Fostering the development andapplications of data science while ensuring the respect of human rights and of the values shapingopen, pluralistic and tolerant information societies is a great opportunity of which we can andmust take advantage.
Floridi and Taddeo are optimistic here they see ethics and data science as compatible, not opposing forces. But that balance is easier to describe than to actually achieve in practice.
Service design takes a collaborative co-design approach to work, involving users,frontline staff and policymakers throughout.
This is basically applied common good ethics bringing everyone affected into the process, not just decision makers at the top.
the government’s use of data does not and cannot limit itself to focusing solely onindividual needs or rights.
Government data use has to balance individual privacy against collective benefit which means the common good lens is essential here, not just rights.
Ethical frameworks provide helpful guidance aboutwhat you should—and should not—do in relationto data projects
So ethical frameworks are guides, not rulebooks. This matches exactly what the Markkula Framework says there is no ethics algorithm. The judgment call still belongs to the human.
we will need to find or create spaces in our lives where we can "practice" democracy -- beginning with our families (responsibilities shared equitably between parents) and our places of work (increased worker participation)
This is interesting the workplace as a place to practice democracy. Most workplaces are hierarchical by design.
every person in an organization is morally responsible for his or her own behavior, and any efforts to change that behavior should focus on the individual.
This is how most corporate ethics training works for protocols and individual compliance. But if the whole system is broken, individual training alone can't fix it.
our historical traditions place a high value on individual freedom, on personal rights, and on allowing each person to "do her own thing".
This is why the common good is so hard to sell in Western cultures. Rights language always wins the argument. Makes me wonder if the common good approach needs a different vocabulary to actually gain traction.
Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved.
This is the key line. Equal treatment doesn't mean identical treatment. Connects to workplace equity debates same rules don't always produce fair outcomes
need, desert, contribution, and effort—we acknowledge as justifying differential treatment, then, are numerous.
Four different criteria for fairness and they can easily conflict. Should a struggling employee get more support or less reward like contribution? No easy answer.
Relying exclusively on a rights approach to ethics tends to emphasize the individual at the expense of the community.
This feels very relevant to business ethics. Companies that focus only on shareholder rights often ignore community harms.
rights should not be the sole consideration in ethical decision-making
This is interesting even the rights article admits rights alone are not enough. Connects to the utilitarianism reading too. Seems like no single framework is sufficient on its own.
it's often difficult, if not impossible, to measure and compare the values of certain benefits and costs.
This is the biggest practical problem. How do you put a number on human dignity or community harm..? Business decisions get made this way all the time though.
the greatest good for the greatest number."
who counts as part of "the greatest number"? Employees? Shareholders? Future generations?
When we neglect or ignore our conscience, it becomes more difficult for us to turn around.
This connects to Kytes example ignoring small voices repeatedly makes ethical behavior harder over time.
The greatestEnd of search result challenge in business decision-making is moving beyond the letter of the law to create a culture of ethics
Who is actually responsible for building that culture? leadership, employees, or both?
Ethics consists of the standards of behavior to which we hold ourselves in our personal and professional lives.
This definition is more expansive than i anticipated. Kytes other text similarly opposes reducing ethics to mere rules or opinions, as both readings suggest that ethics is an active practice rather than a passive adherence. Are ethical standards consistent between the workplace and home, or does the professional setting alter them?