Spring-2025

8th Semester (CS & DS)

Turn off your Cell phone

Technical Report Writing &
Communication Skills
Ismat Ullah Khan Marwat
Assistant Professor
Department of Computer Science & IT
University of Engineering & Technology, Peshawar
ismat.marwat@uetpeshawar.edu.pk
 Overview / Recap
Ethics: “That branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human
conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions
and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends/consequences

of such actions.”

In Islam, ethics have two dimensions;

Ethics toward Allah, the creator. A Muslim has to believe in Allah and
has to worship Him. Ethics toward others; a Muslim business person
has to deal ethically with others by maintaining good treatment and
good relationship.

Computer ethics(“cyber ethics” and “Internet ethics”)

is a branch of practical philosophy which deals with how computing
professionals should make decisions regarding professional and social
 Overview / Recap
The Distinction between Law and
Ethics
Unethical but legal
Making advertising or marketing claims that you
know will mislead people
Divorce / Drinks / Prostitution
Ethical but illegal
It is illegal to run a traffic light or speed even
though it is ethical if someone's life depended on
it.. like if you had to rush them to the hospital.
The Subjects of Ethics
By “subjects of ethics,” means those persons to
whom ethics applies.
Besides individuals, corporate/organization
(artificial person) may also be the subjects of
ethics.
 Overview / Recap
New Possibilities and a Vacuum of
Policies
Computer and IT is not the first technology to
raise moral concerns.
Nuclear power, atom bomb.
New technologies seems to pose ethical issues
when they create new possibilities for human
Stem cell research, cloning?
Should I donate my organs for transplantation ?
Should we gather information about individuals ?
New possibilities created by technologies are not
always good.
Have mixed values
They should be evaluated, morally as well as
economically and environmentally
 Overview / Recap
New Possibilities and a Vacuum of
Policies
Technical possibilities are sometimes rejected
after evaluation
Biological weapon, nuclear power
So it is with computer. Enormous possibilities
Man reached moon, exploring mars and universe
Made human life a comfort. Countless things
But at same time
Computer is inherent and most important part of
weapons of mass destructions
So the possibilities created by computer and
information technology needs to be evaluated
Morally and in other ways (economically,
environmentally etc.)
 Overview / Recap
However with advancement, new policy
vacuum get created
Is it ethical for a company to place a cookie on the

computer of a person who visit their site ?

Is data mining morally acceptable ?

Are internet domain names being distributed in a fair way?

Who should be responsible for wrong information on

electronic bulletin boards?

Should surgery be performed remotely with medical

imaging technology?
 Overview / Recap
Branches of Moral Philosophy
(Philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental nature of
reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language)
Descriptive ethics:
Examines and evaluates ethical behavior of
different peoples or social groups.
E.g. such and such percentage of people copied proprietary
software once in their life time..
It does not tell us what is right or wrong; nor does it tell us what
to do or not to do.
Normative, or prescriptive ethics:
Concerned with examining and applying the judgments of what
is morally right or wrong, good or bad.
It examines the question of whether there are standards for
ethical conduct and, if so, what those standards are.
Applied ethics
Deals with ethical questions specific to practical
fields/professions.

Comparative ethics:
The study of differing ethical systems to learn their similarities
 Overview / Recap
Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that
morality is relative to the norms of one's culture.
That is, whether an action is right or wrong
depends on the moral norms of the society in
which it is practiced. The same action may be
morally right in one society but be morally
wrong in another.
Basic idea:
“What is right for you may not be right for me,” or
“I can decide what is right for me, but you have to decide
for yourself”
This asserts (declares):
“There are no universal moral norms”. According to this
there isn’t a single standard for all human beings.
Sometimes ethical relativists assert that right and wrong
are relative to the society in which one lives
 Overview / Recap
Ethical Relativists Points
Cultures vary a good deal in what they
consider to be right and wrong.
Moral norms of a given society change
over time. What is considered right at
one point may be considered wrong in
another point in time
Social environment plays an important
role in shaping the moral ideas you have.
Ethics and Ethical Analysis

