Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2023

Consequentialist Ethics

Consequentialist ethics is a category of ethical theories that judge the rightness or wrongness of an action by its consequences. There are many types of consequentialist ethics, but some of the major ones are:

– Utilitarianism, which holds that an action is right if it maximizes happiness or well-being for the greatest number of people.

– Hedonism, which holds that an action is right if it maximizes pleasure or avoids pain for the agent or for everyone.

– Rule consequentialism, which holds that an action is right if it conforms to a rule that maximizes good consequences in general.

– State consequentialism, which holds that an action is right if it promotes the interests or welfare of the state or society.

– Ethical egoism, which holds that an action is right if it maximizes the agent’s own self-interest.

– Ethical altruism, which holds that an action is right if it maximizes the interests or welfare of others, especially those in need.

– Two-level consequentialism, which holds that an action is right if it follows an intuitive moral rule that usually leads to good consequences, but allows for exceptions when critical thinking shows that a different action would have better consequences.

– Motive consequentialism, which holds that an action is right if it is motivated by a desire to bring about good consequences

image credit: Adobe StockConsequentialist Ethics

Consequentialist Ethics – how to justify the ends?

Some of the major critiques of consequentialist ethics are:

– It ignores individual rights and other values that are not reducible to consequences, such as justice, fairness, or dignity. It may justify violating the rights or interests of some people for the sake of the greater good.

– It relies on calculation and prediction, which can be time-consuming, difficult, or impossible. It may require people to have complete and accurate information about the consequences of their actions, which is often unavailable or uncertain.

– It is not proportionate, depending on how one defines the good and the scope of moral obligation. It may require people to sacrifice their own interests or preferences for the common good, even in trivial matters, or it may allow people to pursue their own interests or preferences at the expense of others, as long as they produce some good consequences.

Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2022

What is Ethics?

A definitional Primer

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with moral principles and how they apply to human conduct. Ethics is also the study of what makes an action right or wrong, good or bad, and how people can justify their moral judgments. Ethics, understood as the capacity to think critically about moral values and direct our actions in terms of such values [Churchill 1999], particularly when confronting a new unfamiliar situation or technology (e.g. AI). Ethics can be divided into two main areas: normative ethics and applied ethics.

Normative ethics is the theoretical part of ethics that develops and evaluates moral theories. Moral theories are general frameworks that provide guidelines for moral decision-making and action. Some of the major moral theories are utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, and contractarianism.

Applied ethics is the practical part of ethics that applies moral theories to specific issues or cases. Applied ethics deals with controversial topics such as abortion, euthanasia, animal rights, environmental ethics, business ethics, and bioethics. Applied ethics aims to find solutions or guidelines for real-world ethical problems.

The Importance of Ethics

Ethics is important because it helps people to understand and evaluate their own and others’ actions, to resolve moral dilemmas, and to promote social justice and human rights. Ethics also helps people to develop their critical thinking, reasoning, and communication skills. Ethical frameworks can be used in a process for improvement of ethical performance.

Image Credit: Adobe StockEthics Quandaries

Ethical Quandaries

Ethical frameworks are most helpful for individuals when they face ethical dilemmas or uncertainties about what to do in a given situation. Ethical frameworks can provide guidance, clarity, and consistency for ethical decision-making and action. They can also help individuals to justify and explain their ethical choices to themselves and others. Ethical frameworks can also help individuals to compare and evaluate different perspectives and arguments. However, ethical frameworks are not always sufficient or conclusive, and they may also have limitations or challenges. Therefore, individuals should also use their own judgment, intuition, and empathy when applying moral frameworks to ethical issue

Ethical frameworks are most helpful for organizations when they need to establish and maintain their values, goals, and responsibilities in relation to their stakeholders and society. Ethical frameworks can help organizations to align their actions with their mission and vision, and to enhance their reputation and trustworthiness. Ethical frameworks can also help organizations to prevent or resolve ethical conflicts or crises that may arise internally or externally. Moral frameworks can also help organizations to innovate and adapt to changing ethical expectations and standards. However, ethical frameworks are not always easy or straightforward to implement or follow, and they may also have trade-offs or risks. Therefore, organizations should also use their own leadership, culture, and engagement when applying ethical frameworks to specific situations.

References

[Churchill 1999] Churchill, L. R. (1999). Are we professionals? A critical look at the social role of bioethicists. Daedalus, 128(4), 253-274.

Posted on Monday, May 16, 2022

Deontic Ethics

Ethics in Action

A Deontic ethical framework is a normative ethical theory that judges the morality of an action based on whether it follows a set of rules or principles, rather than on its consequences. The word deontic comes from the Greek word deon, meaning duty or obligation. Deontic ethics is also known as duty-based ethics or deontology. According to deontic ethics, actions are morally right or wrong in themselves, regardless of the outcomes they produce. The motives of the agent who performs the action are also irrelevant to its moral value. What matters is whether the action conforms to a moral rule that is binding on all rational beings. For example, lying is always wrong according to deontic ethics, even if it saves someone’s life or prevents harm.

