2. Introduction, Ethical Frameworks and Personal Lenses

Foundations; Frameworks and Personal Lenses; Key Concepts

From an early age, most people experience the concept of Ethics long before they ever learn that there is a term to describe the concept that they are experiencing. Many individuals might say that the term includes some concept of right vs. wrong, or good vs. evil, and how these concepts affect a person’s behaviors. And maybe, they consider Ethics to be the full collection of a person’s attitude and behaviors and their rightness vs. wrongness. But as we can see, often trying to define one term leads us down a rabbit-hole where we discover that we need to define even more terms! In fact, a large part of the first few chapters of this text will focus on the necessity of defining terms and why it is necessary to have a shared understanding of the critical terms which we use to have discussions about ethics.

For example, what do you think is the meaning of the term: Ethics? I’m sure that most folx would be able to come up with their own definition of what they think Ethics means. Take a few moments to see if you can come up with your own definition of what you think the term Ethics means for you… go ahead… we’ll wait.

Now that you have your own definition of Ethics in your mind, let’s now consider a follow-up question: How did you come to have this understanding of what you think Ethics means? Did you previously learn a formal definition of the term from a textbook or a dictionary? Did you learn it from some previous class or somewhere else in school? Were you told what the term means from your parents or grand-parents or other family members? Did you learn the term from your religious leaders? Did you read it in a sacred book? Did you learn it from television or the movies? Did you learn it on the Internet? Did you Google it? From social media? From an influencer? Did you as a generative AI tool? Really think about it. Where did you get your understanding of this term?

And next, while you contemplate all of the possible places where you might have learned the term, the next follow-up question is this: Whomever provided you with this definition… were they right? Where did they learn it from? Is it possible (… just possible …) that they got it wrong? Who, ultimately, gets to decide – for you – what the acceptable definition of this term Ethics may be? Or, for that matter, who gets to decide – for you – what the acceptable definition of any term is going to be?

As you can quickly see, this text will be full of a lot more questions than answers! But it is precisely these questions that will help guide you through thoughtful and insightful discussions about how the ethical aspects of technology are becoming more and more significant every day.

Before continuing, it may be helpful to list some of the significant philosophical movements and just a few of the many ethicists whose work may be considered most relevant to the concept of applying ethical thinking to issues surrounding technology.

• Deontological Ethics (18th Century)Deontological ethics emphasizes duty, rules, and the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions regardless of consequences. This framework provides essential grounding for technology ethics by establishing inviolable principles such as respect for human dignity, autonomy, and rights that must be preserved regardless of technological benefits. In applied technology ethics, deontological thinking helps establish non-negotiable boundaries around issues like privacy, consent, and human agency that cannot be overridden by utilitarian calculations of greater good.
• Rationalism (Enlightenment Era, 17th-18th Century)Rationalism emphasizes reason, logic, and systematic thinking as the primary sources of knowledge and ethical guidance. This movement is foundational to applied technology ethics because it provides methodological approaches for analyzing complex technological systems and their ethical implications through structured reasoning. Rationalist approaches help technologists and ethicists develop systematic frameworks for evaluating emerging technologies rather than relying solely on intuition or tradition.
• Utilitarianism (18th-19th Century)Utilitarianism judges actions based on their consequences and seeks to maximize overall well-being or happiness for the greatest number of people. This consequentialist approach is highly relevant to technology ethics because it provides frameworks for weighing the benefits and harms of technological innovations across large populations. Applied technology ethics frequently employs utilitarian analysis when evaluating trade-offs between technological progress and potential societal risks, such as balancing AI efficiency gains against job displacement or privacy concerns.
• Humanism (Renaissance/Modern Era, 15th-20th Century)Humanism places human dignity, agency, and flourishing at the center of ethical consideration. This perspective is crucial for technology ethics as it ensures that technological development serves human needs and preserves human agency rather than subordinating humans to technological systems. Applied technology ethics draws on humanist principles to advocate for human-centered design, meaningful human oversight of automated systems, and the preservation of human choice and autonomy in technological environments.
• Feminism (19th-20th Century)Feminist ethics emphasizes care, relationships, context, and the examination of power structures, particularly how they affect marginalized groups. This movement brings essential perspectives to technology ethics by highlighting how technological systems can perpetuate or challenge existing inequalities and by advocating for inclusive design processes. Applied technology ethics incorporates feminist insights to address issues like algorithmic bias, the digital divide, and ensuring diverse voices are included in technological development and governance.
• Phenomenology (20th Century)Phenomenology focuses on lived experience, consciousness, and how individuals encounter and make meaning of their world. This movement contributes to applied technology ethics by emphasizing the importance of understanding how people actually experience and interact with technology in their daily lives. Phenomenological approaches help bridge the gap between abstract ethical principles and the concrete realities of how technology affects human experience, informing more nuanced and contextually sensitive ethical frameworks.

