DEFECTS, USEFULNESS AND USABILITY OF ETHICS
THEORIES IN IS ETHICS EDUCATION
Tero Vartiainen
Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, FIN 40351 Jyväskylä,
FINLAND
Mikko T. Siponen
Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 3000, FIN-90014 University of Oulu,
FINLAND
Keywords: Computer ethics teaching
Abstract: Computer ethics is recognized as an essential component of information systems curricula. However, little
is known about how students perceive the usefulness and usability of ethics theories in solving computer-
related moral conflicts, and what kinds of mistakes they make in solving moral problems by applying those
theories. To fill this gap, an interpretive qualitative and quantitative study (n=20) was conducted to
determine the defects, perceived usefulness and usability of alternative ethics theories (utilitarianism,
Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, prima-facie principles, Rawls' veil of ignorance) in computer ethics teaching.
The results shed a new light on the use of these theories in this field of education, and also suggest new
directions for it.
1 INTRODUCTION
The need of properly educating IS users in ethics has
come to be increasingly recognized. As a result, IS
ethics education frameworks have been proposed
(e.g., Davison, 2001; Dyrud, 2002; Martin & Huff,
1997; Tavani, 2001). These frameworks represent
conceptual-analytical reasoning, and therefore lack
empirical evidence on their usefulness. Although,
the construction of conceptual-analytical IS ethics
frameworks is a valuable activity (cf., Hare, 1985),
there is also a strong need for empirical research. It
would be important to know what effects and
implications different theories of ethics have, when
used in the IS context. In particular, there is a need
to study how end-users experience these theories of
ethics, and how these theories affect their thinking,
in order to ensure that such frameworks have effects
beyond a desktop discussion among researchers. As
a response to this challenge the applicability of the
universality thesis (favoured e.g., by Kant, Hare) has
been empirically studied (Vartiainen and Siponen,
2003). However, in addition, there is also a need to
explore users’ perceived usefulness and ease of use
of other theories of ethics in computer ethics
educations. The aim of this study is to do this by
exploring the usability of virtue ethics,
utilitarianism, prima-facie principles, Rawl’s veil of
ignorance and Kantian ethics.
This paper is organized as follows. The second
section presents the theoretical framework, the third
considers the research design and the method used,
and the fourth presents the results. The fifth section
discusses the limits and the significance of the
findings. The sixth section reiterates the key
findings.
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Ethics theories
Several alternative theories of ethics exits, including
utilitarianism, universal prescritivism (Hare, 1981),
179
Vartiainen T. and T. Siponen M. (2004).
DEFECTS, USEFULNESS AND USABILITY OF ETHICS THEORIES IN IS ETHICS EDUCATION.
In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pages 179-186
DOI: 10.5220/0002611701790186
Copyright
c
 SciTePress

Kant’s theory (1993), emotivism (Stevenson, 1944),
intuitionism (Ross, 1930), the theory of information
ethics (Floridi, 1999) and virtue ethics. Of these
theories we selected utilitarianism, virtue ethics,
intuitionism (Ross’ prima-facie principles), Kant’s
ethics and Rawls theory of justice (“veil of
ignorance”). By taking this selection, we aimed to
offer students a variety of thinking-tools together
with knowledge of the major traditions in ethics.
Students were lectured on the basics of ethics
theories using the following moral conflict as an
example: A friend asked a student if he would lend
him the installation diskette of a text processing
software program so that he could install it in his
own computer. The friend is also a student and he is
about to fail a course he is taking if he does not
complete a given assignment in time.
Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, originally
developed by Bentham and Mill, holds that an act
that produces the greatest happiness for greatest
number of people, measured in terms of ‘pleasure’
and ‘absence of pain’, is a morally right action. With
respect to the example given above, utilitarianism
then counts which alternative produces a greater
increase in happiness (and pain): loaning the
diskette, or not loaning the diskette. If loaning the
software produces more happiness for the lender and
his friend than negative consequences (pain) to the
software manufacturer, then the act of copying is
acceptable in the light of theory of utilitarianism.
Kant’s ethics. Kant’s ethics can be summarized
by his categorical imperative consisting of the thesis
of universality (i.e., act only on maxims that you
would want to be universal laws), and the rule of
human dignity (always treat other people as an end,
never only as a means). To give a simple example of
how Kant’s universality thesis can be applied to the
case in question, we should ask whether we would
want like to live in society where the copying of SW
is allowed. If we answer in the affirmative, then
copying of SW is acceptable in the light of Kant’s
universality thesis and the student could lend the
software to his friend.
