The Moral Life of Geeks

[Kendall Clark <kclark@xxxxxxxxx>]

I wrote this for Monkeyfist.com, and I thought someone on this mailing list might be interested in it. It describes a basic moral dilemma that confronts geeks and other technically-minded folks.

Best,
Kendall Clark, The Monkeyfist Collective

Title: The Moral Life of Geeks
Abstract: In a society that is increasingly undemocratic and fascist, what moral dilemmas do technically-minded people face, and how might they resolve them?


     Develop the fundamental theory, algorithms, and software for the
     design and analysis of robust, high-performance, team-based,
     multi-agent cooperative control systems operating in dynamic,
     uncertain, adversarial environments.

   That sounds like fun, where do I apply? As it turns out, the
   [1]Office of Naval Research. It seems that most of the really
   interesting research -- especially in areas of intersection between
   computer software, biotech, and nanotech -- is funded today either
   by the Pentagon System or corporations. But what if you are, like
   most Monkeyfisters, a geek and a leftist? What if you are a person
   inclined to do technical work but also inclined to refuse to work
   for evil institutions, that is, institutions that cause undeserved
   harm?

   The basic dilemma lies between, on the one hand, not developing
   one's innate and learned capacities, which can be a kind of harm to
   oneself and to others, and, on the other, developing one's
   capacities by working for evil institutions.

   The dilemma has many forms. For example, most Monkeyfisters are or
   have been involved in developing [2]free software, often [3]because
   of moral considerations. And yet there is a moral tension: Richard
   Stallman wrote the [4]GPL in order to give software people a way to
   share their efforts freely with neighbors. But one of the guiding
   principles of [5]open source software is that licenses cannot
   [6]discriminate against fields of endeavor. But what about fields of
   endeavor that are evil? What about writing software, or doing
   research, that will, directly or indirectly, be used to cause
   undeserved harm to others?

   I owe myself and others a duty to develop my capacities; and one way
   I've chosen to do that is to be involved in the development of a
   free software infrastructure. But I also owe an obligation to refuse
   and resist cooperation with evil institutions. Under all standard
   free software licenses, anyone may use the fruits of my labor --
   including evil institutions like the Pentagon, the US Armed
   Services, defense contractors like [7]Boeing and [8]United
   Technologies; online porn merchants; biotech corporations like
   [9]Monsanto; and agents of globalization like the [10]World Trade
   Organization. So in developing free software it appears that far
   from resisting cooperation with evil institutions, I'm may be
   directly or indirectly contributing to them.

   I've only used free software development as a representative
   activity; what I've said so far about it applies to many kinds of
   technical R&D. Why shouldn't I discriminate against evil fields of
   endeavor? There are three standard responses:
    1. Technology is amoral. The first response is that since
       technology is morally neutral, so as long as I don't put my work
       to evil ends, I'm not morally blameworthy.
    2. Redefine the dilemma. The second response says that just because
       I can write software or do research that may be used by evil
       institutions, doesn't mean I have to. I could be a waiter or a
       farmer instead.
    3. Applied technology v. basic science. The third response
       distinguishes between basic research and applied technology; in
       doing so, it claims that, since it increases human knowledge and
       is only indirectly, if ever, applied, basic research is morally
       praiseworthy, or at least not prima facie morally blameworthy,
       even if evil institutions ultimately use it to achieve evil
       ends.

   The first response is flawed. It's simply not the case that all
   technology is necessarily amoral. Technology, like any other
   cultural artifact, doesn't just fall from the sky. It's always
   already embedded in, and inextricable from, social space, which is
   always already a political space, which, in turn, is always already
   an ethically-contested space.

   I take this lesson from the work of David Noble and Steven Shapin.
   Technology, with very few exceptions, gets developed in our late
   Western capitalist era because its development gets funded by
   governments and corporations, often in partnership. Failing to take
   that social and political context into account when evaluating
   technologies, and the morality of one's participation in their
   development, is simply to fail to take account of all the relevant
   facts. While some technologies -- for example,
   [11]computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW) -- can be used
   equally well for good or evil ends, technology itself is not
   necessarily amoral.