There are different versions of deontic ethics, depending on how they specify the source and content of the moral rules. Some deontologists derive the rules from a divine command, a natural law, a social contract, or a rational intuition. Some deontologists are monists, meaning they believe there is one supreme rule that governs all moral decisions, such as the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant. Other deontologists are pluralists, meaning they believe there are multiple rules that sometimes conflict with each other, such as the prima facie duties of W.D. Ross (See e.g., [Ross 1939]).

Deontic Ethics – Duty

The main advantage of deontic ethics is that it provides clear and objective guidance for moral action. It does not depend on subjective preferences, emotions, or consequences that are uncertain or unpredictable. It also respects the dignity and autonomy of rational agents by treating them as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. The main weakness of deontic ethics is that it can lead to morally problematic results when the rules conflict with each other or with common sense. It can also be rigid and inflexible in dealing with complex and changing situations. It may not account for the moral relevance of circumstances, intentions, or relationships. It may also be difficult to justify or agree on the origin and validity of the moral rules. The following are some of the different deontic ethic frameworks:

Kantianism: This is the most influential and well-known deontic ethic framework, developed by Immanuel Kant ( see e.g., [Kant 1785]). It holds that the only thing that is good in itself is a good will, which acts from a sense of duty. Duty is determined by the categorical imperative, a universal and rational principle that commands us to act in such a way that we can will our maxim to become a universal law. Kantianism respects the dignity and autonomy of rational beings by treating them as ends in themselves, not as means to an end.
Contractarianism: This is a deontic ethic framework that bases morality on a hypothetical social contract, a rational agreement among free and equal persons to abide by certain rules or principles for their mutual benefit. The contract can be seen as a way of justifying or deriving moral rules, or as a way of testing their validity. Contractarianism can take different forms, such as the original position of John Rawls (See e.g., [Rawls 1971]), the state of nature of Thomas Hobbes (See e.g., [Hobbes 1651]), or the veil of ignorance of John Harsanyi (See e.g.,Harsanyi 1977]).
Natural rights theory: This is a deontic ethic framework that holds that every individual has certain universal and inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and property, that are inherent to human nature and independent of any actions or ethics. These rights are derived from natural law, a moral order that is discoverable by reason and binds all rational beings. Natural rights theory can be traced back to the works of John Locke (See e.g., [Locke 1689]), Hugo Grotius (See e.g., [Grotius 1625]), and Samuel Pufendorf (See e.g., [Pufendorf 1673]).
Divine command theory: This is a deontic ethic framework that holds that an action is right if and only if God has commanded it to be right, and wrong if and only if God has forbidden it. God’s commands are the ultimate source and standard of morality, and human reason and conscience are subordinate to divine revelation. Divine command theory can be found in various religious traditions, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Pluralistic deontology This is a deontic ethic framework that holds that there are multiple moral rules or principles that sometimes conflict with each other, and that there is no single supreme rule that can resolve these conflicts. Instead, we have to use our judgment and intuition to weigh and balance the different rules in each situation. One example of pluralistic deontology is the prima facie duties of W.D. Ross, such as fidelity, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement, and non-maleficence.
Agent-centered deontology: This is a deontic ethic framework that focuses on the moral obligations and permissions of the agent who performs an action, rather than on the rights or interests of the patient who is affected by the action. Agent-centered deontology can include special duties to oneself or to specific others, such as friends or family, or special permissions to act in self-defense or out of partiality. Agent-centered deontology can also involve agent-relative reasons or values, such as honor, integrity, or loyalty.
Patient-centered deontology: This is a deontic ethic framework that focuses on the moral rights or interests of the patient who is affected by an action, rather than on the obligations or permissions of the agent who performs the action. Patient-centered deontology can include negative rights to be free from harm or interference, or positive rights to receive aid or assistance. Patient-centered deontology can also involve patient-relative reasons or values, such as dignity, respect, or welfare.
Monistic deontology: This is a deontic ethic framework that holds that there is one supreme moral rule or principle that governs all moral decisions, and that all other rules or principles are derived from or subordinate to it. The supreme rule can be formulated in different ways, such as the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, or the principle of universalizability of R.M. Hare (See e.g., [Hare 1981]).
Rule deontology: This is a deontic ethic framework that holds that morality consists of following a set of general and abstract rules or principles that apply to all situations and circumstances. The rules can be derived from various sources, such as reason, intuition, tradition, or authority.