Intuitionism: Ross’ prima-facie principles.
According to the theory of prima-facie duties (Ross,
1930), humans have many such duties, which are
more or less incumbent on us. On some occasions,
those duties make conflicting demands on us and we
have to determine, which of those duties is the more
incumbent on us. In the example case, the student
has duties towards his friend, for example, to help a
friend in need; but he could also be thought to have
duties towards software producers, for example, to
ensure the maintenance of a proper environment for
software production.
Virtue ethics. According to virtue ethics, when
faced with an ethical dilemma we need first to ask
what kind of people we are (or would like to be) in
order to select from possible courses of action
(Pence, 1993; Macintyre, 1987; Crisp and Slote,
1997). Virtue theory itself does not equip us with
good virtues, but leaves the course of action to be
chosen to the moral agent him/herself. In our
example, the student could deliberate with himself
about what kind of a human being, or in this
instance, the kind of friend or citizen he is or would
like to be. For example, he might decide that as a
friend he would like to be helpful but as a citizen he
would like to foster a good environment for software
production.
Rawls theory of justice: “veil of ignorance”. The
key element in Rawls’ (1971) theory of justice is the
so-called veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance
seeks to guarantee fair and just treatment for all
members of society. The veil of ignorance is applied
in an imaginary negotiation, with the purpose of
achieving justice or equality in society. Ideally in
negotiations behind the veil of ignorance each
participant is unaware of who s/he is, of his/her
gender, preferences, profession, financial situation,
status, and interests in society. According to Rawls,
the process of deciding an issue behind the veil of
ignorance is fair and just, because we are then forced
to choose impartially (as we do not know who we
are in society). However, under the veil, participants
know certain facts, such as inequalities. When
deciding on the principles to be followed under the
veil, each participant also has the right to veto an
agreement. Under the veil the least advantaged
parties (e.g., disabled people) are protected, because
no one knows who s/he will be after the raising of
the veil. Rawls’ (1971) veil of ignorance is also
aimed at solving moral conflicts (Collins and Miller,
1992). When solving a moral conflict, one may
arrange an imaginary negotiation behind the veil,
during which the participants try to achieve a
solution to the conflict.
In our case, the student could imagine a
negotiation, in which he, his friend, and a
representative of the software producer are present.
They (the student, his friend and the representative
of the software producer) do not know their identity
in real life (hence the term ‘veil of ignorance’). They
might equally be software producers as students.
Given this situation, they try to achieve a consensus
relating to the production and delivery of software.
A possible resolution, which might be accepted by
all parties, would be as follows: every one should be
properly compensated for their work and for people
on low incomes (e.g., students), software producers
should offer discounted licensing fees.
ICEIS 2004 - HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION
180

2.2 Technology acceptance model
The technology acceptance model (TAM) by Davis
(1989), stemming from a theory by Fishbein and
Ajzen (1975) and the theory of planned behaviour
(Ajzen, 1991), presumes that use of a system
depends on behavioural intention to use that system.
Behavioral intention consists of an attitude towards
use that divides into two components 1) "perceived
usefulness" and 2) perceived "ease of use".
Perceived usefulness is defined as: “the degree to
which a person believes that using a particular
system would enhance his or her job performance”
Davis (1989, p. 320). Ease of use is defined as “the
degree to which a person believes that using a
particular systems would be free of effort” Davis
(1989, p. 320). If a system – or a theory of ethics in
this case - is perceived as useful, the user believes
that there is a positive use-performance relationship,
and if one system is easier to use than other systems,
users will most likely prefer it to the others.
3 RESEARCH DESIGN
The subjects selected were students on an elective
Ethics for Computer Professionals (2cr) course,
given at the Department of Computer Science and
Information Systems, University of Jyväskylä,
Finland. The intervention was conducted during
January 2003. 21 students participated the course
and 20 of them answered a qualitative questionnaire
and 21 a quantitative survey designed for this study.