There are entire courses that could be taken on each one of these broad philosophical movements. But just knowing their names and descriptions can give you a starting point should you should choose to explore them in greater detail.

Now, let’s take a quick look at just a few of the historical and contemporary ethicists who have studied, expanded upon, and have otherwise contributed greatly to the pursuit of understanding of applied ethics and summarize some of their major propositions and how they might approach ethical issues related to technology today.

• Immanuel Kant (Deontological Ethics)
  • Ethical Center: Kant's ethical philosophy is grounded in the "Categorical Imperative," asserting that moral duties are universal and rational, requiring actions that could be applied without contradiction to all individuals and treating humanity as an end in itself, never merely as a means. Morality stems from reason and duty, independent of consequences.
  • Approach to Technology Today: Kant would scrutinize technological advancements through the lens of human dignity and autonomy, insisting that AI, data collection, and automation must never instrumentalize individuals. He would advocate for strict, universal ethical rules in technology design and usage, such as mandatory privacy by design and algorithmic transparency, ensuring that technological systems uphold inherent human rights and rational agency.
• René Descartes (Rationalism)
  • Ethical Center: Descartes' ethical center is built on methodical doubt, systematic reasoning, and the pursuit of clear and distinct knowledge through logical analysis rather than relying on tradition or emotion. His approach emphasizes breaking down complex problems into manageable parts and building knowledge from foundational principles through careful reasoning.
  • Approach to Technology Today: Addressing contemporary technology ethics, Descartes would advocate for systematic, step-by-step analysis of technological systems, demanding clear logical justification for each design choice and rejecting technological implementations based merely on convenience, profit, or popular opinion without rigorous ethical reasoning.
• John Stuart Mill (Utilitarianism)
  • Ethical Center: Mill's ethical center focuses on maximizing overall happiness and well-being while protecting individual liberty, emphasizing that the greatest good for the greatest number must be balanced against the fundamental importance of personal freedom and self-determination. His harm principle argues that society can only restrict individual liberty to prevent harm to others, creating a framework that values both collective welfare and individual autonomy.
  • Approach to Technology Today: When applied to technology, Mill’s ideas guide ethical evaluations of innovations like autonomous vehicles or predictive algorithms, helping to weigh benefits (e.g., safety, efficiency) against societal costs (e.g., job loss, privacy erosion).
• Martha Nussbaum (Humanism)
  • Ethical Center: Nussbaum's ethical center emphasizes human capabilities, dignity, and flourishing, arguing that societies should be structured to enable all individuals to develop their full human potential across multiple dimensions of well-being. Her capabilities approach focuses on what people are able to do and be, rather than just material resources, emphasizing the importance of agency, practical reason, and meaningful relationships.
  • Approach to Technology Today: Approaching contemporary technology ethics, Nussbaum would evaluate digital systems based on whether they enhance or diminish human capabilities – supporting technologies that expand access to education, meaningful work, and social connection while opposing those that create dependency, reduce critical thinking, or undermine human agency and authentic relationships.
• Carol Gilligan (Feminist Ethics)
  • Ethical Center: Gilligan's ethical center emphasizes an ethics of care that values relationships, context, and responsibility, challenging traditional moral frameworks that prioritize abstract rights and justice over concrete care and connection. Her work highlights how ethical reasoning often involves understanding particular situations and maintaining relationships rather than applying universal principles, and she emphasizes the importance of listening to marginalized voices, especially women's moral perspectives.
  • Approach to Technology Today: In addressing technology ethics today, Gilligan would focus on how digital systems affect relationships and care networks, advocating for inclusive design processes that center the experiences of marginalized users and questioning whether technologies strengthen or weaken our capacity for empathy, care, and authentic human connection.
• Don Ihde (Phenomenology)
  • Ethical Center: Ihde's ethical center focuses on human-technology relations and how humans and technologies mutually shape each other's existence, arguing that we cannot understand human experience without examining our relationships with technological artifacts. His postphenomenological approach emphasizes that technologies are neither neutral tools nor autonomous forces, but rather extend and transform human capabilities while simultaneously shaping how we perceive and act in the world.
  • Approach to Technology Today: Approaching contemporary technology ethics, Ihde would analyze how specific technologies – from smartphones to AI systems – alter our ways of being-in-the-world, advocating for careful attention to how digital interfaces change our perceptual habits, social relationships, and bodily engagement with our environment, while emphasizing that ethical evaluation must consider the concrete, lived experience of human-technology interactions rather than abstract technological assessments.