Deontic ethics has some advantages over consequentialist and virtue ethics. One advantage is that deontic ethics can provide clear and objective guidance for moral action, based on a set of rules or principles that are binding on all rational beings. Consequentialist ethics – even the seemingly quantitative utilitarianism, by contrast, can be vague and uncertain, as it depends on predicting and evaluating the outcomes of actions, which can be complex and unpredictable. Virtue ethics, by contrast, can be subjective and relative, as it depends on cultivating and expressing certain character traits, which can vary across cultures and situations. Another advantage of deontic ethics is that it respects the dignity and autonomy of rational beings, by treating them as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. Consequentialist ethics, by contrast, can violate the rights and interests of individuals or minorities, by sacrificing them for the sake of maximizing the good for the majority or the whole. Virtue ethics, by contrast, can neglect the rights and interests of others, by focusing on one’s own moral excellence or happiness. A third advantage of deontic ethics is that it can account for strong and widely shared moral intuitions about our duties, such as not lying, stealing, killing, or harming others, even when good consequences are in the offing. Consequentialist ethics, by contrast, can justify immoral actions, such as lying, stealing, killing, or harming others, if they produce better consequences overall. Virtue ethics, by contrast, can ignore immoral actions, such as lying, stealing, killing, or harming others, if they are consistent with one’s moral character or ideals.

[Grotius 1625] Grotius, H. (2005). The rights of war and peace (R. Tuck, Ed.). Liberty Fund. (Original work published 1625)

[Harsanyi 1977] Harsanyi, J. C. (1977). Rational behavior and bargaining equilibrium in games and social situations. Cambridge University Press.

[Hare 1981] Hare, R.M. (1981). Moral thinking: Its levels, method and point. Oxford University Press.

[Hobbes 1651] Hobbes, T. (1996). Leviathan (R. Tuck, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1651)

[Kant 1785] Kant, I. (1998). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785)

[Locke1689] Locke, J. (1988). Two treatises of government (P. Laslett, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1689)

[Pufendorf 1673] Pufendorf, S. (2003). The whole duty of man according to the law of nature (I. Hunter & D. Saunders, Trans.). Liberty Fund. (Original work published 1673)

[Rawls 1977] Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.

[Ross 1939] Ross, W.D. (1939). Foundations of ethics. Oxford University Press

Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2021

Virtue Ethics

Ethics in Action

Virtue ethics is a normative ethical theory that focuses on the character of the moral agent rather than the rightness or wrongness of an action. It is one of the three major approaches in ethics, along with consequentialism and deontology. Virtue ethics is based on the idea that we should aim to cultivate virtuous habits that will help us act in accordance with moral values. The origin of virtue ethics can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy, especially the works of Plato and Aristotle. They argued that the goal of human life is to achieve eudaimonia, which is often translated as happiness or well-being, but also implies a sense of fulfillment and flourishing. To attain eudaimonia, one must develop and exercise the virtues, which are excellences of character that enable us to function well as rational and social beings. Some examples of virtues are courage, justice, wisdom, honesty, generosity, and loyalty. These are not fixed rules or principles, but rather flexible and context-dependent dispositions that guide our actions, thoughts, and feelings in various situations. Virtues are acquired through practice and habituation, not through following commands or calculating consequences. As Aristotle famously said, “We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts” .

Virtue Ethics

One of the distinctive features of virtue ethics is that it emphasizes the role of practical wisdom (phronesis) in moral decision-making. Practical wisdom is the ability to discern the best course of action in a given circumstance, taking into account the relevant facts, the moral values at stake, and the particular situation of the agent. It is not a scientific or theoretical knowledge, but rather a skill that is learned through experience and education. Practical wisdom enables us to apply the general ideals of virtue to concrete cases and to balance different and sometimes conflicting values. Virtue ethics has several advantages over other ethical theories. First, it provides a more realistic and holistic account of human nature and morality, recognizing that we are not only rational but also emotional, social, and embodied beings. Second, it offers a more positive and aspirational vision of ethics, encouraging us to develop our moral character and to seek excellence rather than merely avoid wrongdoing. Third, it respects the diversity and complexity of moral situations, allowing for flexibility and nuance rather than imposing rigid and universal rules.

However, virtue ethics also faces some challenges and criticisms. One is that it may be too vague or subjective to provide clear and consistent guidance for moral action. How do we define and measure the virtues? How do we resolve conflicts between different virtues or different interpretations of the same virtue? How do we deal with moral dilemmas where no option seems virtuous? Another challenge is that virtue ethics may be too demanding or elitist to be applicable to ordinary people. How can we attain the virtues in a world full of temptations, pressures, and obstacles? How can we ensure that we have the proper education and environment to foster our moral development? How can we avoid being influenced by corrupting factors such as self-interest, bias, or prejudice?

Despite these difficulties, virtue ethics remains a rich and influential tradition that has inspired many thinkers and practitioners across different fields and cultures. Some of the major variants in virtue ethics include:

Eudaimonist Virtue Ethics: This framework is based on the ancient Greek concept of eudaimonia, which means happiness or well-being. It holds that the ultimate goal of human life is to achieve eudaimonia, which is possible only by developing and exercising the virtues. The virtues are excellences of character that enable us to function well as rational and social beings. The most influential version of this framework was proposed by Aristotle, who identified a list of moral and intellectual virtues and argued that they are acquired through habituation and education.

