the case of killer robot
...osite opinion issued by an experience programmer. All he has done was legal but unethical. Johnson, the robotic division chief, put enormous pressures on the “killer robot” project staffs, especially Randy Samuels, to finish the robot software on time, when top-level management warned robot project staffs that “heads would roll”, if the deadline was not met. Ray thought that the risk of failure was very small and the cost of delaying delivery of the robot was very great. He applied the “Ivory Snow Theory”, which no software was absolutely bug-free. He was in desperate need of a successful project, and intimidate software tester Cindy Yardlay to fake the test result for the troublesome robot software, otherwise everyone in robotic division would lose jobs, and then told her the robot was safe. Although this is legal, it is unethical issue involving managers and subordinates Cindy Yardlay used simulated one instead of the original software written by Randy Samuels to do the software test as Ray’s request, and she was compelled to hand a faked test result. Her action disobeyed ACM code of conduct and was unethical. Management of Silicon Techtronics provided a poor user interface to operators, the Robbie CX30 operator interface violated every Shneiderman’s rules. The poor design of operator interface causes many deficiencies which make users feel in control of the robot. The violations were directly responsible for this tragedy. According to the requirement documents which equals to a contract between Silicon Techtronics and Cybernetics, Silicon Techtronics, should provide forty hours training for operators to master all the aspects of robot operation, as well as safety procedure, such as handle the exceptional conditions that contain potentially the risk of bodily injury. But in fact the only nearly eight hours training was offered by the Silicon Techtronics and on mention of anything about the potential dangerous exceptional conditions. Moreover, their negative attitude on designing test contributes to the failure of testing operator understanding of robot operation and safety procedure. The corporation was irresponsible also violated the code of organizational imperatives. Silicon Techtronics conducted electronic surveillance of employees over the years without their permission, all of these are unethical and disagree with the morality and professional ethical conduct. Obviously, not only did wrong to cause this but also some other people and the corporation made some unethical decisions lead to this tragedy. Should Randy Samuels totally response for the death of robot operator Bart Mattews? Should others be charged of the disaster? 3. Defensible Ethical Decision It is difficult for people make a decision, when the people are facing with an ethical dilemma. Should Ray Johnson put a great pressure on the robot project team? Should Silicon Techtronics conducted electronic surveillance of employees? Should Ray and Cindy fake the test result of the program? For making a defensible ethical decision, it is necessary to isolate the ethical and employ some ethical principles to review these ethical dilemmas. According to Kant’s Duty Theory, the action was considered good or bad according to the intention behind the act. In this case, with intentions of hastening the working process and fulfilling the terms of contract, Ray Johnson brought a great pressure on the robot project team to finish the project on time. He had good intentions, but the way he did was unethical. Project leaders need to encourage and coordinate the other coworkers, for the sake of finish the project qualitatively. Also, for protecting Silicon Techtronics from the enemies inside or outside, the corporation monitored employees’ computer activities without warning beforehand. However, the purpose is reasonable in the organization point of view, the consequence may cause the distrust among the organization and also it was the contempt of principle of respect. Second, for the purposes of achieving the commercial success and protecting the robotic division from being terminated, Ray and Cindy created the faked test result. They finished by the deadline, therefore no one was fired, this matches utilitarianism that is when one person’s action promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But this apparent altruism cannot imply it’s ethical, they violated the Code of Conduct, “be honest and trustworthy”. Also the unreliable test result also contributed to the disaster. Finally, an ideal argument should be that Randy Samuels, Ray Johnson, Cindy Yardley and Silicon Techtronics are responsible for this tragedy. 4. Steps to Resolve the Current Situation In order to avoid “killer robot” incident, the options for the corporation to resolve the current situation are: 1. Reconstruct the robotic division. 2. Make modifications to the awkward operator interface or redesign it as users’ requirements. 3. Explain the necessity of some electronic surveillance before they conduct, or stop monitoring. 4. Set the clear rules to regulate employees’ behaviors. These four options are equally pivotal and both necessary to be recommended. First, organization needs to hire or promote some people who have professional technical and professional ethics as leaders of the division. They could make decision professionally and ethically, also have the positive impact on other staffs. Second, a b...