Ethics in a Digital Age
Summary Papers (2019/2020)
Summarized literature:
• Royakkers et al. (2018) - Normative Ethics (Reader)
• Goodpaster, K.E. (2004). Ethics or excellence? Conscience as a check on the unbalanced
pursuit of organizational goals. Ivey Business Journal (March/April)
(https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/ethics-or-excellence-conscience-as-a-
check-on-the-unbalanced-pursuit-of-organizational-goals/ (Links to an external site.))
• Grigore G., Molesworth M., Watkins R. (2017) New Corporate Responsibilities in the
Digital Economy. In: Theofilou A., Grigore G., Stancu A. (eds) Corporate Social
Responsibility in the Post-Financial Crisis Era. Palgrave Studies in Governance, Leadership
and Responsibility. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp. 41-
62. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-40096-9_3 (Links to an
external site.)
• Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, New
York Times Magazine (September 13): 32–33, 122–124. Retrieved
from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-70818-6_14 (Links to an
external site.)
• Royakkers, L.M.M., Timmer, J., Kool. L, Van Est, Q. (2018). Societal and ethical issues of
digitization. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(2): 127–
142. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-018-9452-x (Links to an external
site.)
• Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective.
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 3-
10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210422417300114 (Links to an
external site.)
• Est, R. van & L. Kool (eds.) (2015). Working on the robot society: visions and insights
from science concerning the relationship between technology and employment, The
Hague, Rathenau Instituut. (https://www.rathenau.nl/sites/default/files/2018-
05/RATH_Working_on_the_Robot_Society_01.pdf (Links to an external site.)), Chapter
2, 5, and 7.
• Nyholm, S. (2017). The ethics of crashes with self-driving cars: A roadmap, I & II. The
Philosophy Compass, 13(7).
(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phc3.12507 (Links to an external
site.) and https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phc3.12506 (Links to an
external site.))
,HC 1 Royakkers et al. (2018) – Normative ethics and responsibility
Ethics = systematic reflection on what is moral à it’s a process; it increases ability to cope
with moral problems
Moral = totality of accepted rules of behavior of a group or culture
Morality = totality of opinions, decisions and actions with which people express what they
think is good or right
Descriptive ethics = describes norms and values in society, without judging. It’s factual
based and can be (scientifically) judged as true or false.
E.g. ‘God exists’ or if stated in law ‘taking bribes is not allowed’
Normative/prescriptive ethics = judges morality giving arguments of ethical theories based
on norms and values (so with opinion). It makes a judgement about what is right opinion,
decision or action. It tries to convince others of correct behavior, but it’s not factual.
E.g. ‘something should be …’ ‘stealing is bad’
Values = lasting convictions or matters that people feel should be strived for in general to be
able to live a good life or make a good society. So not for themselves, but for everyone.
E.g. freedom, equality, justice, brotherhood, health, happiness, charity, safety
Intrinsic values is the objective in itself, instrumental is the means to intrinsic value. E.g.
‘work’ results in high job satisfaction= intrinsic; used as means to become rich= instrumental
Norms = concrete rules that prescribe what actions are required, permitted or forbidden.
They’re specific rules that limit action used as means to realize values. Moral norms often
translated into laws.
E.g. “you have to / you should / thou shall” not kill, not steal
Different types of norms: (1) moral norms, (2) legal norms, (3) precepts of decorum (= don’t
talk with mouth full), (4) rules of play.
Connection with values: (1) values translated into rules, (2) norms ineffective without
underlying values and (3) values hard to achieve without norms
Virtues = character traits that makes a good person or allows to lead a good live. They’re:
1. Desired characteristics expressing a value worth striving for
2. Expressed in action
3. Lasting / permanent foundation for action
4. Always present and used when necessary
5. Influenced by the individual (= virtues can be learned)
Different types of virtues: (1) moral virtues (= desirable characteristics), and (2) intellectual
virtues (= knowledge/skills)
Similar to values, difference is that virtues is the character development to realize values.
Moral virtues have to be present in character employees to withhold to values.
E.g. justice, course, honesty, loyalty, creativity, integrity, humor
Ethical theories:
We judge a moral action from three perspectives: person, action and consequences
1. Virtue ethics: virtuous, actor, looking at person (judges quality person acting that
makes action right/wrong), Aristoteles
2. Deontology / duty ethics: norms, action (judge action itself), Kant
, 3. Utilitarianism / consequentialism: values, consequences (judge consequences,
action is good if consequences are good / best outcome), Bentham
Utilitarianism – values, consequences
Bentham:
Measures the consequences of actions against human pleasure / happiness. Action in itself
is not right / wrong. Action is useful (right) or damaging (wrong), related to intrinsic value.