As you review the descriptions above and the works of these (or other) historical and contemporary ethicists, you will quickly discover that there are not singular, universally accepted definitions for the terms that are used to discuss ethics. As a matter of course, as scholars work to build their own understandings within their own disciplines, they often find themselves redefining previously accepted terms with new or altered meanings and nuances. In fact, you will discover completely new terms being coined to describe specific concepts or novel interpretations of life observations.

In this section we need to explore a bit more detailed information about myself as the author, and how this information is necessary to establish the framework in which the rest of the material for this text will be presented. It is highly suggested that everyone who utilizes this text (instructors and students alike) prepare their own supplemental Full Disclosure section (found below) to help you to identify and understand your own personal frameworks and personal lenses. This will greatly facilitate future topic discussions.

Full Disclosure: Your textbook author is a 61-year-old, white, cisgender, heterosexual married man. He was born and raised Catholic and went to Catholic elementary and high schools. He grew up in the Midwest of the USA in a lower-middle-class household within a homogeneous neighborhood (re: ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status). He has been married to his wife, Kim for 40 years and they have no children by choice (… except for dogs… there will always be dogs!) Your author currently consider himself to be in the middle class on a socioeconomic scale. While your author does have some minor health issues and wears glasses to correct his vision, he would consider himself non-disabled. He is no longer a Catholic and identifies instead as an agnostic.

Your textbook author initially earned a Certificate of Proficiency in Data Processing in the late 1980s. This credential allowed him to begin a decades-long career in Information Technology. Much later on, he earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology with a Minor in Computer Science after having already been actively working in the field for over 20 years. In 1995, he started his own computer consulting firm which is still active today. In the mid-2000s, he earned a Master’s Degree in Computer Science so as to facilitate his transition into full-time teaching at colleges and universities. He considers himself to be a life-long learner and enjoys working with others on challenging activities.

Now, considering these details about your textbook author, I am going to shift modes into a conversational mode just to talk to you about why I shared all of those details: I have shared these detail – not because the I consider myself to be significant or special in any way – but rather it is because these facts (and more) are the things that make up the ‘who’ that I am today as I compose this text. And, as a matter of practice, whenever I attempt to think about the ethics of a given situation or technology, I try to actively take a step backwards and try to view the situation through all of the lenses that make me who I am. It can be very enlightening when I discover, “… Oh! That is where my attitude about this particular thing is coming from!” Sometimes, this type of introspection leads me to be able to say, “Wait a minute! It isn’t ME that thinks this particular way about this particular thing… Rather, I was taught/told/indoctrinated/instructed to think this particular way about this particular thing! And now that I really think about it – for myself – I realize that I am actually free to choose how I actually think about this thing – all on my own!”

