Contesting the ethics of AAIS: against the pursuit of
                             profit

                                          Damon Mackett

                             University of Johannesburg, South Africa
                              201431353@student.uj.ac.za

    The role of automation presents a double-edged sword as it directly benefits one side
as it disadvantages the other. Artificial intelligence allows for increasingly more so-
phisticated automation. In my essay, I argue that the use of Automated Artificial Intel-
ligent Systems (AAIS) create ethical implications that impact negatively on the “aver-
age worker” 1(Ford, 2015: 34), whilst having a positive impact for corporations/manu-
facturers. I argue that ethical implications of automation are not exclusive to the fourth
industrial revolution, or entirely new development. In addition, the use of A.I. in auto-
mation means the ethical implications have only worsened. A.I. and the ethical impli-
cations of its use exist in the literature but these deal mainly with issue of privacy (Ford,
2015) accountability (MacNamara, Smith and Murphy-Hill, 2018) and how to build
A.I. ethically (Hagendorff, 2019) to name a few. There is a lack of literature that focuses
on the relationship that exists between A.I. and the economic. My essay argues that the
relationship exists, and it is one that harms and benefits all at once. My essay explores
who and how AAIS specifically harms and benefits. My essay presents two arguments.
The first is an argument by analogy to argue that the first and the fourth industrial rev-
olutions share similar trends. This allows certain inferences to be drawn from the first
that are applicable to the fourth mainly that the creation and implementation of AAIS
will impact negatively on the “average worker” (Ford, 2015: 34), the case against profit.
The second argument presents the case in favour of developing and implementing
AAIS, the case for profit. I use the work of Milton Friedman (1970) to argue that a
business exists only to fulfil the wishes of its shareholder or owners, which is more
often than not, profit (Friedman, 1970: 2). Though Milton’s work is old I believe his
position is tenable if C. Soares (2003) is used in conjunction with his. Soares (2003)
argues that corporations can be worthy of praise or blame as an individual. Thus a cor-
poration acting for its own benefit will find itself closer to Milton’s position.
   I argue that the ethical implications of automation have existed since the first indus-
trial revolution. I draw on the work done by Emma Griffin (2013) to demonstrate this
point. I use the work of Griffin as she illustrates how automation during the first indus-
trial revolution affected the “average worker” (Ford, 2015: 34). Griffin’s (2013) book
documents the lives of people who lived during the first industrial revolution in the
form of biographies. This presents the perspective of the “average worker” and illus-
trates the negative impact automation had on their lives. Whilst at the same time man-


1
    The term average worker in this context refers to an employee of a company who is in any
    non-managerial, non-supervisory role (Ford, 2015: 34).



Copyright © 2019 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0
International (CC BY 4.0)
2


ufacturers “amassed great wealth” (Griffin, 2013: 24). This allows me to draw an anal-
ogy between the first industrial revolution and the fourth industrial revolution. The
work of Martin Ford (2015) presents an overview of the impact the fourth industrial
revolution has on companies and the “average worker” (Ford, 2015: 34). Whist Ford
(2015) present an opposing methodology to Griffin (2013), taking a large overview of
the situation instead of documenting individual cases, the trends of both are similar in
nature. Both industrial revolutions show that automation, and AAIS, illustrate the same
this, it is positive for companies yet negative for the workers. There are trends both
works identify that are not directly tied to the economy, one such trend is how both
revolutions disrupt the wat knowledge is passed (Griffin, 2013: 29) (Ford, 2015: 50).
Secondly, I argue for the implementation of AAIS, the case for profit by using the works
of Friedman (1970) and Soares (2003). Friedman argues that corporations have no so-
cial responsibility, and exist solely to fulfil their owner’s wishes (Friedman, 1970: 2),
which is usually for the corporation to be a profitable one (Friedman, 1970: 2). Fried-
man extends this and argues that anyone who takes care of a corporation, can only act
ethically by fulfilling the wishes of the owners (Friedman, 1970: 3). Doing anything
else would be considered unethical, even acting socially responsible (Friedman, 1970:
3). Sociably responsibility can extend for a corporations consideration for its workers.
As mentioned above, Friedman’s work is rather old, and however, I believe his position
is a tenable one if the work of Soares (2003) is used to supplement it. Soares argues
that a corporation is able to act, and its actions can be blameworthy or praiseworthy,
corporations are therefore able to act an individual’s (Soares, 2003: 2). I apply Soares
(2003) position to Freidman (1970) arguing that as an individual a corporation should
look after its own interest which would be to make a profit. Lastly I present a counter-
position to the pure pursuit of profit by arguing that the “Nike case” (DeTienne and
Lewis, 2005) demonstrates how a corporation can be profitable and socially responsi-
ble, even when forced to do so (DeTienne and Lewis, 2005).There are a number of
possible objections to my position, such as increased productivity making goods and
services cheaper and job reskilling and creation. I address these concerns toward the
end of my paper. I present a solution to the issue of my paper in the form of an “episodic
career” (Chideya, 2016). Lastly I conclude by reiterating the main argument within my
paper, namely that there is an ethico-economic aspect in developing and implementing
AAIS that needs to be considered. From the point of the “average worker” (Ford, 2015:
34), as well as on the side of business.


References
    1. Chideya, F (2016). The Episodic Career: How to Thrive at Work in the Age of Disruption.
       New York, New York. Atria Paperback.
    2. DeTienne, K.B. and Lewis, L.W (2005). The Pragmatic and Ethical Barriers to Corporate
       Social Responsibility Disclosure: The Nike Case. Journal of Business Ethics (60). Pp 359-
       376.
    3. Ford, M. (2015). Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. Basic
       Books, Pp 32-105
                                                                                          3

4. Friedman, M (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits. The New
   York Times Magazine
5. Griffin, E. (2013). Liberty's Dawn: A People's History of the Industrial Revolution. Yale
   University Press, Pp 23-39
6. Hangendorff, T (2019). The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines. Research
   Gate.
7. McNamara, A; Smith, J; Murphy-Hill, E (2018). Does ACM’s Code of Ethics Change Eth-
   ical Decision Making in Software Development? Research Gate.
8. Soares, C (2003). Corporate Versus Individual Moral Responsibility. Journal of Business
   Ethics. 46 (2). Pp 143-150