Chapter-03
 Topics for Discussion

• Cloning

• Genetic Engineering

• Embryology

• Stem cells research

• Trans-human project
 Scenario: Should We Clone Humans?
Professor John Wesley is a brilliant scientist with an enviable track record of
medical successes. In the last 5 years, he has carried out a dozen high-risk
medical operations successfully and has become a must-have on talk shows. He
is a sought-after speaker on medical matters, and he is gifted on all reasonable
subjects. He has led pioneering research in cloning and has been contemplating
cloning some human replacement parts, if he can only get a human experience
to give him a convincing push. Mrs. Joan Kaggwa is a well-known and successful
entrepreneur, a wonderful wife, and a philanthropist. She is a president of
several local and national charity organizations. She sits on the boards of several
national and international corporations. For the last 21 years of her marriage, she
has worked hard for her family and community. Two years ago, however, her only
son, a young man nearing his 18th birthday, was killed in an automobile
accident. He was the apple of his parents’ eyes. The family was devastated by
the death. For a while now, Mrs. Kaggwa has been following the cloning stories
that have appeared on television and in the newspapers, but without seriously
giving them much thought until the day of her son’s death. Then, with her
assistance, and to the annoyance of her husband, the family agreed to keep their
son’s body with Infinite Life Corporation, a company that keeps human frozen
bodies in liquid nitrogen for years. Mrs. Kaggwa hoped that someday science
would bring her son back. Her prayers were answered, at least according to her,
one Sunday morning when she was going through the Sunday paper just before
church. A small article caught her eye. The article was about a planned cloning
experiment by a young scientist. During the following 2 weeks, Joan made calls
that led her and her husband to the waiting room of Professor Wesley to discuss
 Discussion Questions

1. Are there justifiable reasons that lead people

to clone their loved ones?
2. Is Mrs. Kaggwa justified in wanting to clone
her son?
3. Do you think the Kaggwas’ son, if successfully
cloned, will be the same as the dead son? Why
or why not?
4. What compelling reasons can Professor Wesley
give to justify cloning the Kaggwas’ son?
5. Do you subscribe to such reasoning?
6. What are the pros and cons of human cloning?
7. Animal cloning is now routine. Why has there
been no organized opposition to it?
 Ethical Theories
For centuries, in different societies, human
actions have been judged good or bad, right or
wrong, based on theories or systems of justice
developed, tested, revised, and debated by
philosophers and/or elders in that society. Such
theories are commonly known as ethical theories.
Codes of ethics have then been drawn up based
on these ethical theories. The processes of
reasoning, explanation, and justification used in
ethics are based on these theories.
There are many ethical theories, but we consider
only a few that are most widely discussed and
used, namely consequentialism, deontology,
human nature, relativism, hedonism, and
emotivism.
 1. Consequentialism
In consequentialism ethical theory, human
actions are judged good or bad, right or
wrong, depending on the results of such
actions—a desirable result denotes a good
action and vice versa.
There are three commonly discussed types
of consequentialism theory:
1. Egoism
2. Utilitarianism
3. Altruism

“End is well all is well”

 i. Egoism

This theory puts an individual’s

interests and happiness above
everything else. With egoism, any
action is good as long as it maximizes
an individual’s overall happiness.
Egoism is a theory that specifies that
you should act to bring about the most
good consequences for yourself. What
is good is what makes “me” happy or
gets me what I want.

“ Selfishness”
 ii. Utilitarianism
The term "utilitarianism" derives from
the word Utility," as this theory
proposes that ethical rules are
derived from their usefulness (their
"utility") in bringing about happiness.
Utilitarianism “the doctrine that
actions are right if they are useful or
for the benefit of a majority.”