So, I offer up my own details here just so that you will have a good understanding of the framework that I am using to present and discuss the various concepts we cover throughout the rest of this text. It is by intentionally inspecting and acknowledging our own lenses, that we might be able to uncover and appropriately restrain our own preconceived biases.

As you engage with the concepts and case studies in this textbook, it is important to recognize the unique set of experiences, values, and perspectives that shape your own ethical viewpoints. In this text, we will call these perspectives your personal lenses. Honest self-reflection can help you become more aware of your own assumptions and biases as you look through your personal lenses, allowing for more thoughtful and inclusive ethical reasoning. To help us consider these personal lenses, consider this internet meme:

Figure 3: Truth perceived from different perspectives

The person standing near the orange light source and looking at the shadow only might say that the shape making this shadow is a square or a cube. And from their perspective at that moment in time, this may seem to be true.

But the person standing near the blue light source and looking at the shadow only might say that the shape making this shadow is a circle or a sphere. And, once again, from their perspective at that moment in time, this too may seem to be true.

However, by taking a step back to view even more pertinent information, a third observer can see that the shape appears to be – as seen from this third perspective – a cylinder suspended in such a way that the two light sources cast these two unique shadows.

Understanding that there may, in fact, be a difference between ‘Truth’ as defined with a capital ‘T’ when viewed from an objective perspective, as compared to what appears to be ‘true’ from our own unique perspective at any moment in time, may help us think more critically about the importance of understanding our own personal lenses.

Consider asking yourself the following questions:

• What aspects of my background (such as age, race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, education, or geographic location) have most influenced the way I see the world?
• How did my family, community, or culture shape my attitudes toward technology, authority, and ethics?
• What are my core values, and where did they come from? Have any of my values changed over time? If so, why?
• Are there beliefs or viewpoints I hold mainly because they were taught to me, rather than ones I have critically examined for myself?
• How do my personal experiences with privilege or marginalization affect the way I interpret ethical dilemmas?
• Have I ever changed my mind about a major ethical issue? What prompted that change?
• In what ways do my current roles (student, employee, family member, etc.) influence my perspective on ethical questions?
• Are there perspectives or experiences I am less familiar with? How might I seek out and learn from voices different from my own?
• When I encounter a viewpoint that challenges my own, how do I typically respond? Am I open to reconsidering my position?
• What steps can I take to recognize and address my own biases as I study Ethics in Technology?

By thoughtfully considering these questions, you can better understand the framework through which you interpret ethical issues and strive for greater objectivity and empathy in your analysis.

Let’s also look at this concept of reviewing a situation both passively (ignoring our own personal lenses and perspectives) and then subsequently reviewing the same situation intentionally (acknowledging and evaluating our own personal lenses and perspectives.) Consider this initial internet meme:

Figure 4: 6 vs. 9 as evaluated from one's own perspective

This meme, similar to the one shown in the Figure 2 earlier in this chapter, illustrates how the same ‘Truth’ (with a capital ‘T’) can actually represent two significantly different ‘truths’ when one only focuses on their own personal lenses and their own current perspective.

In fact, the caption within this meme attempts to establish the importance of trying to help the viewer consider what the other perspectives may look like. But is this easy to do? Consider, for example, all of the personal lenses that this textbook author shared in the previous section. Will I ever be able to realistically look at (or more rightly so – even imagine) any situation through the lenses of a non-white, economically struggling, lesbian, Baptist, still wanting to finish their GED someday…? My personal lenses are so significantly different than their lenses – and yet we may be looking at the exact same situation.

But is this realistic? Is it realistically even possible for us to completely recognize, understand, acknowledge and then fully contain all of our own personal lenses and our own current, unique perspective? Are we certain that there may not be any residual biases still influencing our interpretation of what we perceive to be both ‘true’ as well as the ‘Truth’?

