What Ethical Issues Arise from The Use of Wearable Technologies in Workplaces?
T1 2020: ICT303 Professional Ethics in Computing
Technologies such as Google glass and smart watches are coming into the workplace. Given the intrusive natures of these technologies it is easy for employees to take videos or photographs of other people at work and share it with others. What ethical issues arise from the use of wearable technologies in workplaces?
Executive Summary
Wearable technologies like Google Glass and smartwatches have been offering new challenges for organizations and employers. These technologies facilitate employees, but they are also going to be responsible for raising ethical concerns. This paper studies the issue through different philosophies of ethics. Different perspectives of ethics can help analyze the issue and its ethical standing. Chosen ethical philosophies include deontological, utilitarianism, rights, and virtue-based ethics. The analysis finds that wearable technologies have genuine ethical concerns and conclude that organizations should regulate their use in the workplace. Only virtue-based ethics allows its use in the organization. The paper recommends analyzing the issue of wearable technologies through the different perspectives of ethics so that decision on its use can be made with confidence.
Technologies are shaping behaviors and attitudes in today’s dynamic world. People are getting access to more information, resources, and possibilities as a result of it. Mostly, technology offers positive and beneficial effects to its users, but there must be a limit to any issue. Recently, companies like Google and Apple Inc have developed wearable technologies. These technologies have one feature in common. They have equipped people with the latest technologies through which they can disrupt the privacy of others. For instance, Google Glass and smartwatches have made it possible for employees to take photos and record videos around them. It has raised serious ethical issues because they may be treated as a right of users, and simultaneously, they hurt others’ rights of privacy (Segura Anaya et al., 2018). It has made the issue worth explaining using different ethical philosophies. In this paper, the central point revolves around ethics, but ethics does not have one perspective. It has different aspects making an issue acceptable or not. Therefore, this issue has been analyzed using four different ethical philosophies.
Ethical Analysis
The issue of wearable technologies is worth explaining and analyzing with the lens of ethical philosophies. For example, the use of Google Glass is not unethical because it is the right of any customer to buy one. Besides, he has the right to wear it at any time and any place. Its limitations may be a matter of discipline, but it must not be immoral or unethical. A similar case is with a smartwatch that enables the user to store moments around him. It is the right of an employee at the workplace to wear it; however, it may be regulated. A person may object to link the application of ethics to its use. It is a matter of discipline and management rather than a matter of ethics. Before going to say anything for sure, it is worthwhile to take different perspectives from within ethics.
Deontological Philosophy of Ethics
The deontological philosophy is comprehensive in its application. Before analyzing the issue of wearable technology concerning deontological philosophy, it is useful to understand it. It is a class of ethical theories that focuses on the obligations of human beings. It focuses on the obligations and duties of people as they engage in decision-making. It means that a person has to act according to his obligation or responsibility to another person. He has to fulfill that obligation or duty to another person, whether the law allows him to do a particular act (Schuessler, 2015). He would not rely on permission under the law; instead, it would evaluate his action based on his obligations and duties. After understanding this philosophy, it has become helpful to apply in the case of wearable technologies.
Suppose an employee has wearable technology, and with its help, he records an act of another employee. He may record his conversation or take a personal photo. Under the deontological philosophy, he should evaluate these acts. It is an obligation or duty of an employee on the other to protect privacy. He has the obligation of respecting the personal lives of others. Therefore, it should not be allowed under this philosophy of ethics. With another perspective, if an employee record conversation or photo of another employee involving in an illegal act, one may be confused under this philosophy. However, one should understand that it is not the obligation of an employee to identify unlawful practices. Still, it would remain the obligation of the employee not to record videos and take photos without permission. Therefore, this perspective does not allow using wearable technology in the workplace with this intention. Otherwise, it is the right of an employee to use them (Mandal et al., 2016).
Utilitarianism philosophy of Ethics
Another philosophy of ethics is utilitarianism that focuses on outcomes or consequences of actions. This philosophy is confusing because it is uncertain to predict outcomes in many instances. There are two types of utilitarianism, i.e., act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Both forms state that an act is ethical if it has positive outcomes. It assumes that ethics does not want to hurt any person. It has the objective to benefit everyone so that there is a just society. Therefore, the decision of ethics should rely on benefits and advantages to others (CRISP, 2014).
