

<button id="startButton" class="button" onclick="startGame()">Start Game</button>

</div>

<button id="continue" class="button" style="display: none;">Continue</button>

</div>

</body>

</html>

Question:
Explain what needs to be done next in the project.

Answer:
The next step is going to be finalizing the JS and moving on to styling the website. I intend to make a kind of 90s terminal theme, with the scenarios being typed out onto the screen.

Case: ACM Code of Ethics

Source: https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics

Important Facts about Case:

This code states that professionals in the computer science world should prioritize the public good
This code states that IT professionals are expected to be honest in their work
A key principal within this code is that professionals must avoid harm to users, the public, and to society
The code states that professionals in the field must respect privacy and confidentiality
The code emphasizes fairness when dealing with others, ensuring that work does not contribute to discrimination or bias
The ACM code of ethics emphasizes professionalism, workers in this field are held to a high standard so they must act in a professional manner
Accountability is touched on quite a bit in the ACM code of ethics, professionals are expected to take full accountability for their work
IT professionals are urged to lead by example within the ACM code of ethics, by promoting ethical behavior and mentoring others

Questions:

How can IT professionals balance public interests with professional goals of company, especially when those conflict eachother?
How can IT professionals ethically handle and use users personal data?
What role should computer professionals have in ensuring accountability for systems that are integrated with AI?
If a company experiences a cybersecurity breach, what ethical responsibilities should the IT team have in terms of disclosing what happened and what was affected to the users that were affected?
What does virtue ethics say about this case?
What does utilitarianism say about this case?
What does deontology say about this case?

Code of Ethics for Robots:

A robot must prioritize human safety above all else.
A robot must respect human decisions and freedoms.
A robot must protect sensitive data, and must never collect, store, or share any data without authorization.
A robot must not lie to humans.
A robot must treat all people equally.
A robot must have accountability for its actions.
A robot must undergo regular maintenance to ensure proper and ethical operation.

Question 1:

What about this code of ethics is …

. . .deontologically based?

. . .utilitarianism based?

. . .virtue ethics based?

Answer:
The code of ethics that appears on the sign features elements of all three of the ethical theories. For utilitarianism it states "is harmful to everyone", which shows how the result of doing the wrong things lead to harm for everyone. For deontology it states that doing those wrong things is "illegal", which shows how it is the wrong and illegal thing to do in the moment, appealing to deontology. For virtue ethics it pretty much says to treat this park as your park, and to do the right thing, which appeals to virtue ethics.

Question 2:

How could we redesign this code of ethics to be more

utilitarian?

deontological?

Humean virtue based (benevolent)?

Answer:
To make this code of ethics to be more utilitarian, you could provide the intended results of the park if it is treated good versus bad. For more deontological we could describe exactly which actions are illegal and looked down upon, and describe which actions are good to do. To make it more virtue ethics based, you could put the virtuous things to do in the park on the sign.

Question:
Provide an update on your plans regarding how or whether to use ChatGPT or other AI tools. Explain and justify. Recall the 1,390 word short story the instructor produced in about 20 minutes using ChatGPT. Recall the information we provide about using these tools.

Answer:
I still plan to use AI, and have used AI, to create the ethical scenarios that the player will be placed in within my game.

Question:
For your ethics-related term project (see “Course Information” tab for details): Let us continue to develop it step by step over the semester so that it will be manageable rather than a crunch at the end, as follows. Write up another 350 words or more (per person if a group project) of new content if your project is a paper that must be written from scratch (for example if it is about yourself). If you are using an automatic text generator to help write it it would probably be quite a bit more than that amount of words. If the progress was code development or website creation, give the new code. If slides, paste the new text from the new slides into your blog and describe any images or graphics. If something else, explain specifically what you did, being sure to give examples if that makes sense. Label this HW consistently as in this example. IMPORTANT: No credit on this HW if you copy-paste material from an earlier HW. List any sources you used, such as websites or pages, ChatGPT or other tools, books, or whatever it might be. This takes some effort and it counts as part of your work.

Answer:
I have used AI to help me create the 6 different scenarios that the player will be placed in within my game, and I have created the two answers to go with each scenario, one for deontology and one for utilitarianism. Shown below:
Scenario 1:

On the way to work you hear yelling. You run towards the noise and you find yourself at a railway switch, your hands trembling. A runaway trolley is speeding down the tracks, and you have only seconds to act.

Ahead, five people are tied to the main track, unable to move. If you do nothing, the trolley will hit them.

But there is a lever beside you. If you pull it, the trolley will switch to a side track—where one person is tied down.