“Larger interest of the general

public”
 Cont …
Utilitarianism appears to be a simple theory
because it consists of only one evaluative
principle:
“Do what produces the best
consequences”
In fact, however, the theory is complex because
we cannot understand that single principle
unless we know (at least) three things:
a) what things are good and bad;
b) whose good (i.e. which individuals or groups)
we should aim to maximize; and
c) whether actions, policies, etc. are made right
or wrong by their actual consequences (the
results that our actions actually produce)
 Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism
Looks at the consequences of each
individual act and calculate utility
each time act is performed.
A divorced, wealthy, young man
may seek pleasure from drugs,
alcohol etc., but lack the happiness
of true friendship and the love of his
family.
Looks at the consequences of having
everyone follow a particular rule and
calculates the overall utility of
 Cont …
Examples: Why not lie?
Act Utilitarian: This lie will have bad
consequences.
Rule Utilitarian: If everyone lied, it
would be much worse.
Example: Why not slice up one patient
to save five?
Act Utilitarian: If it would have the
best consequences, you should do it.
Rule Utilitarian: The consequences
would be better if everyone followed
the rule “don’t kill others.”
 For Instance
Imagine the following scenario. A prominent and
much loved leader has been rushed to the hospital,
grievously wounded by an assassin’s bullet. He needs
the heart and a lung transplant immediately to
survive. No suitable donors are available, but there is
a homeless person in the emergency room who is
being kept alive on a respirator, who probably has
only a few days to live, and who is perfect donor.
Without the transplant, the leader will die; the
homeless person will die in a few days anyway.
Security at the hospital is very well controlled. The
transplant team could hasten the death of the
homeless person and carry out the transplant without
the public knowing that they killed the homeless
person for his organs.
 Case Illustration
A few years ago, when medical researchers had
just succeeded in developing the kidney dialysis
machine, a few hospitals acquired a limited
number of these expensive machines. age, job,
number of dependents, social usefulness of job,
whether the person had a criminal record, and so
on. These committees appeared to be using
utilitarian criteria
Thus, those who were most likely to benefit and
to contribute to society in the future would get
access, those who were the least ill or did not
have other terminal illness, those who had
dependent children, those who were doctors,
those who were the youngest (had the longest to
live), those who were not criminals, and so on.
 iii. Altruism
In altruism an action is right if the
consequences of that action are
favorable to all except the actor.

The principle or practice of unselfish

concern for or devotion to the welfare
of others

(Opposed to egoism)
 2. Deontology
The term "deontology" derives from the Greek words

Deon (duty) and logos (sense); means the sense of

duty.
The branch of ethics that deals with moral responsibil

ity.
“Deontology is defined as an ethical theory that the

morality of an action should be based on whether

that action itself is right or wrong under a series of
rules, rather than based on the consequences of the
action.”
For instance
We know that killing is bad, but if an armed
intruder enters your house and you kill him or
her your action is good according to
deontologists.

You did it because you had a duty (moral

responsibility) to protect your family and
property.
Deontological Theories (Kant)
What makes an action right or wrong for
deontologists is the principle inherent in the
action.
Places emphasis on duty and rules that
should be followed, ignores consequences.
For example; if I tell the truth (not just because
it is convenient for me to do so, but) because I
recognize that I must respect the other person,
thus I perform my duty and my action is right as
per rules. If I tell the truth because I fear getting
caught or because I believe I will be rewarded
for doing so, then my act is not morally worthy.
Deontological Theories
If an action is done from a sense of duty, if the

principle of the action can be universalized, then

the action is right.
Utilitarianism is criticized because it appears to

tolerate sacrificing some people for the sake of

others.
E.g. the medical case illustration.