Students were presented with a real-life moral
conflict reported by a computer professional to one
of the preset authors. In the conflict, the head
administrator deliberates over what to do now that
s/he has found out that his/her subordinate has been
reading users’ emails. The case was put as follows
(translated from Finnish into English): ”I work as a
head administrator of a server and some users have
contacted me wondering why the reading-times of
their mailboxes have magically changed during the
night. Because I was unable to find any sensible
reason, I spied on the other administrators to find out
what they were up to. I found the culprit, a semi-
acquaintance, who was ‘peeking’ at girls’
mailboxes. I know that the person is harmless nerd
who, in my judgment, would not abuse any
information he obtained. What should I do?”
After presenting the case to the students, the
chosen theories (Section 2) were introduced, and a
qualitative questionnaire consisting of the following
assignments was administered: first, the students
were expected to solve the problem by using
utilitarianism, Kantian ethics (categorical
imperative), virtue theory, prima-facie principles
and Rawls’ veil of ignorance. Then, they were to
assess the usefulness and usability of those theories
in solving this moral problem. Additionally, the
students were asked to assess whether they would
use any of these ethics theories, if they were to
confront a similar moral problem in real life. After
the course, which included essay writing, seminars
and exercises relating to moral problem solving, a
quantitative survey was distributed to the students:
they were asked to assess the usability and perceived
usefulness of each ethics theory and then ethics
theories in general on a 1 – 5 scale. For example, to
the statement “Utilitarianism is easy to use” the
response scale ranged from 1, very strong
agreement, to 5, very strong disagreement.
To better understand in students’ conceptions in
this educational intervention, an interpretive
research approach was applied (cf., Klein & Myers
2001). In interpretive research that is qualitative,
dependent and independent variables are not
defined; instead the focus is on individuals’
subjective meanings and how they interact with the
world around them (Trauth, 2001). The interpretive
content analysis approach of Lacity and Janson
(1994, p. 148) was used to analyze the responses. In
this approach the contextual circumstances in which
respondents frame their answers and the
circumstances that influence the researchers’
interpretations are taken into account.
Krippendorff (1980) has defined the validity
criteria for content analysis: internal validity (or
reliability) means that the research procedure will
yield the same results regardless of the
circumstances of application. For instance, if the
research method is reliable, the duplication of the
data analysis by another researcher will produce the
same results. External validity assesses whether the
findings represent real phenomena in the context of
the data as claimed. Krippendorff’s (1980) external
validity has similarities with the validity criterion for
interpretive studies proposed by Lacity and Janson
(1994 p. 149): they see validity in interpretive
research in terms of its acceptance by the scientific
community. In other words, if fellow scholars find
the research meaningful, the results can be
considered valid and worthwhile.
4 RESULTS
Categories of defects in the application of each
ethics theory, perceived usefulness and usability of
each ethics theory, students’ conceptions of the
defects of ethics theories in general and the use of
ethics theories with respect to the specific given
DEFECTS, USEFULNESS AND USABILITY OF ETHICS THEORIES IN IS ETHICS EDUCATION
181

moral conflict outlined above are presented in this
section.
4.1 Defects in the application
For each ethics theory there were some students who
applied them inadequately in such a way that we
were unable to specify what actually went wrong in
their analysis. One explanation for this is that some
students answered hurriedly and without paying
attention to what they wrote. Other defects we
classified into categories, and they are presented
next.
Utilitarianism
Category: Long-term consequences are
forgotten. This category of responses means that the
students only looked at short-term consequences.
For example, one student wrote as follows: “The
situation should be solved by means of utilitarianism
so that all parties to the situation benefit as much as
possible. This would happen in practice by warning
that the person who was peeking at emails and the
peeking would stop. No other sanctions would be
applied.” In the above extract, the student did not
bring out the long-term consequences.
Category: Only takes into account self and the
assistant administrator who was “peeking” the
emails. In this category, the respondents only took
into consideration the interests of the assistant
administrator and hence failed to pay attention to the
interests of the victims of the “peeking” activity, as
the following extract from a student’s response
shows: “... Peeking at emails does not lead to any
harm to anyone, so probably the only good
consequence is a harmless nerd’s pleasure. …”
Category: Thinks that the best resolution
should apply to everyone. Utilitarianism is
concerned to bring about the best possible
consequences for the greatest number of people.
