S. Hodgkinson
The 4th Industrial Revolution and its ethical implications on the South African education
system.
The new world era that we are currently living in is a world driven by digitization that effects how
we learn, our personal lifestyle choices and even business. This discursive is posed to discuss the 4 th
Industrial Revolution in South African, how it is impacting on South African education by
influencing teaching aids and learning, and I will argue as to how Emmanuel Kant’s theory of ethics
based on duty leads to conflict in a technologically resultant education system in terms of morality
which relates to how intentions and actions are considered good or bad.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution is the transformation and enlightenment of digitalization featuring
“artificial intelligence, neural networks and quantum technologies” (Butler-Adam, 2018:1). This is
changing the nature of global interactions as “physical, digital and biological worlds combine to
create innovations” in a manner that has never occurred before surpassing the rate of advances
compared to prior Industrial Revolutions which acted as a mere ‘practice session’ (Klosters, 2019:1).
Technological advances have implications in education as schools are increasingly adopting more
technological aids including smart boards, online assessments and projected notes rather than
chalkboard notes and education interfaces are transforming into “blended” and online learning
decreasing face-to-face teaching and learning (van der Westhuizen, 2016:3). With this overwhelming
change, a great concern is how this new digital industry will impact on the South African education
system and what the moral implications will be of this fluid industry. The implementation and impact
of the 4th Industrial Revolution relies on context, so it is necessary to acknowledge that schools
experience this revolution according to their resources and capability. For example, a school in
Greenside, Johannesburg is more equipped in resources and teachers are equipped with 21 st century
skills to integrate technology throughout the learning process, however a school in rural Mooi River,
KwaZulu-Natal would have insufficient funding for the necessary resources such as computer
laboratories, Wi-Fi, projectors or personal mobile devices capable of performing complex
technological functions. Thus, advances in education brought on by the 4th Industrial Revolution
could further perpetuate social injustice and inequality if it does not provide equitable learning
experiences for all learners, and practically this seems impossible as an incredibly large amount of
capital to fund resources and appropriate professionals for each and every South African school is
unrealistic. This challenge of equitable resources country wide could never be solved, it would
simply bankrupt too many enterprises who try to fund it. Thus, it is a dilemma.
1
, S. Hodgkinson
Kantian ethics is a branch of “deontology” meaning that what is considered morally correct is based
on one’s responsibility of duty and therefore duty to humanity reigns supreme to “consequentialism”,
“cultural relativity” or “objectivism” (Crisp, 2015:257). Thus, Kantian theory is focused on a moral
system that sees morals as non-binding to religion, and therefore all human beings can practice
morality by possessing critical reasoning, making the main tenets of this theory based on human
rationality where one acts out for good will (Crisp, 2015). Morality is based on “absolute moral
principles” and although this implicitly states what is wrong and right as universal law, it can lead to
one specific dilemma, since one cannot break a predetermined law this can lead to many problems in
this theory (Divala, 2019). If goodness is based on strictly following rules the following dilemma
arises, what if to do the right thing, one has to break the clear-cut law set by Kantian principle.
Universally, lying is considered morally wrong but what if lying would lead to decreased security
breaches or cheating, in a 4th Industrial Revolution classroom. For example, if a teacher is asked if it
is possible to hack the school’s computer system the teacher, according to Kantian principle, would
be required to answer the question truthfully, since learners have the devices and skills necessary to
hack systems to look at test questions or change marks on the electronic database, the integrity of the
school system could be lost. In the end, the school’s integrity may have been protected if the learners
were unaware of the possibility of hacking this specific system, even if it meant the teacher being
deceitful to the learners. However, based on the universalizability law, if one teacher lied to their
learners, we would not agree with the post luring result of all teachers lying to their students (even if
it was for good cause) as it would break down the line of trust in classrooms, thus, this intent and
action would not be considered morally good. We cannot come to a conclusion of what would be
better: being deceitful by breaking a universal principle but it yielding better result preventing further
harmful actions compromising morality, or if we should follow the universal law even if it could
wreak havoc.
Kantian theory opposes consequentialism, but the outcomes of actions are important in determining
what is good and bad, and Kantian theory is short-sighted to not consider the consequences of an act.
Kantian theory would be more sound if it did not argue to the exclusion of utilitarianism, rather it
should acknowledge it. But then we would have another problem in terms of deciding if something is
good or bad because consequentialism states that an action is good if the outcomes of said action are
good, but what if one of Kant’s conditions are broken such as using another human as a mere means
but for good intention, so the intention and result of the action is considered good to majority of the
people but someone was used without any benefit to them, would the act be considered good or bad
then? This cannot be answered because it does not respond to goodness according to Kant and it
2
The 4th Industrial Revolution and its ethical implications on the South African education
system.
