Assignment Instructions
Please note that you must submit this assignment as a .doc, .docx, or a .pdf file.respond to all 15 bullet points. Should be 6 pages not includign cover and reference page Use the material provided and you can use outside credtable sources no pagiarism no a i. no chat bots .
Assignment Goal
In Week 3, we explored how personal lenses shape perspective and how information systems influence what we see, what we know, and what we consider true. In the world of information technology, who has access to informationand who does notcan shape power dynamics, create inequities, and influence opportunities.
In this assignment, you will investigate the idea that information is power by uncovering and sharing a piece of information about our college that is not widely known or easily discoverable through official or common sources (e.g., the college website, brochures, or orientation guides).
You will also reflect on how unequal access to information connects to ethical reasoning, personal perspective, and digital systems that shape visibility and opportunity. There are 15 bullet points please respond to all15 bullet points. Should be 6 pages not including title and reference page Please use the material provided you can use outside credible sources please no plagiarism, no ai no chat bots
Include the following:
Overview
- What is the information?
- Clearly describe what you discovered.
- Why is it not widely known?
- Explain how this information is difficult to find or not publicized.
- How did you find it?
- Describe the process or source that helped you uncover it. Reflect on how your own perspective, persistence, or digital navigation skills may have shaped your ability to find it.
- Why does this information matter to students, staff, or faculty?
- Who benefits from knowing this, and who may be disadvantaged by not knowing?
- Consider how personal lenses shape what seems important or significant.
- How does this shape power dynamics at the college?
- Think about access, privilege, or influence.
-
What are the ethical concerns related to unequal access to this information?
- Consider fairness, transparency, or access.
-
Apply at least one ethical framework from Week 3.
- For example: utilitarianism, deontology, phenomenology, humanism, etc. Evaluate whether unequal access to this information is ethically acceptable and why.
-
How does this connect to broader digital issues like algorithmic visibility, data control, filter bubbles, or information systems?
- Relate your case to real-world digital ethics and the power of information.
Conclusion
Summarize your discovery and reflection.
What did you learn about:
Perspective?
Information access?
Power?
Ethical responsibility?
References
(List any interviews, informal sources, websites, or readings used. Use the required citation format if specified.)
Submission Checklist:
- Have I clearly described the hidden information?
- Have I analyzed how it affects access and power?
- Have I reflected on ethical implications in the digital world?
- Have I structured my writing clearly and proofread for grammar?
- Have I cited any sources used?
Frameworks and Personal Lenses
This week, we focus on how our personal backgrounds shape the way we interpret ethical questions in technology. You will read about frameworks and personal lenses, including why it is important to notice your own assumptions, define key terms clearly, and communicate respectfully with people who see the world differently. By the end of the reading, you should be able to explain how perspective influences ethical reasoning and apply at least one ethical framework to a technology-related scenario.
Reading Tips
Use the guiding questions to support your reading.
The guiding questions are there to help you focus on key ideas, not just memorize facts. Use them to:
- Highlight or annotate where major terms or arguments are introduced.
- Reflect on how historical developments in computing continue to impact us today.
- Prepare for discussions by forming your own examples and questions based on the reading.
Other reading strategies do you include:
- Preview the reading before diving inscan headings and key terms.
- Engage criticallydont just accept what you read. Ask: Do I agree? Does this apply today?
- Relate the material to real lifethink about how ethical dilemmas show up in your own tech use or in current events.
- Take notes in your own words to build understanding. Use this to help you take notes.
Week 3 Chapter Reading: Personal Lenses and Ethical Frameworks
Ethics is often taught as if it happens in a neutral space, as if people can simply examine a problem and arrive at a clean, objective answer. In reality, ethical reasoning is shaped by the person doing the reasoning. This week introduces a practical idea: before we try to evaluate the ethics of a technology, we should first examine the framework we bring into the evaluation. In this text, that framework is described as a set of personal lenses, which include our background, identity, experiences, education, and social position.
Some discussions of ethics begin with a practice sometimes called full disclosure, in which individuals reflect on aspects of their identity and life experiencesuch as age, race, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious background, region, socioeconomic status, education, career path, and worldview. The purpose of this reflection is not to elevate personal details, but to recognize how they shape interpretation. Ethical reasoning does not emerge from a neutral or detached position. None of us reads or writes from nowhere. We read and write from somewhere, and that somewhere influences what we notice, what we question, what we assume, and what we treat as normal.
Personal lenses influence ethical reasoning in at least three ways. First, they affect what we perceive as a problem. For example, one person may treat workplace monitoring software as a reasonable management tool, while another views it as a privacy violation that erodes dignity. Second, lenses influence how we interpret evidence. Two people can read the same set of facts about a data breach and disagree about whether the main issue is negligence, complexity, or inevitability. Third, personal lenses influence what we consider an acceptable solution. One person may prioritize stronger laws; another may prioritize individual choice; another may prioritize corporate responsibility and design ethics.
Pause and Reflect
Think of a technology you use daily (a learning platform, a phone app, a workplace system, or a social media site). What is one ethical issue you notice immediately about it? Now ask yourself: what in your background or experiences makes that issue stand out to you? Write down two personal lenses that may be shaping your reaction.
Figure: Perspectives of Truth
To illustrate how perspective shapes what appears true, the chapter uses the idea of truth versus Truth. Imagine two people looking only at a shadow. One person sees a square-like shadow and concludes the object must be a cube or a square. Another person sees a circular shadow and concludes the object must be a sphere or a circle. Each conclusion can feel correct from that position. A third observer who steps back and sees the entire setup recognizes that the object is a cylinder, and that different light sources produce different shadows. The lesson is not that people are foolish. The lesson is that people often reason from limited information shaped by their position, and that ethical discussion improves when we expand what we are willing to consider.