Agent-Based and Exemplarist Virtue Ethics: This framework is based on the idea that we can identify the virtues by looking at the traits and actions of moral exemplars, such as saints, heroes, or role models. It holds that the virtues are not defined by rules or principles, but by common-sense intuitions that we as observers have about admirable people. The most influential version of this framework was proposed by Michael Slote (see e.g. [Slote 2020]), who argued that the virtues are based on empathic caring and respect for others.

Target-Centered Virtue Ethics: This framework is based on the idea that we can identify the virtues by looking at the ends or goals that they aim at. It holds that the virtues are not defined by human nature or moral ideals, but by the specific context and situation in which they are exercised. The most influential version of this framework was proposed by Christine Swanton ( see e.g., [Swanton 2003]), who argued that the virtues are based on promoting the well-being of oneself and others in a pluralistic and complex world.

Ethics of Care: This framework is based on the idea that we can identify the virtues by looking at the relationships and responsibilities that we have with others. It holds that the virtues are not defined by abstract or universal values, but by concrete and particular needs and emotions. The most influential version of this framework was proposed by Carol Gilligan ( See e.g. [Gilligan 1982]), who argued that the virtues are based on caring and nurturing, especially for those who are vulnerable or dependent.

[Gilligan 1982]. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

[Slote 2020] Slote, M. (2020). Agent-based virtue ethics. Handbuch Tugend und Tugendethik, 1-10. Springer

[Swanton 2003] Swanton, C. (2003). Virtue ethics: A pluralistic view. Clarendon Press.

Posted on Sunday, November 7, 2021

Towards a Blockchain Voting Roadmap

Voting systems are a problem space that matter to humans because of the actions required of participants, and the impacts of voting decisions. Reports of unauthorized voting, of possible election interference by foreign powers, of voter disenfranchisement, and of technological failures call into question election integrity. Automated voting systems promise efficiency and improved accuracy. This improvement comes from elimination in the electoral processes of humans that may be error prone, or otherwise biased. Information, computing, communication and connectivity technologies offer capabilities that are not leveraged by existing paper voting systems.

Maybe it is time fore some outside of the box thinking. Suitable electronic systems may enable other democratic forms beyond representative democracy or direct democracy. From the perspective of an existing voting process, blockchain voting systems are an example of digital transformation. Transforming voting is also subject to a number of risks or threats regarding political exclusion, legitimacy issues, identity and privacy/ secrecy concerns.

Roadmaps as a retrospective provide the opportunity to learn from past mistakes. But, the main value of prospective technology roadmaps, is as a decision aid in developing the technology. Such roadmaps identify the sequence of evolutionary technology improvements needed. Community engagement and recognition of roadmaps as emergent rather than centrally planned are key.

Deployments of new voting systems by election organizers is easier in “greenfield” situations. This is because existing voting procedures do not need to be displaced. Election organizers have used a variety of different implementation and delivery models for other voting systems. These implementation and delivery models could be applied by election organizers for a blockchain based voting system as well. A blockchain voting system could be designed for a single organization. An alternative design might prefer a single instance be usable by multiple organizations. The designer of a blockchain voting service could offer it “as a Service”. The Service hides the implementation details. Alternatively, the developer could build on an existing blockchain infrastructure where the blockchain implementation is explicit.

Roadmaps can provide a decisional framework; and identify milestones to determine progress. Roadmaps with fewer dimensions help to concentrate efforts to improve performance in those dimensions. Roadmapping can help clarify the different areas where blockchain voting systems may be more easily implementable and deployable. Blockchain voting systems targeting market based or corporate governance may be more tractable in the near term. Establishing broader consumer familiarity with the technology may eventually lead to use in political governance. To read further a lengthier published article is available : Towards a Blockchain Voting Roadmap

Whether you are a researcher, business professional, or social entrepreneur, the solutions you develop to the problems that you face matter! Framing and reframing the problem from different perspectives can enable you to see past constraints. These constraints may not exist from a different perspective. Developing a client-centric, solution-agnostic problem statement can enable the needed creative thinking.

If you need help bringing the power of perspective to your clients’ needs problem statement contact me.

Posted on Saturday, February 27, 2021

When to Think Outside The Box

Thinking outside the box simply means that you’re willing to consider different solutions and methods for reaching your goal or desired outcome. You want to get from point A to point B, but you don’t necessarily need or want to take the tried and true route to get there (which is inside the box). This can also mean considering some creative alternatives in terms of the goals or desired outcomes. Moving the goalposts, even a little, can have an outsized impact on the game. The phrase is often associated with the Nine-Dot Puzzle, where the box is sometimes literally drawn around the nine dots, framing a solution space, or maybe inferred as the paper on which the dots are drawn.

In a more general sense, the box is a perspective that provides a set of constraints on possible solutions. A new perspective looks beyond that set of constraints to enable innovative thinking. Thinking differently can have a powerful and positive effect on your career. As an entrepreneur, this is why you need to think outside the box: it can help you get ahead of your competition in identifying and exploiting opportunities.

