IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04785209.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Coping with Artificial Intelligence Ethical Dilemma and Ethical Position Choices?

Author

Listed:
  • Sylvie Gerbaix

    (MRM - Montpellier Research in Management - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - UPVD - Université de Perpignan Via Domitia - Groupe Sup de Co Montpellier (GSCM) - Montpellier Business School - UM - Université de Montpellier)

  • Sylvie Michel

    (UMR 8638 - Equipe Pharmacognosie - COMETE - UMR 8638 - Chimie Organique, Médicinale et Extractive et Toxicologie Expérimentale - UPD5 - Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 - INC-CNRS - Institut de Chimie - CNRS Chimie - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Marc Bidan

    (LEMNA - Laboratoire d'économie et de management de Nantes Atlantique - Nantes Univ - IAE Nantes - Nantes Université - Institut d'Administration des Entreprises - Nantes - Nantes Université - pôle Sociétés - Nantes Univ - Nantes Université)

Abstract

The aim of this conceptual article is to demonstrate that proposing measures, actions, and decisions to improve the ethics of Artificial Intelligence (AI) depends on the ethical theoretical position chosen. To achieve this, we proceeded in two stages. Firstly, we characterized and synthesized three different ethical issues posed by AI. Secondly, we selected two main ethical positions proposed by philosophical literature. Finally, we showed that the choice of an ethical theoretical position for each category of ethical issues of AI leads to different decisions. We demonstrated that for each category of ethical problems, the ethical decisions and their consequences differ depending on the ethical theory chosen. The value of this paper is to highlight that the literature on AI ethics often neglects the implications of choosing an ethical position. In order to attempt to solve ethical issues, it is necessary to reach agreements and have discussions that take into account the different ethical theoretical positions and their consequences in terms of decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Sylvie Gerbaix & Sylvie Michel & Marc Bidan, 2024. "Coping with Artificial Intelligence Ethical Dilemma and Ethical Position Choices?," Post-Print hal-04785209, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04785209
    DOI: 10.5220/0012726000003690
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-04785209v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-04785209v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5220/0012726000003690?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexander Buhmann & Johannes Paßmann & Christian Fieseler, 2020. "Managing Algorithmic Accountability: Balancing Reputational Concerns, Engagement Strategies, and the Potential of Rational Discourse," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 265-280, May.
    2. Edwards, Lilian & Veale, Michael, 2017. "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'right to an explanation' is probably not the remedy you are looking for," LawArXiv 97upg, Center for Open Science.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Buhmann, Alexander & Fieseler, Christian, 2021. "Towards a deliberative framework for responsible innovation in artificial intelligence," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    2. Gorwa, Robert, 2019. "What is Platform Governance?," SocArXiv fbu27_v1, Center for Open Science.
    3. König, Pascal D. & Wenzelburger, Georg, 2021. "The legitimacy gap of algorithmic decision-making in the public sector: Why it arises and how to address it," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    4. Vasiliki Koniakou, 2023. "From the “rush to ethics” to the “race for governance” in Artificial Intelligence," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 71-102, February.
    5. Matus, Kira & Veale, Michael, 2022. "Certification Systems for Machine Learning: Lessons from Sustainability," SocArXiv pm3wy_v1, Center for Open Science.
    6. Ye, Xiongbiao & Yan, Yuhong & Li, Jia & Jiang, Bo, 2024. "Privacy and personal data risk governance for generative artificial intelligence: A Chinese perspective," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    7. Koefer, Franziska & Lemken, Ivo & Pauls, Jan, 2023. "Fairness in algorithmic decision systems: A microfinance perspective," EIF Working Paper Series 2023/88, European Investment Fund (EIF).
    8. Hazel Si Min Lim & Araz Taeihagh, 2019. "Algorithmic Decision-Making in AVs: Understanding Ethical and Technical Concerns for Smart Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-28, October.
    9. Pizzi, Gabriele & Vannucci, Virginia & Shukla, Yupal & Aiello, Gaetano, 2022. "Privacy concerns and justice perceptions with the disclosure of biometric versus behavioral data for personalized pricing tell me who you are, I’ll tell you how much you pay. Consumers’ fairness and p," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 420-432.
    10. Veale, Michael & Binns, Reuben & Van Kleek, Max, 2018. "Some HCI Priorities for GDPR-Compliant Machine Learning," LawArXiv wm6yk, Center for Open Science.
    11. Cobbe, Jennifer & Veale, Michael & Singh, Jatinder, 2023. "Understanding Accountability in Algorithmic Supply Chains," SocArXiv p4sey, Center for Open Science.
    12. Kirsten Martin & Ari Waldman, 2023. "Are Algorithmic Decisions Legitimate? The Effect of Process and Outcomes on Perceptions of Legitimacy of AI Decisions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(3), pages 653-670, March.
    13. Gorwa, Robert, 2019. "What is Platform Governance?," SocArXiv fbu27, Center for Open Science.
    14. Vesnic-Alujevic, Lucia & Nascimento, Susana & Pólvora, Alexandre, 2020. "Societal and ethical impacts of artificial intelligence: Critical notes on European policy frameworks," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6).
    15. Veale, Michael, 2017. "Logics and practices of transparency and opacity in real-world applications of public sector machine learning," SocArXiv 6cdhe, Center for Open Science.
    16. Söderlund, Kasia & Engström, Emma & Haresamudram, Kashyap & Larsson, Stefan & Strimling, Pontus, 2024. "Regulating high-reach AI: On transparency directions in the Digital Services Act," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 13(1), pages 1-31.
    17. Tobias D. Krafft & Katharina A. Zweig & Pascal D. König, 2022. "How to regulate algorithmic decision‐making: A framework of regulatory requirements for different applications," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 119-136, January.
    18. Emre Bayamlıoğlu, 2022. "The right to contest automated decisions under the General Data Protection Regulation: Beyond the so‐called “right to explanation”," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1058-1078, October.
    19. Mazur Joanna, 2019. "Automated Decision-Making and the Precautionary Principle in EU Law," TalTech Journal of European Studies, Sciendo, vol. 9(4), pages 3-18, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04785209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.