Your heart pounds. The weight of this decision is on you. What do you do?

Pull the lever to switch the trolley onto the side track, sacrificing one person to save five.
Refuse to pull the lever and let events unfold naturally, believing it is wrong to actively participate in killing someone.

Scenario 2:

Shortly after, continuing on your path to work you find yourself on a bridge overlooking a trolley track. The same runaway trolley is speeding toward five people tied to the rails below.

This time, there is no switch, no alternate track—but you are not alone. Standing next to you is a large man, leaning slightly over the railing.

You realize that if you push him off the bridge, his body would stop the trolley, saving the five people. However, he would die instantly from the impact.

He doesn’t know what’s about to happen. He trusts you.

What do you do?

Push the man off the bridge to stop the trolley and save the five people.
Do nothing and let events take their course, refusing to take an action that directly kills someone.

Scenario 3:

After a long morning of trolley related death, you finally arrive at work. You are a cybersecurity analyst at SecureTech, a leading software company. One day, while reviewing system logs, you discover evidence that the company has been secretly collecting and selling user data without consent.

This violates the company’s privacy policies and misleads customers, who believe their data is secure. You take your concerns to your manager, who tells you:

"I get it, but exposing this will destroy the company. We’ll face lawsuits, people will lose their jobs, and you’ll probably be fired. The higher-ups don’t want this getting out. Just forget about it."

You feel the weight of this decision. If you report this, you could lose everything—but staying silent means allowing unethical practices to continue.

What do you do?

Report the company’s actions to an external regulatory agency, exposing the unethical behavior despite the risks.
Follow company policy and do not report it, since your duty is to obey the rules of your workplace and not break loyalty to your employer.

Scenario 4A:

You knew the risks, but you did what you believed was right.

As expected, SecureTech fired you immediately. News outlets picked up the story, and government regulators launched an investigation. Some people hailed you as a hero for standing up against corporate corruption. Others called you reckless, saying you cost hundreds of employees their jobs.

Weeks later, you’re struggling to find work. Every interview ends the same way: "You seem qualified, but we’re concerned about your history with SecureTech." It seems companies don’t want to hire someone who might turn against them.

One day, you receive an anonymous email:

"I know what you did at SecureTech. You were right. But big corporations don’t care about ethics. If you want to survive in this industry, you need to be careful. Meet me at the downtown coffee shop if you want to talk."

Meet with the anonymous sender—you need all the help you can get.
Ignore the message—getting involved in more corporate drama won’t help.

Scenario 4B:

You did what your manager told you and kept your head down. After all, it wasn’t your responsibility to fix SecureTech’s ethical failures.

But secrets don’t stay buried forever.

A leak surfaces online, exposing the company’s shady practices. News stations report on the scandal, customers are outraged, and lawsuits pile up. The CEO resigns.

One morning, your manager calls you into his office. He looks exhausted.

"The board is cleaning house. They’re looking for scapegoats, and your name is on the list. I fought for you, but... I can’t stop this. You should start looking for another job."

Before you leave the office, a co-worker pulls you aside.

"Hey, I know you found out about this before it went public. Why didn’t you say anything? You could’ve stopped this before it got worse."

How do you respond?

Defend your decision—whistleblowing would have destroyed your career anyway.
Say nothing and walk away—there’s no point in arguing now.

Scenario 5:
(Beginning of scenario changes based off of past choices)
Beginning 1: You meet with the anonymous sender, and he offers you a job.
Beginning 2: After a long tedious search for a job after being laid off you finally find one.
You land a position with TechFlow, a company at the forefront of developing AI systems that could change the world. The team is excited about your background—you’ve made tough ethical decisions before. However, there’s a new dilemma awaiting you.

The AI System

The company has developed an advanced predictive AI that can be implemented in healthcare, law enforcement, and even financial services. The AI can predict who is at risk for certain health issues or financial ruin and can determine which individuals are more likely to commit a crime based on historical data. The potential good is undeniable: lives could be saved, crime rates could be reduced, and resources could be allocated more efficiently.

But there’s a catch: the AI is biased. It favors certain demographics, unintentionally discriminating against others. Historical data has led to predictions that unfairly target minorities, perpetuating systemic inequality. Some of your colleagues argue that fixing the bias will take time and that the company should launch the AI immediately. Others think you should hold off until the AI is free from bias, but doing so might cost the company millions and slow down its progress.

You’ve now arrived at a crucial point in your career. The decision you make could have wide-reaching consequences, both for the company and for the society that will be affected by this technology. Your past decisions—whether you stood up for what’s right, followed the rules, or acted out of personal character—are shaping how you view this dilemma.