Pleasure is the only thing that is good in itself, other things are instrumental values.
Experience is central, people ‘know’ what provides pleasure / pain and how to realize it.
Based on experience people form a moral judgement without interference authority.
Ø Utility Principle = greatest happiness for the greatest number, measured through
moral balance sheet (= costs against benefits of each possible action for all
individuals, action with most utility is preferred)
But not simple, due to (1) pleasure of different people can’t be compared, pleasure is
subjective, and (2) difficult to compare actions (e.g. reading book vs eat ice cream)
Mill:
Two differences / critiques to Bentham’s calculus:
(1): he adds quality, human > pig & Socrates > fool
(2): action can lead to exploitation and shouldn’t be in conflict with human nature and
dignity, resulting in
Ø Freedom Principle = everyone free to strive for own pleasure, as long they don’t
hinder pleasure of others. E.g. soft drugs: free to use yourself, legislator has no right
to intervene in personal decisions because it violates individual’s freedom
Ø No harm Principle = One is free to do what one wishes, but only that no harm is done
to others. E.g. drunkenness: if once being violent, get penalty
Criticism utilitarianism:
(3): consequences can’t be seen objectively and are unpredictable, uncertain and unknown.
Solution: work with expected consequences
(4): problem of distributive justice, distribution is neglected by focusing only on greatest
happiness greatest number and not on equal division of costs and benefits.
Others disagree, they believe it leads to a balanced distribution: (1) marginal utility
decreases when someone is already rich (€100 provides less pleasure), and (2) inequality
leads to jealousy to pain, which is avoided
(5): personal relationships are ignored, everybody is measured anonymously where only
total pleasure counts instead of personal happiness of specific person. E.g. shipwreck
(6): some actions maximize pleasure, but aren’t morally acceptable ‘end justifies the
means’. E.g. fraud to avoid bankruptcy
Solution: rule utilitarianism = looks at consequences of rules to increase happiness, if rule
promotes happiness it turns into moral rule. E.g. “measurement data should be presented
correctly” à yes, promotes happiness therefore moral rule which can’t be breached.
- Conditional rules = rules of thumb
- Unconditional rules = apply in every circumstance to all people without exception
Summary Papers (2019/2020)
Summarized literature:
• Royakkers et al. (2018) - Normative Ethics (Reader)
• Goodpaster, K.E. (2004). Ethics or excellence? Conscience as a check on the unbalanced
pursuit of organizational goals. Ivey Business Journal (March/April)
(https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/ethics-or-excellence-conscience-as-a-
check-on-the-unbalanced-pursuit-of-organizational-goals/ (Links to an external site.))
• Grigore G., Molesworth M., Watkins R. (2017) New Corporate Responsibilities in the
Digital Economy. In: Theofilou A., Grigore G., Stancu A. (eds) Corporate Social
Responsibility in the Post-Financial Crisis Era. Palgrave Studies in Governance, Leadership
and Responsibility. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp. 41-
62. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-40096-9_3 (Links to an
external site.)
• Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, New
York Times Magazine (September 13): 32–33, 122–124. Retrieved
from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-70818-6_14 (Links to an
external site.)
• Royakkers, L.M.M., Timmer, J., Kool. L, Van Est, Q. (2018). Societal and ethical issues of
digitization. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(2): 127–
142. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-018-9452-x (Links to an external
site.)
• Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective.
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 3-
10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210422417300114 (Links to an
external site.)
• Est, R. van & L. Kool (eds.) (2015). Working on the robot society: visions and insights
from science concerning the relationship between technology and employment, The
Hague, Rathenau Instituut. (https://www.rathenau.nl/sites/default/files/2018-
05/RATH_Working_on_the_Robot_Society_01.pdf (Links to an external site.)), Chapter
2, 5, and 7.
• Nyholm, S. (2017). The ethics of crashes with self-driving cars: A roadmap, I & II. The
Philosophy Compass, 13(7).
(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phc3.12507 (Links to an external
site.) and https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phc3.12506 (Links to an
external site.))
,HC 1 Royakkers et al. (2018) – Normative ethics and responsibility
Ethics = systematic reflection on what is moral à it’s a process; it increases ability to cope
with moral problems
Moral = totality of accepted rules of behavior of a group or culture
Morality = totality of opinions, decisions and actions with which people express what they
think is good or right
Descriptive ethics = describes norms and values in society, without judging. It’s factual
based and can be (scientifically) judged as true or false.