Only incremental progress lies inside the box

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. – George Bernard Shaw

Sometimes, we can get pretty stuck in our ways. We become complacent, just going through the motions, doing what we need to but no more. We’re scared to deviate from the set route and make our own paths. If everyone just accepted things the way they are, then there would never be any innovation or improvement in the world.

A lot of the time we’re not even really present in what we’re doing – we’re on auto-pilot. If Thomas Edison was complacent and figured things were good enough the way they were, light bulbs and the electricity to power them might never have been commercially developed. If he hadn’t thought outside the box, the world could (literally) be a very dim place. Identifying topics where complacency exists can identify an opportunity for unconventional thinking.

More things are variable than you may expect

Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are right.
— Henry Ford

If you view things as unchangeable, then nothing will ever change for the better. By thinking outside the box, you are questioning the status quo. Asking how you could improve an experience, product, or service for your clients. This allows you to keep growing as a person and as an entrepreneur. Questioning the status quo can provide the new perspectives necessary for intelligent and forward-thinking decisions in business.

think outside the box for disruptive innovation

When first articulating a client’s problem statement, it is not uncommon to have a lot of unstated assumptions regarding unchangeable factors. Let’s face it – factors that can’t be changed or controlled are boring. In reality, many factors change with time, geography, etc. Indeed, seemingly arbitrary changes in environmental factors may be causing the clients’ difficulties. A better understanding of the clients’ problem space may enable better controls to be identified. As an example, mankind can’t control the weather. On a smaller scale, heating and air conditioning significantly improve the quality of life for millions of people. Specialized “clean rooms” enable various industrial processes (from semiconductor manufacturing to biomedical research). Just because the initial client problem description assumes some factor is unchangeable, does not mean that change and control of that factor is impossible.

Outside the box perspectives

“The task is…not so much to see what no one has yet seen; but to think what nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees.” ― Erwin Schrödinger

Thinking outside the box can expand your worldview, allowing you to have a greater perspective. This includes not only the events and happenings in your career but also in other dimensions in your life. When you’re willing to consider alternative points of view and ways of doing things, you’ll be more open to a variety of different points of view and potential solutions. Moving from the client’s problem to a solution is not always a straight line. Creativity is often required in developing an appropriate perspective before attempting solution innovation.

This need for a new perspective is why so many businesses bring in outside consultants to help come up with new ideas. The consultants don’t carry the burden of constraints on their thinking from existing tools and processes. Their version of Outside-The-Box Thinking can dream up and offer up wildly new ideas that get people excited and lead to innovative pivots etc.

We can help!

Framing and reframing the problem from different perspectives can enable you to see past constraints. These constraints may not exist from a different perspective. Developing a client-centric, solution-agnostic problem statement can enable the needed creative thinking. For wider variety of potential solutions to be exposed, you need a broader perspective of the clients’ problem. Our free Guide to Writing Problem Statements can help you get your client program statement right.

Whether you are a researcher, business professional, or social entrepreneur, the solutions you develop to the problems that you face matter! We’d like to hear your thinking on the most important challenges so you can think outside the box for your clients. We have a brief survey that should take less than 2 minutes of your time to complete. You can get started right away by going to this link. I look forward to sharing these insights and resources with you.

A course on the use of perspective to refine problem statements is now available.

Problem Perspectives Course

If you need help bringing the power of perspective to your client problem statement contact me.

Posted on Thursday, January 14, 2021

Technical, Business, and Legal Perspectives

Technical Perspectives

Technology refers to industrial, practical, or mechanical arts and applied sciences that are deployed to deliver a particular solution. The Technical Perspective provides a good, comprehensive picture of the system at an appropriate level of abstraction, appropriate for the objective of the modeling, and the size of the system being modeled.

The Technical Perspective defines the views of the system using models, processes, and other constructs of that particular technology. The various models used by the technology show how people (or other technical entities) interact with processes at various locations within the system. These technology models recognize a limited set of other technical entities and the things they handle and use. The models also show how these different aspects and things must statically and/or dynamically relate to one another, to produce the desired results. Technology models place emphasis on the structures, conditions, and interaction of entities, roles, locations, and processes and often rely on a specific modeling language (e.g. UML, BPMN) to capture the model. Specific technologies are identified (e.g., Computational aspects, such as storage, computers, and communications), where necessary to describe a solution with specificity. A design pattern for the usage of particular technologies may also be identified or defined.

Taken together, the technical events (and rules), technical roles, technical entities, technical activities, and technical locations describe the system’s elements from a technical perspective. The technical perspective describes the process, or method, explaining how a specific result is to be achieved. The effectiveness of solutions developed from technical perspectives are often evaluated in terms of their efficiency, or resource utilization (e.g., energy consumption, throughput).

Business Perspectives

The Business Perspective defines the business level view of the problem using the resources available to the business and the tools available to the business to achieve its commercial objectives. While there are many corporate stakeholders, for most businesses, their commercial objectives include profitability from their transactions with clients or customers; efficiency in internal operations, and supplier interactions; minimization of regulatory oversight costs; and strategic positioning for advantage against competitors. The business perspective shows clients’ (and employees’) interaction with business processes and resources at various locations within the business.