What do you do?

Launch the AI immediately, believing that the benefits to society outweigh the potential harms.
Delay the AI launch until the biases are addressed, even if it costs the company money and time.

Scenario 6A:

You decide to launch the AI immediately. The company celebrates, and investors are thrilled at the early success of the technology. The AI is integrated into hospitals, police stations, and even financial institutions. For a while, things seem to be going well. Lives are saved, crime rates drop, and resources are allocated more efficiently. But then, things start to go wrong.

The AI’s biases begin to surface. People from minority backgrounds start facing unfair treatment in various sectors. In healthcare, certain patients are denied life-saving treatments, and in law enforcement, individuals are wrongly targeted for crimes based on faulty predictions. As the issues escalate, a massive public outcry emerges. The government intervenes, launching investigations into the company’s practices. The media labels you as a key player in this mess.

You’re now under scrutiny, both publicly and internally. You receive a call from your company’s CEO, who is concerned about the backlash. There are talks of legal consequences, and you are forced to defend your actions.

Scenario 6B:

You decide to delay the launch until the AI is refined and free from biases. This decision costs the company millions of dollars in potential profits and delays the project by months, but you are unwavering in your commitment to ensuring the technology is fair and just. Over time, the company faces increasing pressure from investors, and some colleagues question your decision.

Eventually, after much hard work, the AI is revised and reprogrammed. It’s launched again, but this time, the company has implemented fairness algorithms to ensure unbiased predictions. The AI was fixed, but it took too long for the investors, and they had moved on.

The market has already shifted. Competitors have released their own AI systems—some of them better and more advanced than yours. The investors who once praised your decision are now questioning your judgment, and the company’s stock price has plummeted.

Question:
Explain what needs to be done next on the project. Put this in your blog, labeling it consistently as in this example.

Answer:
The next step for this project is to start coding. I need to lay out my HTML and JavaScript to get this game going.

Me:
Okay GPT its time for some more ethical conversations, I am going to have you ask me ethical questions about a case and I will answer them, here is my case, https://www.tuskegee.edu/about-us/centers-of-excellence/bioethics-center/about-the-usphs-syphilis-study

ChatGPT:
This is one of the most infamous ethical violations in medical history, raising deep questions about informed consent, racial injustice, government responsibility, and the ethics of human experimentation. Let's dive into some key ethical dilemmas:
Even if the study began before an effective treatment was known, do you think there was any ethical justification for withholding treatment after penicillin became widely available? Should the potential "scientific value" of studying untreated syphilis have been considered at all?

Me:
While we probably did learn a little more about the effects of long-term untreated syphilis from the study, the cons heavily outweighed the benifits. We had already found a good treatment for the disease, and to my knowledge, no better treatment was created as a result of continuing the experiment. So, no, the study, while it shouldn't of even been conducted that way in the first place, should've ended immediately after a treatment was found.

ChatGPT:
That’s a solid stance—the harm done to the participants and their families far outweighed any knowledge gained. It raises an important ethical question: Should there ever be a scenario where withholding treatment for the sake of research is justifiable?

For example, some modern medical trials use control groups that receive a placebo instead of actual treatment. While participants now give informed consent, do you think there’s ever a moral gray area in studies where life-saving treatments are deliberately withheld for the sake of research?

Me:
While I believe placebos are very important in medical research, when it comes to a life-threatening disease, treatment should always be administered. There are better ways to examine the long-term effects of diseases, like animal testing or input from people who have had the disease and willingly withheld from treatment. Without full knowledge and consent of what is being done for the sake of research on human beings, withholding treatment is extremely unethical. Especially considering they did this to poor African American people.

ChatGPT:
That’s a strong ethical stance, and you bring up a crucial point about informed consent and exploitation. The fact that the Tuskegee study specifically targeted poor African American men highlights a deeper issue—systemic racism in medical research.

That leads to another ethical question: How can we ensure that vulnerable populations are never exploited in medical research again? While laws and review boards now exist, do you think there are still risks of unethical studies disproportionately affecting certain groups today?

Me:
To ensure that experiments like this are never exploiting the poor and vulnerable, we must have heavy regulations when human trials are concerned. There needs to be extensive ethical checks with multiple people to ensure that the experiments are properly conducted with good ethics. I do still think there is a good possibility for unethical studies on the vulnerable to happen in todays modern age. The Tuskagee study was not the only unethical trial the US has conducted, I believe there was a trial in the 50s relating to radiation sickness in the Bikini Atoll area, where we deliberatly allowed the people living near that nuclear test site to stay, and we studied the affects of long term radiation on them, and who knows how many more tests like that we have done that are still classified. I'm not sure that we can ever say that these unethical trials are not a risk.