E.g. ‘God exists’ or if stated in law ‘taking bribes is not allowed’
Normative/prescriptive ethics = judges morality giving arguments of ethical theories based
on norms and values (so with opinion). It makes a judgement about what is right opinion,
decision or action. It tries to convince others of correct behavior, but it’s not factual.
E.g. ‘something should be …’ ‘stealing is bad’
Values = lasting convictions or matters that people feel should be strived for in general to be
able to live a good life or make a good society. So not for themselves, but for everyone.
E.g. freedom, equality, justice, brotherhood, health, happiness, charity, safety
Intrinsic values is the objective in itself, instrumental is the means to intrinsic value. E.g.
‘work’ results in high job satisfaction= intrinsic; used as means to become rich= instrumental
Norms = concrete rules that prescribe what actions are required, permitted or forbidden.
They’re specific rules that limit action used as means to realize values. Moral norms often
translated into laws.
E.g. “you have to / you should / thou shall” not kill, not steal
Different types of norms: (1) moral norms, (2) legal norms, (3) precepts of decorum (= don’t
talk with mouth full), (4) rules of play.
Connection with values: (1) values translated into rules, (2) norms ineffective without
underlying values and (3) values hard to achieve without norms
Virtues = character traits that makes a good person or allows to lead a good live. They’re:
1. Desired characteristics expressing a value worth striving for
2. Expressed in action
3. Lasting / permanent foundation for action
4. Always present and used when necessary
5. Influenced by the individual (= virtues can be learned)
Different types of virtues: (1) moral virtues (= desirable characteristics), and (2) intellectual
virtues (= knowledge/skills)
Similar to values, difference is that virtues is the character development to realize values.
Moral virtues have to be present in character employees to withhold to values.
E.g. justice, course, honesty, loyalty, creativity, integrity, humor
Ethical theories:
We judge a moral action from three perspectives: person, action and consequences
1. Virtue ethics: virtuous, actor, looking at person (judges quality person acting that
makes action right/wrong), Aristoteles
2. Deontology / duty ethics: norms, action (judge action itself), Kant
, 3. Utilitarianism / consequentialism: values, consequences (judge consequences,
action is good if consequences are good / best outcome), Bentham
Utilitarianism – values, consequences
Bentham:
Measures the consequences of actions against human pleasure / happiness. Action in itself
is not right / wrong. Action is useful (right) or damaging (wrong), related to intrinsic value.
Pleasure is the only thing that is good in itself, other things are instrumental values.
Experience is central, people ‘know’ what provides pleasure / pain and how to realize it.
Based on experience people form a moral judgement without interference authority.
Ø Utility Principle = greatest happiness for the greatest number, measured through
moral balance sheet (= costs against benefits of each possible action for all
individuals, action with most utility is preferred)
But not simple, due to (1) pleasure of different people can’t be compared, pleasure is
subjective, and (2) difficult to compare actions (e.g. reading book vs eat ice cream)
Mill:
Two differences / critiques to Bentham’s calculus:
(1): he adds quality, human > pig & Socrates > fool
(2): action can lead to exploitation and shouldn’t be in conflict with human nature and
dignity, resulting in
Ø Freedom Principle = everyone free to strive for own pleasure, as long they don’t
hinder pleasure of others. E.g. soft drugs: free to use yourself, legislator has no right
to intervene in personal decisions because it violates individual’s freedom
Ø No harm Principle = One is free to do what one wishes, but only that no harm is done
to others. E.g. drunkenness: if once being violent, get penalty
Criticism utilitarianism:
(3): consequences can’t be seen objectively and are unpredictable, uncertain and unknown.
Solution: work with expected consequences
(4): problem of distributive justice, distribution is neglected by focusing only on greatest
happiness greatest number and not on equal division of costs and benefits.
Others disagree, they believe it leads to a balanced distribution: (1) marginal utility
decreases when someone is already rich (€100 provides less pleasure), and (2) inequality
leads to jealousy to pain, which is avoided
(5): personal relationships are ignored, everybody is measured anonymously where only
total pleasure counts instead of personal happiness of specific person. E.g. shipwreck
(6): some actions maximize pleasure, but aren’t morally acceptable ‘end justifies the
means’. E.g. fraud to avoid bankruptcy
Solution: rule utilitarianism = looks at consequences of rules to increase happiness, if rule
promotes happiness it turns into moral rule. E.g. “measurement data should be presented
correctly” à yes, promotes happiness therefore moral rule which can’t be breached.
- Conditional rules = rules of thumb
- Unconditional rules = apply in every circumstance to all people without exception