The new world era that we are currently living in is a world driven by digitization that effects how
we learn, our personal lifestyle choices and even business. This discursive is posed to discuss the 4 th
Industrial Revolution in South African, how it is impacting on South African education by
influencing teaching aids and learning, and I will argue as to how Emmanuel Kant’s theory of ethics
based on duty leads to conflict in a technologically resultant education system in terms of morality
which relates to how intentions and actions are considered good or bad.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution is the transformation and enlightenment of digitalization featuring
“artificial intelligence, neural networks and quantum technologies” (Butler-Adam, 2018:1). This is
changing the nature of global interactions as “physical, digital and biological worlds combine to
create innovations” in a manner that has never occurred before surpassing the rate of advances
compared to prior Industrial Revolutions which acted as a mere ‘practice session’ (Klosters, 2019:1).
Technological advances have implications in education as schools are increasingly adopting more
technological aids including smart boards, online assessments and projected notes rather than
chalkboard notes and education interfaces are transforming into “blended” and online learning
decreasing face-to-face teaching and learning (van der Westhuizen, 2016:3). With this overwhelming
change, a great concern is how this new digital industry will impact on the South African education
system and what the moral implications will be of this fluid industry. The implementation and impact
of the 4th Industrial Revolution relies on context, so it is necessary to acknowledge that schools
experience this revolution according to their resources and capability. For example, a school in
Greenside, Johannesburg is more equipped in resources and teachers are equipped with 21 st century
skills to integrate technology throughout the learning process, however a school in rural Mooi River,
KwaZulu-Natal would have insufficient funding for the necessary resources such as computer
laboratories, Wi-Fi, projectors or personal mobile devices capable of performing complex
technological functions. Thus, advances in education brought on by the 4th Industrial Revolution
could further perpetuate social injustice and inequality if it does not provide equitable learning
experiences for all learners, and practically this seems impossible as an incredibly large amount of
capital to fund resources and appropriate professionals for each and every South African school is
unrealistic. This challenge of equitable resources country wide could never be solved, it would
simply bankrupt too many enterprises who try to fund it. Thus, it is a dilemma.
1
, S. Hodgkinson
Kantian ethics is a branch of “deontology” meaning that what is considered morally correct is based
on one’s responsibility of duty and therefore duty to humanity reigns supreme to “consequentialism”,
“cultural relativity” or “objectivism” (Crisp, 2015:257). Thus, Kantian theory is focused on a moral
system that sees morals as non-binding to religion, and therefore all human beings can practice
morality by possessing critical reasoning, making the main tenets of this theory based on human
rationality where one acts out for good will (Crisp, 2015). Morality is based on “absolute moral
principles” and although this implicitly states what is wrong and right as universal law, it can lead to
one specific dilemma, since one cannot break a predetermined law this can lead to many problems in
this theory (Divala, 2019). If goodness is based on strictly following rules the following dilemma
arises, what if to do the right thing, one has to break the clear-cut law set by Kantian principle.
Universally, lying is considered morally wrong but what if lying would lead to decreased security
breaches or cheating, in a 4th Industrial Revolution classroom. For example, if a teacher is asked if it
is possible to hack the school’s computer system the teacher, according to Kantian principle, would
be required to answer the question truthfully, since learners have the devices and skills necessary to
hack systems to look at test questions or change marks on the electronic database, the integrity of the
school system could be lost. In the end, the school’s integrity may have been protected if the learners
were unaware of the possibility of hacking this specific system, even if it meant the teacher being
deceitful to the learners. However, based on the universalizability law, if one teacher lied to their
learners, we would not agree with the post luring result of all teachers lying to their students (even if
it was for good cause) as it would break down the line of trust in classrooms, thus, this intent and
action would not be considered morally good. We cannot come to a conclusion of what would be
better: being deceitful by breaking a universal principle but it yielding better result preventing further
harmful actions compromising morality, or if we should follow the universal law even if it could
wreak havoc.
Kantian theory opposes consequentialism, but the outcomes of actions are important in determining
what is good and bad, and Kantian theory is short-sighted to not consider the consequences of an act.
Kantian theory would be more sound if it did not argue to the exclusion of utilitarianism, rather it
should acknowledge it. But then we would have another problem in terms of deciding if something is
good or bad because consequentialism states that an action is good if the outcomes of said action are
good, but what if one of Kant’s conditions are broken such as using another human as a mere means
but for good intention, so the intention and result of the action is considered good to majority of the
people but someone was used without any benefit to them, would the act be considered good or bad
then? This cannot be answered because it does not respond to goodness according to Kant and it
2