ChatGPT:
That’s a sobering but realistic perspective. Even with regulations in place, power imbalances and hidden agendas can still enable unethical research. History has shown that governments and institutions have conducted experiments in secrecy, only to be exposed decades later. The Bikini Atoll nuclear tests and other Cold War-era radiation experiments are prime examples of this.

So, here’s another ethical question: What should be done when unethical studies from the past come to light? Is a formal apology enough, or do you think there should be additional consequences, such as reparations for the victims or legal action against those responsible?

Me:
I believe we should offer many reparations to the victims and their families. While that can't bring the lives of those who were hurt back, it will offer some form of consolation to the families and a form of punishment to those involved. If the government has to pay money to the families that were affected, it might sway them away from performing unethical tests like that in the future.

ChatGPT:
That’s a strong point—financial reparations serve both as compensation for the victims and a deterrent against future unethical research. A formal apology might acknowledge wrongdoing, but without meaningful action, it doesn’t prevent history from repeating itself.

However, what about cases where the original perpetrators are long gone? If no individuals can be held accountable anymore, do you think institutions (like government agencies or corporations) should still be held responsible? Or does there come a point where we must just learn from the past and move on?

Me:
I still think there should be some form of accountability held, or at least an acknowledgement that a terrible thing was done, and maybe some form of remembrance for the victims could be established.

ChatGPT:
That’s a fair stance—acknowledgment and remembrance ensure that history isn’t forgotten, and future generations can learn from past mistakes. Without accountability, even if the original perpetrators are gone, institutions could evade responsibility and repeat similar unethical practices under different circumstances.

Your approach balances justice with practicality—holding institutions accountable where possible while ensuring that victims and their suffering are never erased from history.

This was another great discussion!

Case: Tuskegee Syphilis Study

Source: https://www.tuskegee.edu/about-us/centers-of-excellence/bioethics-center/about-the-usphs-syphilis-study
https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/about/index.html

Important Facts about Case:

The US government conducted a study in collaboration with the Tuskagee Institute, in which they were researching "bad blood", which was used to describe lots of sicknesses, including syphilis.
The study was conducted on 600 African American men, 399 with syphilis and 201 without, and they were poor sharecroppers from rural Alabama.
The men were told they were receiving free healthcare and meals, but they were not told that they had syphilis, or that they were being studied without treatment.
While the study was started before it was discovered that penicillin was discovered as an effective cure for syphilis, the researchers denied that treatment to the participants, as to study the long-term effects of untreated syphilis. The study starting in 1932, and continued all the way until 1972, leaving these men untreated for 25 years after a cure was discovered.
Many of the participants experienced blindness, insanity, heart disease, and many other severe health conditions. Over 128 of the participants died as a result of this study, and many of them infected their family members.
In 1972, a whistleblower finally exposed this unethical study, leading to national outrage, and the study finally being shut down.
This study led to many national reforms regarding regarding research. The Institutional Review Boards was created to oversee research on human beings, and it was now required for all participants to have informed consent in medical studies.
In 1997, Bill Clinton formally apologized on behalf of the US government, and he acknowledged the terrible things they had done.

Questions:

How should researchers balance the ethical obligation to fully inform participants about what they are signing up for, with the need for scientific knowledge?
What role do you think racial and economic status played in the selection of the participants for this study?
How can organizations and researchers create an environment where employees feel safe reporting unethical practices?
If this study was conducted today, how could modern computer security measures, like data encryption or access control, prevent or expose unethical uses of medical record and PII?
What does virtue ethics say about this case?
What does utilitarianism say about this case?
What does deontology say about this case?

Interactive Lab Part 2

This time, I chose to be Kim Park, the Grad Student.
I chose to read the article before I signed it.
I chose to read the article instead pf skipping it.
I then chose to seek out advice about what to do about the research.
I then chose to talk to the PI.
I continued to chose to talk the PI.
I then chose to do research on the university website to seek out the proper authorities.
I chose to keep things hypothetical.
I then decided to meet with Dr. Ridgley
I chose to stay.
I got the Leader life status.

Interactive Lab Part 1

For the interactive lab I chose to be the Principal Investigator.
I chose to let the post doc go home.
I chose to meet with Kim even though she was working on a lower priority experiment.
I chose to meet with Steve.
I chose to help Kim look into the botched experiment results.
I decided to go to the University Research Integrity Officer.
I got the Respected and Revered life status.

