Volume 15, Issue 1

Technology penetrates into all areas of our everyday and individual life and changes it in a considerable speed. This applies particularly to developments of information and communication technology since this technology shows its effects not only at our workplaces but transforms and sometimes determines the social behavior of people. Unfortunately, development and use of technology certainly doesn't go hand into hand with the acceptance of responsibility for consequences of effects of developing and using technology. Instead, the opposite behavior is quite common. If this process of the rejection of responsibility shall be stopped, the sensibility of developers and users of technology for consequences of their own behavior have to be aroused and strengthened. In the following text at first I will describe some reasons to formulate ethical guidelines. After this, with the example of the ethical guidelines of the German Gesellschaft für Informatik e. V. (GI) , I will discuss, whether such ethical guidelines are ethical in the strict sense of the word and whether they actually can be a contribution to accomplish the striven aim of assignment of responsibility for the results of developing and using technolog

Karl Popper suggested that the utilitarian formula "Maximise happiness" should be replaced by the formula "Minimize suffering" - a view which has been called "negative utilitarianism". Can such a view be spelled out in a plausible way? Examining several ways of understanding the alleged ethical priority of pain over pleasure, I come to the conclusion that none of them is satisfactory as a basis for a theory of benevolence. However, once we move from hedonistic to preference utilitarianism two possible views emerge which, although not fundamentally different from classical utilitarianism, diverge from it in interesting ways and seem to warrant further study