This is achieved by applying a cost-benefit analysis,
which does not mean that everyone necessarily
benefits. For example, according to utilitarianism, it
is acceptable to suppress minorities if it makes the
majority happy. The following extract exemplifies
such a flawed understanding of utilitarianism: “In
utilitarianism morality demands that people act in
the way that their acts are followed by good
consequences”
Prima facie
Category: Did not take into account all
parties’ preferences. Application of prima-facie
principles was defective in that not all parties’
preferences or duties were considered. A more
profound analysis of duties means that the duties of
all the parties involved are taken into account. For
example, the following extract shows that the
student took the principles defined by Ross into
account, but failed to analyze the duties of the head
administrator: “According to Ross’ prima-facie
duties an individual is not allowed to harm anyone
by his actions, and when aiming at goodness he
should develop his morality. Consequently, the
person should stop peeking and put himself morally
above such behaviors.“
Kant
Category: Leaves one party out of account.
Kant’s categorical imperative requires
universalization of the act under deliberation. When
universalizing acts, one should take cognizance of
the various parties involved. In the following
example, student only considers what one should do
and refrains from taking, for example, the girls’
position into account: “… This being the case, in the
light of Kantian duty-based ethics the answer to the
question ‘What ought I to do?’ is clearly such that I
have to do something which stops the forbidden
actions of the other administrator.”
Virtue ethics
Category: Does not consider own moral
development. In virtue ethics one considers one’s
own nature, that is to say, what kind of virtues one is
seeking to develop in oneself. Some students left this
viewpoint out of their deliberations – they stressed
the application of certain virtues like honesty as in
the following example, but refrained from taking
deeper look at character building: “According to
virtue ethics in the situation one should apply
fundamental virtues like honesty and rationality. The
person who committed the offence should practice
good manners from the viewpoint of professional
ethics and think about his rational utility…”
Rawls’ veil of ignorance
Category: Does not look at the problem from
others’ viewpoints. Failure to observe the problem
from other parties’ viewpoints was hooked in
students’ use of the veil of ignorance. The following
passage shows how one student did not try to see
other parties’ perspectives: “According to Rawls’
veil of ignorance, the problem should be solved in
the way that we put ourselves into wholly objective
state outside the dilemma and observe it without
knowing our role in the event under deliberation.”
4.2 Perceived usefulness and usability
Some polarity emerged in the students’ responses to
the question about the usefulness and usability of
ethics theories so far as both qualities received
positive and negative descriptions (Table 1). First,
students’ perceptions pertaining to the usefulness
and usability of each theory are described. Then,
their responses to the survey are presented.
ICEIS 2004 - HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION
182

Utilitarianism was perceived as useful by the
respondents because it broadened and supported
one’s thinking and because of its practicality and
clarity. It was assessed as useless because of the
difficulty of formulating a good solution and
because rule-utilitarianism did not help in making
rules. Utilitarianism was considered usable by some
students because of its perceived effectiveness. For
others, utilitarianism was unusable because they saw
difficulties in identifying the relevant parties and
seeing all the consequences of the alternative
actions.
Additionally, owing to the focus of utilitarianism
on pleasure and happiness and dividing these among
people, one student reported that utilitarianism is not
usable because not all pleasures are acceptable
(pleasures for the majority could mean harm for the
minority).
Kantian ethics was perceived as useful owing to
its clarity. In turn, Kant’s ethics was seen less useful
because of its impracticality and cruelty (the
inflexibility of Kantian thinking may lead to
straightforward but cruel decisions; for example, this
might stem from the case that, according to Kant,
telling the truth to a murderer when he asks you
where a person he is searching for is to be found.)
Virtue ethics was considered useful because it
was perceived as non simplistic and because it was
perceived to be in accordance with general
perceptions. It was considered not useful because it
does not give clear advice. The usability of virtue
ethics was criticized on the grounds of the plurality
of virtues and other factors and because of its
idealistic approach.
Prima-facie duties were considered useful on the
grounds of reasonableness and logicality and not
useful because all the uncertainties. Prima-facie
duties, on the one hand, were considered easy to use
because the classification of duties was perceived as
easy. On the other hand, prima-facie duties were
seen as difficult to use because it was difficult to
determine what the duties in question were and
compare them with each other.
Rawls’ veil of ignorance was perceived useful
because it broadened and supported one’s thinking.
It was considered easy to use because it was
perceived as considering issues only (behind the
veil, each participant does not know his/her real
identity).
The students’ quantitative assessments regarding
the usefulness and usability of ethics theories are
summarized in tables 2 and 3. For example, (Table
2, first row), 19,0% of students somewhat disagreed
with the argument that “Ethics theories, in general,
are useful in solving moral problems.”