   The second response is coherent, but problematic if you believe, as
   I do, that persons have a duty, to themselves and to some others, to
   develop their innate and learned capacities as a necessary condition
   of human flourishing. The second response is applicable in what we
   may call limit situations in which the only choice one has is either
   developing one's capacities in association with an evil institution
   or not developing them directly, if at all. What proponents of the
   second response fail to recognize is that limit situations are rare.
   In sum, then, the second response is a useful and valid one, but
   only in some rare situations.

   The third response claims, essentially, that whatever the moral
   status of particular bits of applied technology, or engineering,
   basic research is at least only second-order problematic. While I
   agree that we shouldn't abandon all basic research, even when it's
   reasonable to assume that some of it will be used to achieve evil
   ends, it's unclear whether most technical people do basic research,
   or whether doing basic research funded by evil institutions should
   be done at all. The modern research university is obviously of
   crucial importance, but an ever-increasing majority of research done
   in universities is funded by the Pentagon and corporations. In
   short, that basic research is only second-order morally problematic
   can at best be ameliorative, not dispositive, of the basic dilemma.
   (And in the particular case of software geeks, most software
   development is more like applied tech than basic research, i.e.,
   more like the development of, say, the [12]Apache Web server than
   what Donald Knuth does, and so the third response isn't very helpful
   to the geeks.)

   So how should technical people respond to this dilemma? I suggest
   three kinds of response, the first two of which are specific to the
   development of free software, while the third is generally
   applicable.

   First, we need to reinvigorate moral debate about free software
   (and, by extension, about technology and intellectual property in
   general) by talking not only in terms of freedom, which Richard
   Stallman has done well, but also in terms of responsibility, that
   is, acknowledgment of one's duty to avoid cooperating with
   institutions that are evil. One way to do that is to talk about an
   Ethical Public License, at least as a thought-experiment. What
   might such a license look like? Is it legally possible to write
   binding software license that prohibits particular its use within
   fields of endeavor or particular types of institution? What kind of
   moral claims are involved in such a license? How far should one go
   to prohibit one's work from being used to cause undeserved harm?
   Could the resulting license still make a claim to be free software,
   that is, a tool of extending personal freedom?

   Second, and this applies primarily to those of us who are both
   leftists and geeks, we need to challenge the wholly unreflective
   libertarianism of free software, and Internet, culture. Most geeks,
   I suspect, would not credit the dilemma I've described, if for no
   other reason than that most geeks are habituated libertarians, who
   don't think about their technical work in terms of social or
   institutional analysis.

   Finally, we need, especially in America, to reassert democratic
   control over the kinds of institution that fund technology
   development and basic research, but particularly those that are
   ostensibly democratic: government and universities. In that way we
   may be able to reassert control over public corporations as well.

   What good can come of reasserting democratic control? If
   governments, universities, and corporations were under democratic
   control, they could be harnessed to pursue ends that contribute to,
   rather than impede, human flourishing. Under strong, reinvigorated
   democratic control, the moral status of basic research becomes much
   clearer, since it becomes reasonable to assume that the applications
   of that research will be for good, not for harm. Democratic control
   of these institutions would make limit situations exceedingly rare,
   since it would tend to promote the pursuit of good ends over evil
   ones.

   Technology has liberative potential, but only if it's controlled by
   democratic structures and institutions. And given the sorry state of
   American democracy at present, it's no wonder that geeks, engineers,
   and scientists of good will daily face difficult moral dilemmas. The
   solution to those dilemmas, and the key to harnessing technology for
   the good, is the reassertion of democracy in the face of its slow,
   ongoing demise.

References

   1. http://www.onr.navy.mil/sci_tech/special/muri2001
   2. http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
   3. http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-free.html
   4. http://www.fsf.org/gpl/
   5. http://www.opensource.org/
   6. http://www.opensource.org/osd-rationale.html#clause6
   7. http://www.boeing.com/
   8. http://www.utc.com/
   9. http://www.monsanto.com/
  10. http://www.wto.org/
  11. http://usabilityfirst.com/cscw.html
  12. http://www.apache.org/


--
Posted on Monkeyfist at http://monkeyfist.com/articles/651