The business perspective and technical perspective can address the same problem domain at different abstraction levels. The business perspective may focus on the level of a sales process with offers, and other marketing activities to influence or build a relationship with the client, resulting in a contract, followed by service delivery, while a technical perspective may focus on more detailed technical systems and entities (e.g., messages, protocols, databases, etc.) that might implement or support a business process like a sales transaction.

A business perspective can assume a particular business model; or consider an alternative business model or business practice. A business model may be impacted by the scale of responsibility of a particular business manager. The effectiveness of solutions and decisions developed from a business perspective is usually measured with accounting metrics and market or economic statistics.

Legal Perspectives

A legal perspective is relating to or characteristic of the law or the profession of law; and analyses the problem in terms that are recognized, enforceable, or having a remedy at law rather than in equity. There are three essential components to a legal perspective – (1) the identification of the client, (2) the legal right, obligation, or risk, at issue within the circumstances of the problem and, (3) the posture of the client with respect to that legal issue (e.g., defensive vs offensive) i.e., the client’s objectives.

The purpose and goals of the law as an instrument of public policies for society at large, provide a context for the legal perspective. Different theories of law can be used by lawyers to define, explain, compare, and distinguish the facts and circumstances of particular controversies in their clients’ favor. For lawyers in private practice, clients may be individuals or other legal entities (e.g., corporations). Lawyers in administrative or judicial government roles may be representing those governmental organizations. Focusing on their clients’ potential for legal issues and outcomes enables the legal perspective to avoid some of the concerns of other parties’ views.

The narrative of a particular problem statement or situation may involve multiple legal issues, claims, rights, obligations, or risks at issue. The nature and likelihood of legal risks to business operations or other situations can be difficult to predict with certainty at any given moment as it involves some estimation of the likelihood of events occurring and the severity of the impact should the events occur, as well as the interpretations of those events that may be constructed by others (e.g., a court).

The client’s posture (with respect to, and awareness of, particular legal issues, and possible legal remedies) may change between the moment of a particular incident and upon later reflection and other considerations. The clients’ range of acceptable goals, and the likelihood of achievement, also impacts the legal posture to be adopted.

Triangulating the Problem Statement and Innovation Potential

Framing and reframing perspectives on problems highlights the differences between different perspectives. The contrast achieved by describing a problem statement from these three different perspectives enables insight into opportunities for new innovation. A common innovation pattern is for technology innovation to enable new business services or practices which are then reinforced by reducing legal risks through experience and authoritative legal decisions that then enable further technology innovation in a reinforcing cycle. While this is a common innovation pattern, disruptive innovation is not restricted to technology. Innovations in business practices or legal concepts may also provide significant opportunities.

When developing the problem statement for your client, understanding the technical, business and legal perspectives can impact the scope of the desired future state as well as constraints on viable solutions. If you are developing client problem statements, you might be interested in our free Guide to Writing Problem Statements.

Everyone has Client’s problems that they need to solve, but are they solving the right problem? Are you solving your best problem? Whether you are a researcher, business professional or social entrepreneur, the solutions you develop to the problems that you face matter! We’d like to hear your view of the most important challenges in writing problem statements for your clients. We have a brief survey on the most important challenges that should take less than 2 minutes to complete. The survey tackles less than 2 minutes, and you can get started right away by going to this link. I look forward to sharing these insights and resources with you.

A course on the use of perspective to refine problem statements is now available.

Problem Perspectives Course

If you need help bringing the power of perspective to your client’s problem statement, contact me.

The exponential growth in data over the past decade has impacted the legal industry; both requiring automated solutions for the cost effective and efficient management of the volume and variety of big (legal) data; and, enabling artificial intelligence techniques based on machine learning for the analysis of that data. While many legal practitioners focus on specific services niches, the impact of AI in the law is much broader than individual niches. While AI systems and concerns for their ethical operation are not new, the scale of impact and adoption of AI systems in legal practice makes consideration of the ethics of these systems timely. While there has been recent progress in development of ethical guidelines for AI systems, much of this is targeted at the developers of these systems in general, or the actions of these AI systems as autonomous entities, rather than in the legal practice context. Much of the ethical guidance – whether for AI systems or legal professional is captured in high level principles within more narrowly defined domains, more specific guidance may be appropriate to identify and assess ethical risks. As adoption and operation of AI software in routine legal practice becomes more commonplace, more detailed guidance on assessing the scope and scale of ethical risks is needed.