Figure: 6 vs. 9 as evaluated from one’s own perspective
A related example is the 6 vs. 9 scenario. Two people stand on opposite sides of a number painted on the ground. One insists it is a 6; the other insists it is a 9. Their disagreement is not just about stubbornness. It is about perspective. Think about a more challenging question: can we step away from our own perspective without pretending we do not have one? That is the heart of ethical maturity. It requires acknowledging our lenses while still trying to understand the lenses of others.
Imagining the world through a lens fundamentally different from ones own is intellectually and emotionally demanding. Social position including race, socioeconomic status, gender identity, and cultural background shapes how individuals experience technology, authority, and vulnerability. Because technological systems often distribute benefits and burdens unevenly, policies that appear neutral from one vantage point may produce disproportionate harm from another. Ethical maturity therefore requires disciplined communication: active listening, careful clarification of terms, and the willingness to restate another perspective accurately before responding. The goal is not rhetorical victory, but empathetic understanding and reasoned analysis.
This is where ethical frameworks come in. A framework is a structured way to evaluate rightness and wrongness. The chapter preview lists several frameworks that appear throughout the course, including deontological ethics (duty and rules), utilitarianism (outcomes and overall well-being), rationalism (reason and logical analysis), and broader lenses such as humanism, feminism, and phenomenology (lived experience). No single framework is universally accepted, and that reality explains why people can disagree sincerely about the same case.
Because ethical reasoning depends on both personal lenses and ethical frameworks, this course will repeatedly return to one skill: defining terms. If two people use the same word but mean different things, they may talk past each other. For example, if one person defines privacy as control over personal information and another defines it as freedom from surveillance, they may reach different conclusions about the same technology. Building shared understanding requires patience and clarity.
Why This Matters in Technology
Technology is rarely just a tool in practice. The same system can produce very different experiences depending on who is using it, who is being monitored by it, and who is excluded from it. When we ignore personal lenses, we risk assuming that our experience of a technology is the standard experience. When we acknowledge lenses, we become more capable of identifying bias, unequal impacts, and hidden assumptions in design and policy.
In computer ethics, this matters because many modern technologies are deployed at scale, affecting thousands or millions of people. A system that seems efficient to one group can feel invasive or discriminatory to another group. Ethical reasoning improves when we ask: Who benefits? Who is harmed? Who decides? Who has access? Who gets to define the terms?
Consider a common technology scenario: an employer adopts AI-assisted productivity tracking software that monitors keystrokes, mouse movement, application usage, and idle time. One employee may view this as fair accountability, especially if they have experienced coworkers who avoid work while others carry the load. Another employee may view the same system as constant surveillance that reduces trust and treats people like machines. A deontological approach might focus on whether monitoring violates duties related to respect and autonomy. A utilitarian approach might weigh productivity gains against stress, burnout, and turnover. A phenomenological lens might ask what it feels like to work under continuous monitoring and how that changes a persons sense of dignity.
Now consider a second scenario: a college deploys an online proctoring tool that uses webcams, room scans, and behavior detection to flag potential cheating. Some students may feel reassured that the system protects academic integrity. Other students may feel anxious, exposed, or unfairly scrutinized, especially if the system misidentifies normal behaviors as suspicious or if students lack a private space at home. Here, personal lenses and socioeconomic context can heavily influence what seems reasonable. When you evaluate such a tool ethically, you are not only judging the technologys features. You are also judging the assumptions embedded in how the tool is used.
Pause and Reflect
Choose one of the scenarios above (productivity tracking or online proctoring). Identify one personal lens that might make a person more supportive of the technology and one personal lens that might make a person more concerned about it. Then name one question you would ask in a respectful conversation to better understand the other persons perspective.
The chapter closes by previewing foundational concepts that will appear throughout the course. Technology is everywhere, and its rate of change is not linear. Ethical systems vary, and legal and social institutions attempt to reflect shared values, even when people disagree about what those values should be. Perhaps the most important claim is that ethical problems in technology are often not caused by the technology itself. They are caused by the choices people make about development, deployment, access, power, and oversight. The same tool can be used to help or to harm. Ethical reasoning is the practice of evaluating those choices and their impacts with humility, clarity, and care.
End of Chapter Key Terms
right vs. wrong The distinction between actions or choices considered morally acceptable and those considered morally unacceptable.- good vs. evil The contrast between that which is morally virtuous, beneficial, or constructive and that which is morally wrong, harmful, or destructive.
- rightness vs. wrongness The quality of being in accordance with moral or ethical principles versus being in violation of them.
- shared understanding A mutual agreement or common interpretation of ideas, terms, or values among individuals or groups.
- Ethics The branch of philosophy concerned with moral principles that govern behavior and decision-making.
- Deontological Ethics An ethical theory focused on duties and universal principles and judges the morality of actions based on adherence to rules or duties, regardless of their consequences.
- Rationalism A philosophical view that emphasizes logical reasoning as the primary sources of knowledge and ethical judgment.
- Utilitarianism An ethical framework that evaluates actions based on their outcomes, aiming to maximize overall happiness or well-being.
- Humanism An ethical perspective centered on dignity and human flourishing. A worldview that centers human dignity, agency, and the promotion of individual and collective flourishing as ethical priorities.
- Feminism An approach emphasizing care, relationships, and structural analysis that advocates for gender equality and emphasizes the importance of care, context, and power dynamics in moral decision-making.
- Phenomenology A philosophical approach that focuses on individuals lived experiences and the ways in which they perceive and interpret the world around them and the study of lived human experience and technological mediation.
- personal lenses The unique perspectives shaped by an individuals experiences, values, and cultural background through which they interpret the world.
- rate of technological advancement The speed at which new technologies are developed and adopted within society.