Do I have what it takes to be able to step away from my own personal lenses (without forgetting them or failing to acknowledge them) so that I can try to see through what I imagine another person’s personal lenses might look like? Do I also recognize that my own imaginations of someone else’s personal lenses may be pure fantasy? How can I go about really trying to understand what another’s personal lenses really look like for them?

For me, this kind of effort begins and ends with communications. Finding ways to actually ask another about their own personal lenses and perspectives seems to be a profound beginning. Then, actively listening as they share their own experiences – without judgment – and trying to repeat back your own understanding of what they actually say seems like an effective follow-up. Only after we have a shared understanding of each other’s personal lenses can we really begin to have effective ethical discussions about various technical topics.

Now, for contrast, consider this follow-up internet meme that was based on the original theme:

Figure 5: 6 vs. 9 reconsidered from an objective view

This meme attempts to suggest that ‘Truth’, with a capital ‘T’ exists (a concept that has been heavily debated by many ethicists throughout history!) and can be justly recognized if one simply chooses to step away from their own perspective and view the situation objectively. So, while we might agree with the concept of trying to step outside of our own personal lenses to see a situation from a different perspective, this meme author seems more intent to show that the value from the act itself isn’t about fostering empathy for each person’s perspective (and personal lenses). Rather, this meme author seems to imply that the value is more-so that one of these people can use this technique to prove the other one wrong! For this unknown meme author, it’s not about empathy but rather it is about winning.

As you continue deeper into this text, you will discover there are a number of key concepts that are used repeatedly to help facilitate greater discussions and understandings of the various topics. This list will also serve as a preview of some of the upcoming chapter concepts.