Table 2 shows that utilitarianism and the veil of
ignorance were perceived as the most usable theories
as they were considered highly or somewhat useful
by 71, 4% (sum of 19,0 and 52,4) and 61,9% of
students, respectively. In contrast, Kant’s duty-based
theory and virtue theory were perceived as the most
useless theories: 38, 1% and 38,1% of students,
respectively, did not consider them highly or
somewhat useful. Table 3 shows that Kant and
Table 1: Perceived usefulness and usability of ethics heories
Usefulness Usability
Positive Negative Positive Negative
Utiliarianism Broadens one’s
thinking; Supports
one’s thinking;
Practicality and
clarity
Rule utilitarianism
does not help in
making rules;
Difficult to assess a
good solution
Efficiency Difficulty in identifying
parties and consequences;
All pleasures cannot be
accepted; Difference
between rule and act
makes utilitarianism hard
to grasp
Kant Clarity Impracticality and
cruelty;
Simplicity of
application; Kantian
thinking is near my own
thinking
Difficulty in forming
rules or laws
Virtue ethics Useful because it is
not simplistic; In
accordance with
general perceptions
Does not give clear
advice
Plurality of virtues and
factors;
Idealistic approach
Prima-facie Reasonableness and
logicality
Uncertainties Classification of duties
is easy
Difficulties in
determining duties and in
comparing duties
(prioritisation)
Rawls Broadens one’s
thinking; Supports
one’s own thinking
One considers only
matters
Complexity
DEFECTS, USEFULNESS AND USABILITY OF ETHICS THEORIES IN IS ETHICS EDUCATION
183

Rawls’ veil of ignorance were perceived as the
easiest to use (57,1% and 71,5%, respectively) in
contrast to virtue theory and prima-facie duties,
which were perceived as the hardest to use (47,6%
and 42,8%, respectively). As far as ethics theories in
general (the first row in both tables), we found that
ethics theories were perceived as useful by 61,9% of
students and easy-to use by 57,2% of students in
solving moral problems.
4.3 Students’ perceptions about the
defects of ethics theories
Students’ perceptions about the defects of the
various ethics theories are given next.
Two students perceived defects in utilitarianism.
The first student considered that utilitarianism
neglects long-term consequences: “But
utilitarianism does not offer the assessment of long-
term consequences, this being the case, the nerd,
who appears to be harmless, could continue his
actions regardless of being rebuked … this being the
case, the principle of utilitarianism does not function
in reality”
The second student criticized the theory as
having too many alternatives to be applicable: “…
The theory provides too many alternatives for me to
be able to produce a solution with it alone.” One
student criticized Ross’ prima-facie duties because
the theory does not offer any model for the
prioritization of duties: “… Ross does not offer any
particular model for prioritizing duties but ‘the duty
proper is to be found via deliberation.’ There are no
norms with which to standardize duties.”
A student criticized virtue ethics for its
impracticality. It does not state how one is to
cultivate one’s virtues in practice: “The problem
emerges in the case of the example we were given,
how do we cultivate these virtues? The most general
problem in virtue ethics is how to implement it in
practice”.
A student considered it a key problem, when
applying Rawls’ veil of ignorance, that behind the
veil one should be able to “forget” knowledge of
personal matters. These personal matters include
age, status, etc. The student considered this
problematic because it would mean casting off one’s
identity to be able to have the imagined discussion:
“...This creates such a problem that perhaps an
individual’s identity and everything that binds him
to the ‘web of his interests’ are not inseparable.”
4.4 Use of ethics theories in real life
Students were nearly unanimous about the usage of
ethics theories in real life. With few exceptions, all
students considered that they would not use ethics
theories directly, but would rely on their intuitive
morality, concluding also that their own thinking
was in accordance with one or more ethics theories
or that they would unconsciously use some of them.
In a typical response, one student considered that
s/he would use his/her personal view (intuitionally)
about right and wrong to solve the problem: “Most
Table 2: Usefulness of ethics theories in solving moral problems
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neutral Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Do not
answer
Ethics theories, in general, are useful
in solving moral problems.
