Source : Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing

computer ethics
     
         Ethics is the field of study that is concerned
        with questions of value, that is, judgments about what human
        behaviour is "good" or "bad".  Ethical judgments are no
        different in the area of computing from those in any other
        area.  Computers raise problems of privacy, ownership, theft,
        and power, to name but a few.
     
        Computer ethics can be grounded in one of four basic
        world-views: Idealism, Realism, Pragmatism, or Existentialism.
        Idealists believe that reality is basically ideas and that
        ethics therefore involves conforming to ideals.  Realists
        believe that reality is basically nature and that ethics
        therefore involves acting according to what is natural.
        Pragmatists believe that reality is not fixed but is in
        process and that ethics therefore is practical (that is,
        concerned with what will produce socially-desired results).
        Existentialists believe reality is self-defined and that
        ethics therefore is individual (that is, concerned only with
        one's own conscience).  Idealism and Realism can be considered
        ABSOLUTIST worldviews because they are based on something
        fixed (that is, ideas or nature, respectively).  Pragmatism
        and Existentialism can be considered RELATIVIST worldviews
        because they are based or something relational (that is,
        society or the individual, respectively).
     
        Thus ethical judgments will vary, depending on the judge's
        world-view.  Some examples:
     
        First consider theft.  Suppose a university's computer is used
        for sending an e-mail message to a friend or for conducting a
        full-blown private business (billing, payroll, inventory,
        etc.).  The absolutist would say that both activities are
        unethical (while recognising a difference in the amount of
        wrong being done).  A relativist might say that the latter
        activities were wrong because they tied up too much memory and
        slowed down the machine, but the e-mail message wasn't wrong
        because it had no significant effect on operations.
     
        Next consider privacy.  An instructor uses her account to
        acquire the cumulative grade point average of a student who is
        in a class which she instructs.  She obtained the password for
        this restricted information from someone in the Records Office
        who erroneously thought that she was the student's advisor.
        The absolutist would probably say that the instructor acted
        wrongly, since the only person who is entitled to this
        information is the student and his or her advisor.  The
        relativist would probably ask why the instructor wanted the
        information.  If she replied that she wanted it to be sure
        that her grading of the student was consistent with the
        student's overall academic performance record, the relativist
        might agree that such use was acceptable.
     
        Finally, consider power.  At a particular university, if a
        professor wants a computer account, all she or he need do is
        request one but a student must obtain faculty sponsorship in
        order to receive an account.  An absolutist (because of a
        proclivity for hierarchical thinking) might not have a problem
        with this divergence in procedure.  A relativist, on the other
        hand, might question what makes the two situations essentially
        different (e.g. are faculty assumed to have more need for
        computers than students?  Are students more likely to cause
        problems than faculty?  Is this a hold-over from the days of
        "in loco parentis"?).
     
        {"Philosophical Bases of Computer Ethics", Professor Robert
        N. Barger (http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/metaethics.html)}.
     
        {Usenet} newsgroups: {news:bit.listserv.ethics-l},
        {news:alt.soc.ethics}.
     
        (1995-10-25)