Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!URIACC!LCO114 From: LCO114@URIACC.BITNET (Peter G. Rose) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l Subject: (no subject given) Message-ID: Date: 7 Feb 90 18:18:18 GMT Sender: Discussion of Ethics in Computing Reply-To: Discussion of Ethics in Computing Lines: 70 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway >Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 15:59:42 EST >Comments: Resent-From: "William J. Joel" >Comments: Originally-From: Chris Derobertis >From: "William J. Joel" >Subject: Haller's myopic view > > >Bill Joel ... >Certainly Haller's statement that "special demands and expectations >pertain to people with special, privileged knowledge" is evidence >enough to show that prejudice has even envaded the realm of the computer I would say that it is less than certain. Why do you feel its unreasonable to expect different things from people with different sets of information? What, exactly, do you mean when you use the word 'prejudice'? >world. According to Haller, a person with knowledge is different than >a person with lesser knowledge. Notice I didn't say better, I just said >different. Haller, however, is implying that people with aquired >knowledge "demonstrated integrity and reliability", which if I miss my I missed that. Certainly people with such knowledge have a greater responsibility to show integrity. Whether they DO so is another matter. >mark, *IS* implying that those individuals with lesser knowledge do not >posess any significant amount of integrity and reliability. Thus, Haller This is a logical fallacy, in any case. A => B is not equivilant to (not A) => (not B) >is suggesting that among humans there are those that are superior and >those that rank below superior (notice *I* didn't say inferior), simply >because some have a certain level of knowledge and others don't. 'superior' is a value judgment, supplied by you. Leave it that the educated/informed are DIFFERENT than the ignorant, and can therefore be expected to behave differently. > I hope what I'm about to say doesn't offend anyone, and it's not meant >to be a reflection of Haller, but doesn't Haller's statement sound like >your typical bigot remark? It sounds like Haller's saying that just What, exactly, do you mean by 'bigot', other than someone you disagree with? >because one is intelligent, one should receive special treatment. First It didn't sound that way to me. You heard that, because that's what you were expecting to hear. I thought that his basic premise was that the way you handle people should reflect the way you can reasonably expect them to behave. One of the things that affects a persons behavior is his educational and social background. >of all, if someone is LACKING certain mental capabilities then punish- >ment should be "molded" to those who need special care (retardation, >autism). BUT, if someone realizes and recognizes that the result of Actually, *I* think that punishment is a silly concept to begin with. The goals should be to make restitution, and to prevent recurrence of the incident. In a rich culture, these goals should be persued with a minimum of violence to all involved. >their actions can and may be viewed as unlawful, harmful, immoral, and/ >or unethical then they should be subjected to the letter of the law. In >this case, knowledge should not be an exemption or softening of laws and >punishments, but the acceptance of the fact that if your smart enough >to do the crime and realize the consequences then you should be smart >enough to accept those consequences without questions. To simplify, I don't think that anyone was claiming that the 'punishment' should be LESS, just that it should be DIFFERENT. >Christopher V. DeRobertis Peter G. Rose (Wish)