19,0% 42,9% 19,0% 19,0% 0,0% 0,0%
Utilitarianism is useful. 19,0% 52,4% 19,0% 4,8% 0,0% 4,8%
Kant’s duty-based ethics is useful 14,3% 38,1% 4,8% 28,6% 9,5% 4,8%
Virtue theory is useful 9,5% 23,8% 23,8% 38,1% 0,0% 4,8%
Ross’ prima-facie duties are useful 9,5% 19,0% 33,3% 33,3% 0,0% 4,8%
Rawls’ veil of ignorance is useful 19,0% 42,9% 23,8% 9,5% 0,0% 4,8%
Table 3: Perceived usability of ethics theories in solving moral problems
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neutral Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Do not
answer
Ethics theories, in general, are easy to
use in solving moral problems.
4,8% 52,4% 19,0% 23,8% 0,0% 0,0%
Utilitarianism is easy to use. 9,5% 42,9% 28,6% 14,3% 0,0% 4,8%
Kant’s duty-based ethics is easy to
use
19,0% 38,1% 4,8% 28,6% 4,8% 4,8%
Virtue theory is easy to use 4,8% 28,6% 14,3% 38,1% 9,5% 4,8%
Ross’ prima- facie duties are easy to
use
9,5% 28,6% 14,3% 33,3% 9,5% 4,8%
Rawls’ veil of ignorance is easy to
use
28,6% 42,9% 9,5% 9,5% 4,8% 4,8%
ICEIS 2004 - HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION
184

probably I would not directly use any theory in
solving the problem, because I would not solve the
problem theoretically, but I would try to base my
activities on my view about what is right and what is
wrong. …” A student considered that knowledge
about theories could help in solving moral problems:
“If I confronted the situation in real life, I would not
necessarily first deliberate what each philosophical
theory would say about the matter or how the
theories approach solving moral problems.
However, the knowledge about theories can help in
solving the problem, although no particular theory
would offer any exact resolution….”
Typically students mentioned theories, which
they would use and would not use in the event that
they had to use a theory. A student expressed: “… If
I used any of them, I suppose that virtue ethics and
the veil of ignorance would be best for me. …”
5 DISCUSSION
Limitations. This study entails the following
limitations. First, the course the students enrolled in
was an elective one and therefore likely to attract
students interested in ethical issues. Thus, the results
cannot be generalized across all students.
Nevertheless, we feel that we obtained a
multifaceted understanding about how different
ethics theories might be applied by students. Second,
since the respondents answered through email they
were not anonymous, and may not have answered as
frankly as they otherwise would.
Evaluation of results. To guarantee validity
according to the criteria presented in section 3, we
individually classified the responses into categories.
After each author had produced his own separate
classification of the respondents’ conclusions and
inferences, the two classifications were compared.
This comparison revealed certain differences. Both
authors critically discussed differences and jointly
agreed upon the final classifications. This kind of
peer-review of the categories, involving discussion
of the differences between them reaching agreement
about them confirms their internal validity. As for
the criterion of Janson and Lacity (1994), where
validity rests on acceptance by the scientific
community, we can only leave this for the reader to
decide. However, we have cited verbatim from the
subjects’ texts to show evidence for our analysis.
Implications for IS ethics teaching and
research.The value of incorporating ethics theories
in IS ethics teaching was supported by this study.
Ethics theories were considered useful by 61.9% of
students and not useful by 19.0%. Theories were
considered as easy to use by 57.2% and not easy to
use by 23,8%. The results suggest that students do
not abandon ethics theories in solving moral
problems, even if they do not consciously use them
in real life. In fact, some students considered that the
ideas behind the theories were latently present in
their intuitive deliberations and that theories provide
them with useful thinking-tools. However, as the
results show, not all students perceive ethics theories
as useful or usable, and thus there is the possibility
that those students will ignore ethics theories as an
aid in ethical decision-making.
Students’ perceptions relating to broadening the
base of one’s reasoning in the cases of utilitarianism
and Rawls’ veil of ignorance suggest that use of
these two theories develops moral sensitivity, i.e.,
the ability to look ethically at relevant issues (Rest,
1994).
The results showed that there were
misunderstandings about how certain ethics theories
should be used and that some of the students’
analyses were defective. These defects should be
taken into consideration when educating students
about ethics theories. On utilitarianism, its main
tenet about producing the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people, assessing long-term
consequences and taking all parties into account
should be emphasized. On prima-facie duties and
Kant, the emphasizes should be on taking all parties
into account, and on virtue ethics, attention should
be drawn to the importance of considering one’s
own moral nature.
