Although this may sound as though I am avoiding the question, I believe that computer science can be defined as either an art, engineering, or science discipline, depending on the viewpoint and perspectives of the person involved. I believe that it does matter how it is categorized but mostly on an individual basis. While there are broader implications involved when defining it as either an engineering or science discipline such as scaring away those who may view it as solely a technical skill, for the most part, anyone interested in computer science should define it however they want to and proceed from there. For example, if you viewed it as an art, then you would most likely design programs for creative uses. On the other hand, if you defined it as an engineering discipline, then you would view it as a much stricter and rigid skill with certain obligations. Based off of the readings, a hacker is anyone that utilizes software and computer skills to solve problems and to help shape the world around them. The key characteristics, at least according to one of the articles above, seems to be a socially awkward individual with an anti-establishment viewpoint. Rather than seeking to gain money, he instead seeks to have an impact using software that can be measured and felt. While I do relate to seeking an impact that can be measured and felt, I do not really identify with many of the attributes listed, especially since I am not a computer science major. Thus, I would not consider myself a hacker. My reaction to this characterization is that while it does have some positive components, I feel as though it is still too generalizing and unfair for those who work with software yet do not fit this description. For the most part, it does seem that the technology industry is a bit of a meritocracy. A meritocracy is defined as a society that tends to be ruled or influenced by individuals with skills and knowledge. In my opinion, especially for an industry that prides itself on innovation and advancements, I would say that the industry being a meritocracy is a good thing. By valuing one's skills and knowledge over one's background, wealth, or beliefs shows that the end result and the final product is what ultimately determines one's worth. In my opinion, I would rank Bill Gates as the most moral and Steve Jobs as the least moral. This isn't to say that any of them are immoral people. The four individuals listed all have done tremendous jobs at transforming our society into something better (for the most part). However, even after reading the above articles praising Jobs (even though he donated very little to charities) and denouncing Gates, I still believe in my initial assessment above. The article above arguing that Jobs didn't need to donate because his impact at Apple was enough to benefit lives is actually quite infuriating. While I have no doubt that Jobs has dramatically improved the lives of many, to say that he is "excused" from spending time to donate to charity is incredibly shortsighted. Does the author truly believe that Jobs helped create products at Apple in the hopes of helping the poor and those in need of help? I honestly don't believe that tossing an iPod at the homeless guy across the street really helps anyone. If we were to actually believe that Apple products were intended to benefit people, Apple should have focused on creating medical products. With Bill Gates, while it is clear that many of his philanthropic efforts may not have succeeded, I don't think it's right for anyone to fault him for at least trying. The sheer amount of time and money he has donated to educational and charitable causes is astounding compared to hundreds of the other billionaires who have only donated and done a fraction of what he has. If the question of who has had the most positive effect on the world rather than the most moral was imposed, I would still say that Gates would be at the top, but that Jobs would no longer be at the bottom. There is no doubt that all four of these individuals have had incredible impacts on the world, and I think it would be unfair to rank any one individual as having the least positive effect.
0 Comments
Hello!
Welcome to my first blog post. I am Dane Jeong, and I am a student at the University of Notre Dame majoring in Economics and minoring in Computing and Digital Technologies. For this class, I am hoping to understand and gain a bit more insight into the morality of technology and the responsibility of those who work with technology for society. I am studying economics because I am interested in analyzing markets and the interactions between people when money is used as a medium. I hope to one day apply the tools I gain through this major to make a positive difference on the world. Normally, I determine whether an action is right or wrong based upon my own moral beliefs and obligations. Typically, these beliefs arise from my own personal experiences and are heavily influenced by factors such as religion, my family, and my friends. As a result, the primary ethical framework I tend to utilize is the Virtue Framework as defined by the Brown University academic article. In this framework, ethical and moral decisions are based upon all parts of an individual's human experience, and decisions are based upon whatever an individual believes a virtuous person would do in that particular situation. This means that I would make my decisions based off of several different considerations. These considerations could include what the laws of my country dictate, what my dad or mom would do in a situation, or what my political inclinations allude to. While Andy Ko makes a convincing argument in his article comparing coding to a power of sorts, I feel as though he is merely scratching the surface of what true power is and its relationship with skills that individuals have. I believe that programming can certainly be considered a power, but only because it is an extension of someone's skills and ideas. In other words, real power is held within one's own unique abilities and thoughts. Coding is merely an expression of one's thoughts that can be visualized and interacted with. Power is having an idea that other people are willing to ascribe to. While this can come in the form of coding, it can also come in the form of a variety of other tasks and skills as well. For example, you hire and pay a plumber to come fix your toilet because he has the skills and abilities to successfully convince you that he or she is able to fix your toilet. For that hour in which he or she is fixing your toilet, he or she has power. The same can be said for coding. Changing the way people use transportation through programs like Uber is power, but the same can be said for any other skills or ideas that other people desire. My interpretation of the Parable of the Talents is that having valuable skills is only useful if positive products or additional skills can be acquired. For example, learning your ABCs is great, but it doesn't really matter unless you truly utilize the alphabet to create words. Learning words is great, but it doesn't really matter unless you create sentences. Learning to create sentences is great, but it doesn't really matter unless you can create stories that effectively communicate ideas. Essentially, those with certain skills have the responsibility to utilize them effectively and to create products that can actually make a difference. This applies to my life as a student and to my skills and talents because it is my responsibility to learn as much as I can and to utilize my skills to make a difference as I enter the real world. |
AuthorHello! I'm Dane Jeong, and this is my blog for the Ethical and Professional Issues Class. ArchivesCategories |