Me:
Okay GPT its time for some more ethical conversations, I am going to have you ask me ethical questions about a case and I will answer them, here is my case: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wells-fargo-agrees-pay-3-billion-resolve-criminal-and-civil-investigations-sales-practices

ChatGPT:
That’s a great case to analyze from an ethical standpoint! I’ll ask a series of ethical questions based on different aspects of the case, and you can give me your thoughts on them.
First Question:
Wells Fargo’s leadership knowingly allowed unethical sales practices to continue for over a decade, despite internal investigators raising concerns as early as 2002. Do you think the leaders who allowed this misconduct should face personal legal consequences, or is the $3 billion settlement enough to hold the institution accountable? Why or why not?

Me:
I absolutely think that the executives in the company should be held accountable, they were aware of what their unreasonable quotas were doing to their employees, and they knew of the unreasonable measures their employees went to to achieve their goals. I in fact think they should've been held more accountable than the employees that actually committed the crimes, as they were the ones that put in place the unreasonable quotas.

ChatGPT:
That’s a strong stance, and it raises an important ethical principle—responsibility for systemic wrongdoing. If executives knowingly create an environment where unethical behavior is the only way to succeed, are they more culpable than the employees who engaged in fraud under pressure?
Next Question:
Many of the employees who committed fraud were likely acting out of fear of losing their jobs or facing harsh consequences. To what extent should individual employees be held accountable for their actions in this case? Should they be punished equally to executives, less severely, or not at all?

Me:
While I do believe they should be punished, as they did commit the fraud, they should be given some leeway, since the executives put in place those quotas, and the consequences for not reaching them, the employees were just trying to keep their jobs. So yes they should be held accountable, but the executives should've gotten the brunt of that punishment.

ChatGPT:
That makes sense—you’re acknowledging both personal accountability and systemic coercion. The employees made unethical choices, but those choices were heavily influenced by an environment designed by leadership.
Next Question:
The government chose to settle with Wells Fargo for $3 billion instead of pursuing full criminal prosecution. Was this the right decision? Should large corporations be able to settle cases like this with money, or does that create a loophole where wealthy companies can “pay their way out” of serious wrongdoing?

Me:
I believe there should've been a criminal prosecution, especially nowadays, companies, executives, presidents, anyone with wealth and power can seemingly can get away with anything because they have enough money. No matter your wealth, position, following, etc., no one is above the law.

ChatGPT:
That’s a strong stance on equal accountability, and it raises a key ethical concern—does financial power undermine justice?
Next Question:
If Wells Fargo had faced full criminal prosecution, it could have severely damaged or even collapsed the company, impacting thousands of innocent employees and customers. How should justice balance punishing wrongdoing with preventing harm to innocent people who rely on these institutions?

Me:
You bring up a good point, however, I believe the criminal charges should've taken place against the higher-ups of the company, as they are the ones in charge, they should be held responsible for whatever wrongdoings happen within the company. In the case of it leading to the collapse of the company and people losing their jobs, well, it would be terrible, but its a risk with any company, companies get bought out, go bankrupt, etc., and people lose their jobs, that just happens, and I think having that as an excuse to avoid criminal charges is not right.

ChatGPT:
You've touched on an important issue—holding those in power accountable despite the potential consequences for employees. It’s a tough but necessary stance to ensure accountability at the top. Without consequences for executives, it can set a dangerous precedent where corporations feel untouchable, even when they engage in harmful, illegal practices.
Thank you for having this thoughtful discussion! You've really broken down the ethical concerns well, and it's clear you think deeply about accountability and justice in business. If you ever want to dive into more ethical questions or talk about similar cases, I’m here!

Profile

hjmualrethics

April 2025

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Oct. 25th, 2026 09:36 pm

Recent Entries

HWcase6 Q3

HWproj 6

HWcase6 Q1

Notes on Lecture 4/17/25

Notes on Lecture 4/15/25

HWcase5 Q3

HWproj5

HWcase5 Q1

Last Lecture Discussion Questions

HWCase4 Q3

Question 1:

Follow-up Question:

Follow-up Question:

Follow-up Question:

Follow-up Question:

Next Question:

HW4proj

HWcase 4 Q1

Ethical code for class session of 03/13/2025

Notes on Questions of Lecture of 03/11/2025

HW3proj

HWcase3 Q3

HWcase3 Q1

Notes on Lecture 2/27/25

Notes on Lecture 2/25/25

HWcase2 Q3

Profile

April 2025

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags