From Ethics Washing to Ethics Bashing: A Moral Philosophy View on Tech Ethics

Abstract

Weaponized in support of deregulation and self-regulation, "ethics" is increasingly identified with technology companies' self-regulatory efforts and with shallow appearances of ethical behavior. So-called "ethics washing" by tech companies is on the rise, prompting criticism and scrutiny from scholars and the tech community. The author defines "ethics bashing" as the parallel tendency to trivialize ethics and moral philosophy. Underlying these two attitudes are a few misunderstandings: (1) philosophy is understood in opposition and as alternative to law, political representation, and social organizing; (2) philosophy and "ethics" are perceived as formalistic, vulnerable to instrumentalization, and ontologically flawed; and (3) moral reasoning is portrayed as mere "ivory tower" intellectualization of complex problems that need to be dealt with through other methodologies. This article argues that the rhetoric of ethics and morality should not be reductively instrumentalized, either by the industry in the form of "ethics washing", or by scholars and policymakers in the form of "ethics bashing". Grappling with the role of philosophy and ethics requires moving beyond simplification and seeing ethics as a mode of inquiry that facilitates the evaluation of competing tech policy strategies. We must resist reducing moral philosophy's role and instead must celebrate its special worth as a mode of knowledge-seeking and inquiry. Far from mandating self-regulation, moral philosophy facilitates the scrutiny of various modes of regulation, situating them in legal, political, and economic contexts. Moral philosophy indeed can explainin the relationship between technology and other worthy goals and can situate technology within the human, the social, and the political.

The Legal Challenges and Regulatory Responses to Artificial Intelligence (AI) in China

“…However, there are obvious defects in "soft law" governance, that is, the validity and credibility are easily questioned. For example, the 52-member panel of experts, led by industry representatives, developed a code of ethics that has been criticised as an "ethical washing" whose real purpose is to delay or avoid binding regulation [33]. Moreover, because the government is unable to impose administrative penalties under soft law, its effectiveness is greatly reduced.…”

Implementing AI Ethics: Making Sense of the Ethical Requirements

“…The five principles of transparency, justice and fairness, non-maleficence, responsibility, and privacy are increasingly becoming more prominent in AI ethics issues [26]. However, AI ethics have been criticized for their ethics washing [7] and lack of actionable tools and practices in transitioning the inherent principles as ethical requirements [26,42], requiring a more hands-on-approach in their implementation.…”

Artificial intelligence by any other name: a brief history of the conceptualization of “trustworthy artificial intelligence”

“…While the EU has been incredibly clear as to what obligations an AI system's life cycle needs to fulfill for the system itself to be trustworthy, the meaning of the term is becoming more vague as it becomes increasingly popularized. Therefore, it can fall prey to being "green washed" [72] or "ethics washed" [9,58,59]. The term may be misused to reassure consumers about an AI system that may not actually adhere to any of the expected guardrails or checks.…”