The case of utilitarianism philosophy can explain the example presented under the deontological philosophy. The above section included the instance where an employee records, photos and videos of another employee involved in an illegal act. The consequences and results of this act must be positive. One may consider this as a wise use of wearable technologies because it leaves no room for unethical action. It requires a detailed analysis of whether such use of wearable technology should be allowed under the utilitarianism philosophy. Such use of these technologies may cause confrontation at the workplace where each employee may tend to catch others’ actions. Such a climate may hurt trust among employees; therefore, it would cause negative consequences on the long-term basis (Wilson, 2014).
Ethical philosophies concerning Rights
Ethics may rely on the perspective of rights because ethics tends to serve the rights of employees at the workplace. In civilized society and organization, every person or employee has rights and has protection under those rights. Rights have an ethical foundation because everyone has a right. It is the right of independence, the right to privacy, and the right of any fundamental necessity. Therefore, an action would be ethical if it serves the rights of another employee (Pacheco-Vega, 2019).
The case of wearable technologies has two different kinds of rights. One is the right under which an employee uses these technologies. The other right is concerning other employees who may experience a negative effect on any wearable technology. For the person who wears the technology, it is his right because the government allows its sale and purchase. Companies are manufacturing the product using technology, and there is no restriction. It is enough to establish its legality. Therefore, the wearer may not be held culprit, and he has the right to use it. However, if he disrupts the rights of another user by the invasion of his privacy and personal life, it may become unethical. It would compromise the rights of another employee, and it makes it wrong to use it in the workplace (Butler, 2018).
Ethical philosophies concerning Virtues
The perspective of virtue also becomes the foundation of ethical philosophy where an action should be evaluated based on virtue. This perspective broadens the scope of ethics because it takes the person’s character into account. It does not consider the action of a person because one should look into the character. The intention and purpose of action may also fall under this perspective. If a person has a good intention, it would be ethical. However, if someone acts right, but the intention is not good, it would not be ethical. It has made the ethics issue very simple and understandable. Under this perspective, a wrong action may be considered to be ethical if the intention is wise and right. In this manner, the issue of ethics becomes broader (Elders, 2019).
The issue of wearable technologies can be seen and analyzed using this perspective or ethical philosophy. If a person uses Google Glass, for instance, in a bid to enjoy his rights, it would be ethical. He would record activities of a corrupt employee and would show that recording to top executives of the organization. This act may be wrong, but good intentions make it the right action. Therefore, it is an ethical action. From another perspective, if an employee who is a close friend of another employee takes photos of him and then use them for a harmful purpose. He may use them for blackmailing, for instance, and then it would be unethical. Because the intention of capturing photos was wrong, despite taking pictures is not an illegal or unethical practice.
Conclusion
The paper concludes that technologies are benefiting every segment of society, and they are also affecting workplaces. Organizations get benefit from the independence given by technologies. Employees become more productive and helpful to them. However, some technologies, like wearable technologies, have limitations. These technologies, for example, Google Glass and smartwatches, have been invading the privacy of others at the workplace. They have raised serious ethical concerns because they are disturbing the climate. Employees and employers are facing an extra challenge because of these technologies. The issue has been analyzed through the lens of different ethical philosophies. The discussion using these philosophies has revealed that the use of wearable technologies in the workplace is unethical because it has evil intentions and consequences. Only the virtue perspective of ethical philosophy can consider it ethical. However, an overwhelming tendency goes against it because it is an unethical act. The paper recommends that organizations should adopt a guiding policy so that employees cannot use wearable technologies unethically.
References
Butler, C., 2018. Human Rights Ethics: A Contemporary Normative Ethical Theory. Proceedings of the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy, 12, pp.41-49.
CRISP, R., 2014. Taking Stock of Utilitarianism. Utilitas, 26(3), pp.231-49.
Elders, L.J., 2019. The Ethics of St. Thomas Aquinas: Happiness, Natural Law, and the Virtues. 1st ed. Catholic University of America Press.
Mandal, J., Ponnambath, D. & Parija, S., 2016. Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Tropical Parasitology, 6(1), pp.1-5.
Pacheco-Vega, R., 2019. Human right to water and bottled water consumption: Governing at the intersection of water justice, rights and ethics. Water Politics, pp.113-28.
Schuessler, R., 2015. Violating Strict Deontological Constraints: Excuse or Pardon? Criminal Law and Philosophy, 9(4), pp.587-601.
Segura Anaya, L.H., Alsadoon, A., Costadopoulos, N. & Prasad, P.W.C., 2018. Ethical Implications of User Perceptions of Wearable Devices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(1), pp.1-28.
Wilson, F., 2014. Sidgwickian Ethics/Sidgwick and Contemporary Utilitarianism. Victorian Studies, 56(2), pp.352-354,380.