Some students perceived the use of ethics
theories as complex and unclear, i.e., that theories do
not give clear advice. This should be taken into
consideration in ethics teaching by pointing out the
role of ethics theories in decision-making; that is to
say, no single theory is meant to be the sole key but
all theories should be used in analyzing moral
conflicts. This means that toleration of uncertainty
when confronting and solving moral problems
should be taken into account in ethics teaching.
The results shed light on the use of ethics
theories in real life. In future, the effect of teaching
ethics theories on the processes of moral problem
solving should be investigated. The populations
studied should be extended in future studies.
6 CONCLUSION
Although, ethics is recognized as a vital part of
information systems curricula, little is known about
whether the users find ethics theories useful and
usable in solving ethical problems in computing. In
an attempt to redress this situation, this interpretive
study investigated the perceived usefulness and
DEFECTS, USEFULNESS AND USABILITY OF ETHICS THEORIES IN IS ETHICS EDUCATION
185

usability of ethics theories and their perceived
defects. In general the theories were found to have a
positive effect on students’ thinking, although they
were deductively applied in some cases. The
findings will be of use in IS ethics education and
future research.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I., 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior”
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes. 50, pp. 179-211.
Collins, W.R., K.W. Miller, 1992. “Paramedic Ethics for
Computer Professionals”, Journal of Systems
Software, (17) 1, pp. 23-38.
Crisp, R. and M. Slote, 1997. Virtue Ethics, Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Davis, F. D. 1989. "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease
of Use, and User Acceptance of Information
Technology," MIS Quarterly (13:3), September 1989,
pp.319-339.
Davison, R.M. 2000. “Professional Ethics in Information
Systems: A Personal Perspective” Communications of
AIS. (3) 8, April.
Dyrud, M.A. 2002. “Teaching engineering ethics to non-
engineering students”, IEEE Technology and Society
Magazine. Vol. 20 Issue 4, Winter 2001-2002,
Page(s): 28 –33
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention
and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and
Research. Addison-Wesley, reading, MA.
Floridi, L., 1999. “Information Ethics: On the
Philosophical Foundation of Computer Ethics” Ethics
and Information Technology, (1)1, pp. 37-56.
Hare, R.M., 1981. Moral Thinking, Its Levels, Method and
Point. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hare, R.M., 1985. "Ontology in Ethics," In Morality and
Objectivity: Essays in Memory of John Mackie (Eds)
T. Hondrich. Routledge.
Kant I., 1993. The Moral Law: Groundwork of the
Metaphysic of Morals, London: Routledge.
Klein H.K., Myers M., 2001. “A Classification Scheme for
Interpretive Research in Information Systems”, pp.
218-239, Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and
Trends, (Eds. Trauth E.M.)
Krippendorff K., 1980. Content Analysis, An Introduction
to Its Methodology, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
Lacity M.C., and Janson M.A., 1994. Understanding
Qualitatitve Data: A Framework of Text Analysis
Methods, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Fall 1994, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 137-155.
MacIntyre, A. 1987. After Virtue: a Study in Moral
Theory, London: Duckworth.
Martin, C.D. & Huff, C.W. 1997. “A Conceptual and
Pedagogical Framework for Teaching Ethics and
Social Impact in Computer Science”, Proceedings of
27th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference:
Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change. Vol. 1.
Pence, G., 1993. "Virtue Theory" in Singer P. (ed.) A
Companion to Ethics, Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell,
pp. 249-258.
Rawls J., 1971. A Theory of Justice, London: Oxford
University Press.
Rest, J.R. 1994. Background: Theory and Research. (ed.
Rest, J.R. & Narvaez, D.) Moral Development in the
Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics. Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ross, D., 1930. The Right and the Good. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Stevenson, C. L., 1944. Ethics and Language, New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Tavani, H.T., 2001. Curriculum issues and controversies
in computer ethics instruction.Proceedings of
International Symposium on Technology and Society,
pp. 41-50.
Trauth E.M., 2001. Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and
Trends, Hershey, Idea Group Publishing.
Vartiainen, T. & Siponen, M. T., 2003. Universality thesis
in IS ethics education – an empirical study.
Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on
Information Systems (ECIS 2003), 16-21 June,
Naples, Italy.
ICEIS 2004 - HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION
186