IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2023 - 71

Another criticism of the categorical imperative
is that its usefulness is constrained by the system in
which a maxim is framed. For example, looking outside
our current milieu, one might ask whether or
not there is anything inherently bad about eradicating
jobs. (Keynes did not think so. He saw it as a step
on the path leading to human flourishing.)
The categorical imperative is sensitive to the formulation
of the maxim being tested [43]. For example,
the roboticist's proposed course of action could also
accurately be stated as, " I will create technology that
increases wealth and income for its owners, " which
would be permitted by the categorical imperative. It,
therefore, seems difficult for her to use deontology.
To help with this, Kant provided two other formulations
of the categorical imperative. One has only
a small, but important difference from the original
version above.
" Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become
by thy will a universal law of nature " [42].
The added, " of nature, " clarifies how maxims can
be tested.
It is natural for a species to act in the interest of
its own expansion. A practice that impoverishes and
lowers the quality of life for most members of a species
is inimical to the well-being of that species. As is
noted in the previous section, widening wealth and
income inequality is an effect of job-replacing technology.
It follows that working to automate every
possible job could not be a universal law of nature.
According to Kant's theory, then, a roboticist in an
environment without a universal basic income or
the like is duty-bound not to develop new job-replacing
technology. It is debatable whether the maxim, " I
will work to create technology that eliminates jobs, "
is the most accurate description of the roboticist's
choice. The formulation of an alternative maxim
would be a profitable exercise for the reader.
The second ethical question identified in the previous
section, whether or not it is right to apply existing
technologies to job automation, yields a possible
maxim, " I will apply existing technology to eliminating
jobs, " that would stand up under the categorical
imperative since the current state of the art is incapable
of eliminating all jobs.
Utilitarianism
The theory of consequentialism holds that the
rightness or wrongness of an action is determined
March 2023
solely by its outcomes. Ethical theories of this type
identify some good and then make moral judgments
based on whether choices increase or decrease the
amount of this good.
The most well-known version is utilitarianism,
which identifies the good with happiness. Its
champion was John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), who
wrote in Utilitarianism that
" . . . actions are right in proportion as they tend to
promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce
the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended
pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness,
pain, and the privation of pleasure " [44].
Applying this, for example, to an engineer's decision
whether or not to leave the lab before putting
away all his tools, one would see that he might be
made happier by being able to go home earlier but
that if there are other people sharing the space who
would then be forced to hunt for the tools they need,
then his choice would be wrong because it would
increase happiness for only one person while causing
unhappiness for several.
One other aspect of utilitarianism is the idea that,
in addition to quantity, the quality of happiness
should also be considered. If the engineer in the
example left the lab in disarray because he found
out his favorite author was at the bookstore signing
autographs for the next hour, then the type of happiness
he would feel at such an opportunity could
be so special as to outweigh the quotidian unhappiness
his colleagues would experience from having
to search for equipment. In that case, the utilitarian
view is that his decision to leave without restoring
order to the lab would be right.
The probability of outcomes is also taken into
account in the utilitarian calculus of happiness.
Concluding the example, if the engineer knows the
line for autographs will likely be too long by the
time he reaches the bookstore for him to get to meet
the author, to make an ethical decision he would
weigh the low-quantity (one person), high-quality,
low-probability happiness for himself against the
high-quantity, slight-quality, high-probability unhappiness
of his coworkers.
To the possible objection that this process is too
computationally burdensome for
daily
use,
Mill
replies that the moral guides people learn during
their upbringing and which are enforced by law
and opinion serve adequately for most decisions.
71
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2023

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2023