AI in the Law – Photo Credit: Adobe Stock

Date:	December 10, 2020
Time:	15:20-15:45
Event:	IEEE Big Data: Workshop on Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Industry
Topic:	AI in the Law: Towards Assessing Ethical Risks
Venue:	Online
Public:	Public

To hire Dr. Steven Wright for consulting services or to keynote, moderate, or host your next event please email: Dr Steven A Wright

Posted on Monday, December 7, 2020

Performance Improvement in Ethics Assessment

Human systems with ethical issues have been observed to develop following the somewhat ad hoc CRIC cycle (Crisis, Response, Improvement, Complacency). Ethical issues become top of mind for the general public (and the legal profession) when egregious ethical failures come to light. Aggregate and individual progress in ethical performance can be difficult to predict in a CRIC cycle; and is often addressed only at points of drastic failures. Ethics is a branch of the humanities, with ethical performance typically assessed by manual human efforts using natural language enquiries. Widely accepted standards of ethical behavior can change over time as new norms of behavior become socially accepted. Assessments of ethical conformance by groups of people (e.g., an organization, a profession) are important to establishing, and maintaining, public confidence in that group. Training individuals to improve the ethical conformance of their behavior is currently widespread in many organizations and professions. The deployment of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems is also driving demand for both an increasing number of ethics assessments (due to the increasing number and variety of AI systems) and a need for ongoing ethics assessments as these systems can learn and modify their behavior during operation. The CRIC cycle is ill-suited to these needs for ongoing improvements in ethical performance.

Rather than perpetuating CRIC, more systematic quality improvements can be achieved through continuous improvement quality cycle approaches – e.g., the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle. The PDCA cycle approach aligns with technological approaches for software performance improvements. Applying this approach in the context of ethical performance for software systems requires consideration of the appropriate metrics for ethics, and the relevant measurement and testing procedures for assessing ethics performance. Much of the ethical guidance – whether for AI systems or legal professional is captured in high level principles (e.g., Jobin’s synthesized principles (Jobin, et. al., 2019)) within more narrowly defined domains. Some ethics regimes (e.g. lawyers) have associated enforcement mechanisms interpreting those rules in the context of specific controversies. ML systems are domain specific because they learn best on data within a narrow, coherent, data domain. Software verification and validation proceeds through mechanized testing processes based on specific test cases rather than natural language human inquiry processes. The nature of AI systems as continuing to learn during operational phases requires ongoing testing to verify and validate proper operation including ethical constraints. The metrics for those ethical constraints themselves requires further elucidation.

Guidance of greater detail and specificity may be appropriate to identify and assess ethical risks in the context of these domains, or, defining data domains around ethical risks to better match ML capabilities. New metrics would seem to be required for the assessment of ethical risks, but which metrics? And how many do we need? Guidance and standards for ethics are still nascent and targeted at principles rather than ethics performance benchmarks. Rather than developing metrics top down from broad principles, it may be more practical to develop them in the ethical context of particular tasks or organization or professional behavior patterns. From this perspective, the development of a set of metrics targeted at a particular ethical context (e.g., the rules of professional responsibility for lawyers) should proceed first. Later categorization of those metrics against a broader framework may provide a perspective on the scope of metric coverage; and enable insight from metrics developed in other contexts.

Traditional software is developed by writing down the program logic that governs system behavior. With Machine Learning (ML) software, the rules are inferred from training data. For many software systems, the code base may rely on third party libraries. In the case of ML systems, the training of the ML system may be done with third party data. Most software development processes stress (to varying degrees) the testing of the software under development. Operation of large-scale complex software systems typically frontloads functionality testing into acceptance tests then typically deals with software changes as release upgrades which may have some degree of regression testing depending on the operational environment and the software supply chain. ML software systems have fundamentally different operational characteristics because their learning mechanisms can change the behavior of the software outside of the traditional software update processes.

The testing challenge for ML systems is clearly significant without even considering the specific challenges of testing ML systems for compliance against high level ethical objectives with new metrics and performance benchmarks. AI software can be expected to undergo revisions and updates just as other software does. With ML software continuing to learn new behavior during operation, ongoing assessments of ethics risks will be required. The data collection processes driving operation of the AI software may change overtime, and the AI system may learn new behaviors from new data. In addition, the metrics and measurement techniques for assessing ethics performance could be expected to evolve over time. The number of changing components reinforces the need for some continuous improvement mechanism for assessing the ethical performance of ML systems. A PDCA cycle focused on assessment of ethics risks could help maintain and improve ethical performance of these software systems.

Ethical guidance for the developers and operators of such AI and autonomous systems is slowly emerging. Software technology approaches for verification and validation of ethical software will challenge the specificity of existing professional guidelines for ethical conformance. The exponential growth in data and consequent changes in business practices demands responses from the professions, government, and the public. The volume of data challenges traditional natural language methods for ethics inquiries. New metrics and automated measurement approaches may be tractable if suitable ethical performance benchmarks can be established. Continuous improvement approaches (e.g. PDCA cycle) could be applied to raise the performance benchmarks for ethical AI software over time.

If you need help with AI ethics issue, contact me.

An extended treatment of this topic is available in a paper presented at the IEEE 4th International Workshop on Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the legal Industry (part of the IEEE Big Data Conference 2020).