(No one should be developed at the cost of others)

 Deontological Theories Vs
utilitarian’s
According to deontologists, the utilitarian’s go
wrong when they fix on happiness as the
highest good.
Deontologists point out that happiness cannot
be the highest good for humans. The fact that
we are rational beings, capable of reasoning
about what we want to do and then deciding
and acting, suggests that our end (our highest
good) is something other than happiness.
For instance,
i. In case of the armed intruder
ii. Not adhering to the student’s requests during
 Why human beings are rational
being
 Humans differ from all other beings in the world in so far as
we have the capacity for rationality. The behavior of other
things is determined simply by laws of nature.
Plants turn toward the sun because of
photosynthesis they don't think and decide
which way they will turn.
Physical objects fall by the law of gravity.
Water boils when it reaches a certain
temperature.
 In contrast, human beings are not entirely determined by
laws of nature; we have the capacity to legislate for
ourselves; we decide how we will behave
e.g
i. Armed intruder should be targeted or not ???
ii. Response time delay
 3. Hedonism
Hedonism is one of the
oldest ethical theories.
It claims that pleasure
is the only good thing
in human life, the end
of life as the highest
good. A hedonist acts
only for maximum
pleasure and whatever
he or she does, it is
done to maximize
pleasure or minimize
pain.

(Ignore the
4. Emotivism
 This theory maintains that ethical statements are
neither true nor false and cannot be proven; they are
really only statements about how someone feels.
 Philosophers use these theories as engines to help
them to understand and justify human actions.
Although over the years and in different places
changing values have been attached to human actions,
these ethical theories have remained relatively
unchanged. This means that although ethics as a
discipline is evolving, ethical reasoning has relatively
remained the same. In other words, Aristotle and Plato’s
reasoning to explain and justify human actions is still
valid, although the premises surrounding human actions
are changing with time and with every new technology.
The process of ethical reasoning takes several steps, which
we refer to as layers of reasoning, before one can justify to
someone else the goodness or badness, rightness or
wrongness, of one’s action.

For example, if someone wants to convince you to own a concealed

gun, he or she needs to explain to you and justify why it is good to
have a concealed gun. In such an exercise, the person may start by
explaining to you that we are living in difficult times and that no one
is safe. You may then ask why no one is safe, to which the person
might reply that there are many bad people out there in possession
of high-powered guns waiting to fire them for various and very often
unbelievable reasons. So owning a gun will level the playing field.
Then you may ask why owning a gun levels the playing field, to
which the answer would be that because if the bad guys suspect
that you own one just like theirs, they will think twice before they
attack you. You may further ask why this is so; the answer may be
that if they attack you, they themselves can get killed in the action.
Therefore, because of this fear you are not likely to be attacked.
Hence owning a gun may save your life and enable you to continue
pursuing the ultimate concept of the good life: happiness.
On the other hand, to convince somebody not to own a concealed gun again
needs a plausible explanation and several layers of reasoning to demonstrate
why owning a gun is bad. Why is it a bad thing, you would ask, and the answer
would be because bad guys will always get guns. And if they do, the possibility
of everyone having a concealed gun may make those bad guys trigger happy
to get you before you get them. It also evokes the image of the Wild West
filled with guntoting people daring everyone to get a kick out of what may be
a boring life. You would then ask why is this situation dangerous if none fires?
The reply might be because it creates a potential situation in which innocent
people may get hurt and therefore an unhappy situation is created, denying
people happiness and the good life. The explanation and reasoning process
can go on and on for several more layers before one is convinced that owning
a gun is good or bad. The act of owning a gun is a human act that can be
judged as either good or bad, right or wrong, depending on the moral and
ethical principles used. The spectrum of human actions on which ethical
judgments can be based is wide ranging, from simple traditional and easy-to-
understand actions like killing and stealing, to complex and abstract ones like
hacking, cellular telephone scanning, and subliminal human brain alterations.
On one side of this spectrum, the inputs have straight output value judgments
of right and wrong or good and evil. The other end of the spectrum, however,
has inputs that cannot be easily mapped into the same output value
judgments of good and bad or right and evil. It is at this side of the input
spectrum that most new human actions created as a result of
computer technology are found. It is at this end, therefore, that we need
an updated definition of ethics—a functional definition. “Applied Ethics”