Law and Ethics/ PHIL 355E – REFLECTIVE WRITING

I registered for PHIL 355 “Cyber Ethics” because it seemed like a solid choice to explore issues in Cyber and engage in philosophical exercise. Dr. Wittkower and Dr. Kissel are the “course designers” and introduced themselves and outlined the class in the introductory module. I immediately noticed a tremendous amount of philosophical misalignment. For instance Wittkower and Kissel stated things such as, “Ethics isn’t just subjective”, “Religion and Ethics influence each other, “They’re both essentially talking about the same thing, how to be a good person how to live a good life”, ” “They’re conceptually separate” “We have a separate motivation toward Morality that holds even if we don’t have religious belief” and “It doesn’t work to say all my ethics are biblical, I just use the Bible to decide what’s right and wrong”.

The professors’ claims about the relationship between religion and ethics are inconsistent and fundamentally flawed. They assert that ethics are absolute and objective, yet provide no basis for this claim, leaving it mere assertion. Where/What/Who is or gives this absolute moral standard they assert exists? Furthermore, their claims that religion and ethics are conceptually separate is a semantic trick, an attempt to divorce morality from its religious moorings. This artificial separation is defeated by the logical necessity of consistency. If a Christian claims to be moral yet contradicts the teachings of their faith, they are inherently self-contradictory and cannot coherently hold both positions. Morality and Religion occupy the same space, they are the worldview of an individual. Also, to claim that using the Bible as a moral guide is somehow inadequate or insufficient is a failure to acknowledge the holistic nature of Christian theology. Bible means Library, is using a library of sources insufficient? What do we call the collection of information the professors used to inform their worldview?  The professors’ dismissive attitude towards biblical morality betrays a lack of intellectual honesty and a failure to engage with the underlying philosophical issues at stake.

One Topic we covered was Artificial Intelligence. We discussed Tufecki’s work and how HFT and CSR are intertwined. Even after engaging with the course materials and the ethical tools supplied to us, I still see AI as entirely problematic. I did get practice exploring the reasoning’s and articulating them. I’m concerned about the enormous energy requirements needed to power AI systems, which seem incompatible with our current infrastructure and energy supply. Climate change activists often focus on the need for immediate action, but I think it’s essential to acknowledge the unsustainability of AI’s energy demands. Denying or downplaying these limitations seems like a form of intellectual dishonesty, especially when considering the already strained global energy landscape. It’s crucial to have a more realistic and nuanced understanding of AI’s place within the larger context of human existence and our planet’s ecological limits.

During our course, we explored several case studies that centered around politically charged issues. I was struck by how sources like Vox, Al Jazeera, and The Atlantic were used that push a particular agenda. Despite this, I appreciated seeing how my peers responded to these issues, often with passionate and well-reasoned arguments. However, I was also struck by how many classmates seemed to misunderstand the legal framework governing the NSA’s operations and how it relates to issues like privacy and national security. As we navigated these complex topics, I realized that clarifying these misconceptions is essential for informed discussions about sensitive issues like government surveillance and whistleblower cases.

I’m disappointed that we were forced to rely on a narrow set of ethical tools, such as deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics, without being encouraged to consider other perspectives. I believe this limited approach oversimplifies the complexity of ethical dilemmas, leaving us unprepared to tackle the nuances of real-world issues. As someone who draws from Christian ethics, I’m accustomed to considering multiple perspectives and balancing competing values. In my view, relying on a single ethical theory or tool, such as ‘what’s best for the greatest number’ or ‘what’s their intention,’ is inadequate for grasping the full picture. These approaches can be useful in specific contexts, but they often fail to account for the abstract nature of ethical dilemmas. I believe a more holistic approach, one that considers multiple ethical frameworks and values, is necessary to navigate the complexities we faced in the course.

I felt that PHIL 355 “Cyber Ethics” was dishonest in its presentation of philosophy, neglecting fundamental epistemological questions about how we know what we know. This allowed the instructors to make unsubstantiated claims without providing a solid foundation for their arguments. The course then focused on a limited set of outdated ethical tools, forcing students to overlook crucial aspects of morality and adopt a narrow, simplistic approach.

Moreover, the cases presented in class were heavily biased and lacked context, aiming to influence students’ perspectives rather than promote critical thinking. The use of propaganda-like materials, such as the collateral murder video, and the selection of sources like VOX and The Atlantic, reinforced political agendas rather than fostering nuanced understanding. The cases on Snowden and Facebook/Trump were particularly egregious, as they primed students to view these issues through a specific lens. This approach undermined the ability to engage in constructive debate and critical analysis. Overall, I believe the course failed to effectively teach philosophy or cyber ethics, instead using a political agenda to manipulate students’ opinions.