References

(Jobin et.al. 2019) Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389-399

Posted on Monday, November 30, 2020

On the Comprehensibility of contracts … smart or otherwise

In modern digital life, unilateral contracts (e.g. terms of service) play a substantial role. Few users, however, read these documents before accepting the terms within. Even “sophisticated” consumers that might be held to higher legal standards—including prominent law professors, consumer law academics, and the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court do not read such contracts (Benoliel & Becker 2019). The generally accepted reason for this behavior is that many legal documents (not just these unilateral contracts) are too long and the language too complicated (see e.g., (Williams 2011)). Several empirical studies also confirm that these click through unilateral contracts are generally unreadable with an average reading level corresponding to the usual score of academic articles rather than material targeted at the general public (Benoliel & Becker 2019). The duty to read doctrine of US contract law holds contracting parties responsible for the written terms of their contracts, whether or not they actually read them. The challenge here lies in how to increase meaningful consumer engagement with these terms of service.

Shriver reviewed the literature of the movement towards plain language in US business and government between 1940 and 2015, identifying a corpus or more than 100 documents (Shriver 2017). This review indicated that the plain language movement evolved over this 75year period from a narrow, sentence-based, focus on readability to a broader whole-text approach focused on usability and accessibility of the whole text (whether in paper or electronic form), and whether people trusted the content. Comprehensibility has more aspects than linguistic or stylistic (Zodi 2019). In this context, usability often refers to whether the reader is able to extract and use information from the legal document in some other context, but certainly should include the notion of using that information to make an informed decision to accept or reject a contract. Plain language is not a substitute for consumer engagement, but it may be a prerequisite.

Unilateral contracts exist where one party has significantly more market power than the other such that no contract negotiation takes place. Advocates of unilateral contracts may argue that contract negotiation is point of economic friction that slows economic activity; and should be eliminated. Absent direct competition, counter-party market forces alone seem insufficient to discipline the drafters of these contracts. Some states have enacted plain language statutes, but these are generally of limited scope and lack objective criteria for readability. Consumer contracts and consumer notices are required to be expressed in plain and intelligible language under the Consumer Rights Act of 2015. Determining whether a contract is expressed in plain and intelligible language involves resource intensive work by regulators and difficult adjudications by courts. The technology of natural language processing and text analysis have improved markedly in recent years. A variety of reading scores derived through such analyses are now readily achievable through computerized analysis of these texts. Identification and selection of specific metrics, and standardization of acceptable performance benchmarks remain undone. While reading scores may play a role, further work is needed to reduce these to tools of everyday practice (Conklin et. al. 2019). Automated summarization of legal texts (as opposed to re-writing) has also been proposed to aid comprehensibility, but the current state of this technology does not appear adequate (Manor & Li 2019). Increased consumer engagement with the terms of service may increase the economic friction of the transaction, but from a public policy perspective, this should be balanced with the public good of improved consumer awareness of the contracts they are engaging in.

As Zodi notes, the readability and grammar are insufficient to explain the incomprehensibility of legal texts (Zodi 2019). Improving the plain language of the texts may have some benefits from reducing skipped sections, repeated readings or reading abandonment compared to unimproved legal texts. It does not, however, seem to resolve the general tendency to skim through or read only parts of terms and conditions (Rosetti et.al. 2020). The length of terms and conditions may have some impact on readability scores and the motivation of users to avoid reading them. One approach to increase user engagement with the terms and conditions would be to increase the number of clicks required in proportion to the length of the terms and conditions. The intuition here being that longer documents may be more likely to have significant clauses worthy of consumer attention and consideration. Such an approach also creates some incentives for the developers of these unilateral contracts to reduce their length in order to reduce the economic friction from some number of clicks. Contract length is, of course, a crude metric; but this simplicity enables easier mechanical reduction to practice. More sophisticated approaches are certainly possible based on the semantics of the terms of the service contract. For example, the terms of service could be segregated into some chunks that are more meaningful or impactful to the consumer e.g. those terms that impact or constrain the options available to the consumer vs the service provider. Such approaches are currently less tractable for automated chunking of the contract text, but that may change with improvements in technologies like natural language processing and text analytics.

References

Benoliel, U., & Becher, S. I. (2019). The duty to read the unreadable. BCL Rev., 60, 2255.

Williams, C. (2011). Legal English and Plain language: an update. ESP Across Cultures, 8, 139-151.

Schriver, K. A. (2017). Plain language in the US gains momentum: 1940–2015. Ieee transactions on professional communication, 60(4), 343-383.

Ződi, Z. (2019). The limits of plain legal language: understanding the comprehensible style in law. International Journal of Law in Context, 15(3), 246-262.

Conklin, K., Hyde, R., & Parente, F. (2019). Assessing plain and intelligible language in the Consumer Rights Act: a role for reading scores?. Legal Studies.

Manor, L., & Li, J. J. (2019). Plain english summarization of contracts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00424.

Rossetti, A., Cadwell, P., & O’Brien, S. (2020). ” The terms and conditions came back to bite”: plain language and online financial content for older adults. Available online at: http://doras.dcu.ie/24532/