• Definition of terms – Whenever not previously defined, new critical terms will be defined at each introduction so as to present what I, as the author, am using as the definition of each given term. This does not mean I am claiming supreme authority regarding the term! Rather, it is the starting point from which you can determine if you agree with the definition or not and what, if any, compromises might need to be made so as to have a meaningful discussion. It is imperative that individuals who intend to have meaningful interactions at least have a shared understanding of the terms being used – if not full agreement regarding the terms!
• Technology can be found almost everywhere – If you are reading this text, it is most likely that you are already familiar with very many forms of technology. For the vast majority of individuals, the year 2025 is synonymous with technology being integrated into almost every aspect of our existence. And as such, technology is often taken for granted without full consideration of any potential ethical considerations of that tech. For example, how often do we think about how a particular piece of tech was developed or created or distributed? Do we ever wonder just who has access to that tech and who does not have access? Are there any unintended uses of the tech that we should be thinking about?
• The rate of change of technology is NOT linear – Throughout most of human history, technological change was slow and incremental, with major breakthroughs – like the control of fire, the invention of the wheel, and the development of agriculture – occurring over thousands of years. This gradual pace continued through the Bronze and Iron Ages and even into early modern times. However, beginning with the Industrial Revolution, the rate of technological advancement accelerated dramatically, as mechanization, mass production, and new forms of energy rapidly transformed societies in mere centuries. Now within less than the last 100 years, the emergence of computers, the internet, and digital technologies, have brought an unprecedented surge in innovation and human adoption rates. The current era is unique for its exponentially rapid, transformative impact on nearly every aspect of life.
• There is no universally accepted Ethical system – The absence of a universally accepted ethical system means that actions are often interpreted through a variety of moral frameworks, leading to nuanced discrepancies or even diametrically opposed viewpoints. For example, the act of taking another person’s life can be labeled as “murder,” “justifiable homicide,” or “self-defense,” depending on the ethical system, cultural context, or legal tradition applied. What one society or theory may condemn as inherently immoral, another may view as permissible or even obligatory under certain circumstances, illustrating how ethical judgments can range from subtle distinctions to fundamentally conflicting positions. This diversity reflects the influence of different normative theories – such as utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, and cultural relativism – each offering its own criteria for evaluating right and wrong. This illuminates the complexity and subjectivity inherent in ethical reasoning.
• Legal and Societal systems attempt to implement a well defined and accepted Ethical system – Legal and societal systems tend to follow a well-defined and accepted ethical system because such alignment provides a consistent moral foundation for laws and policies, ensuring that actions and decisions are guided by shared principles of fairness, justice, and respect for all individuals. This ethical grounding fosters public trust, transparency, and accountability, helping to protect the rights and interests of all members of society while reducing arbitrary or biased decision-making. Ultimately, integrating ethics into legal and societal frameworks promotes social cohesion, supports long-term sustainability, and enhances the legitimacy and effectiveness of institutions by aligning them with the values and expectations of the community.
• When considering the Ethics of Technology, the issue is almost never the Technology, but rather the issue is almost always the Ethics – The ethical evaluation of technology often reveals that the core issue lies not with the technology itself, but with how humans choose to use it, as the same contemporary tool can enable outcomes at nearly opposite ends of the moral spectrum. For example, artificial intelligence can be harnessed to improve healthcare diagnostics, enhance disaster response, and promote environmental sustainability, yet the very same AI systems can also be deployed for mass surveillance, autonomous weaponry, or discriminatory decision-making. This dual-use dilemma illustrates that technologies are inherently neutral, but their ethical character is defined by human intentions, societal values, and regulatory choices, resulting in applications that can be seen as highly beneficial or deeply problematic depending on context and use. Thus, it is the ethical framework guiding deployment and oversight – not the technology itself – that determines whether its impact is viewed as just, responsible, or harmful.
• With technology, very often science fiction can be viewed as science fact that just hasn’t happened yet – Since the age of radio and television, science fiction authors, movies, and shows have repeatedly imagined technologies that later became reality, often serving as inspiration or conceptual blueprints for real-world innovation. Classic examples include video calling, featured in "The Jetsons" and "Metropolis," now realized through platforms like Zoom; wireless earbuds, reminiscent of Ray Bradbury’s "Fahrenheit 451," now ubiquitous as devices like AirPods; and handheld communicators from "Star Trek," which anticipated today’s smartphones. Science fiction has also envisioned self-driving cars, as described by Isaac Asimov, and immersive virtual reality, as seen in "The Matrix," both of which are now active areas of technological development. Even broader concepts, such as global information networks and intelligent digital assistants, were explored in early fiction long before the internet or AI became commonplace. This demonstrates how speculative storytelling has consistently anticipated – and sometimes directly influenced – the trajectory of technological advancement.

• right vs. wrong – The distinction between actions or choices considered morally acceptable and those considered morally unacceptable.
• good vs. evil – The contrast between that which is morally virtuous, beneficial, or constructive and that which is morally wrong, harmful, or destructive.
• rightness vs. wrongness – The quality of being in accordance with moral or ethical principles versus being in violation of them.
• defining terms – The process of clearly explaining the meaning of words or concepts to ensure clarity and understanding.
• shared understanding – A mutual agreement or common interpretation of ideas, terms, or values among individuals or groups.
• Ethics – The branch of philosophy concerned with moral principles that govern behavior and decision-making.
• Deontological Ethics – An ethical theory that judges the morality of actions based on adherence to rules or duties, regardless of their consequences.
• Rationalism – A philosophical view that emphasizes reason and logical analysis as the primary sources of knowledge and ethical judgment.
• Utilitarianism – An ethical framework that evaluates actions based on their outcomes, aiming to maximize overall happiness or well-being.
• Humanism – A worldview that centers human dignity, agency, and the promotion of individual and collective flourishing as ethical priorities.
• Feminism – An ethical and social movement that advocates for gender equality and emphasizes the importance of care, context, and power dynamics in moral decision-making.
• Phenomenology – A philosophical approach that focuses on individuals’ lived experiences and the ways in which they perceive and interpret the world around them.
• personal lenses – The unique perspectives shaped by an individual’s experiences, values, and cultural background through which they interpret the world.
• rate of technological advancement – The speed at which new technologies are developed and adopted within society.