Google’s in-house philosopher: Technologists need a “moral operating system”

The technology industry needs to think long and hard about ethics, according to Googler Damon Horowitz.

Horowitz has co-founded several startups, and he’s currently a director of engineering at Google (which acquired his latest startup Aardvark). But he also has a Ph.D. in philosophy and apparently holds the title of “in-house philosopher” at the search giant. He spoke today at the TEDx Silicon Valley event at Stanford University, where he offered a slightly more nuanced view than Google’s famous mantra of “Don’t be evil” (which is often used to slam the company when it does something critics consider unethical).

To illustrate how ethics are getting short-shrift in the tech world, Horowitz asked attendees whether they prefer the iPhone or Android. (When the majority voted for the iPhone, he joked that they were “suckers” who just chose the prettier device.) Then he asked whether it was a good idea to take data from an audience member’s phone in order to provide various (and mostly beneficial) services, or whether he should be left alone, and the majority of audience voted to leave him alone. Finally, Horowitz wanted to know whether audience members would use the ideas proposed by John Stuart Mill or by Immanuel Kant to make that decision. Not surprisingly, barely anyone knew what he was talking about.

“That’s a terrifying result,” Horowitz said. “We have stronger opinions about our handheld devices than about the moral framework we should use to guide our decisions.”

The obvious response is that technology-makers aren’t supposed to think about the morality of their products — they just build stuff and let other people worry about the ethics. But Horowitz pointed to the Manhattan Project, where physicists developed the nuclear bomb, as an obvious example where technologists should have thought carefully about the moral dimensions of their work. To put it another way, he argued that technology makers should be thinking as much about their “moral operating system” as their mobile operating system.

Then Horowitz launched into a whirlwind tour of how different philosophers have tried to evaluate morality. At one point, he contrasted Mill, who argued that actions should be judged on the basis of whether they maximized pleasure and minimized pain, with Kant, who argued that there are actions that are intrinsically wrong, regardless of their results.

The point wasn’t to deliver everything you need to know about ethics in 15 minutes. Instead, Horowitz said he wanted to show that philosophers have been wrestling with these questions for thousands of years.

“Ethics is hard,” Horowitz said. “Ethics requires thinking.”

But that kind of ethical thinking is what we require of “every sane person,” he added. Horowitz quoted writer Hannah Arendt, who, in writing about Nazi Adolf Eichmann, argued that most of the evil in the world comes not from bad intentions, but rather from “not thinking.”

To encourage attendees to start thinking more about the morality of their decisions, he asked for 30 seconds of silence where everyone remembered the last decision where they tried to do the right thing. Then he asked everyone to try to articulate how they decided what was right and wrong.

“That’s the first step towards taking responsibility towards what we should do with all of our power,” Horowitz said, later adding, “We have so much power today. It is up to us to figure out what to do.”

[image via TEDx SoMa]

  • kittycatman2

    Although I agree we should think about the consequences the things we work on may have. Sometimes the effect isn't known till someone else sees a use for the product that wasn't thought of by the creator.

  • http://twitter.com/ikoniqueOS ikonique OS

    “That’s a terrifying result,” Horowitz said. “We have stronger opinions about our handheld devices than about the moral framework we should use to guide our decisions.” This conclusion was based upon no one being aware of some obscure philosophers?What a load of old tosh!Reminds me of the lunatic ramblings of that cocaine addict Freud.Ethics is not hard. Treat others how you would like to be treated yourself. How hard is that?The rest is psychobabble from a Googler who, if he had any ethics, would be counseling his bosses about the damage Google's relentless invasion of personal privacy for profit is doing to society instead of lecturing others. But I guess he is too busy getting paid to bother with REAL ethics…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AQDMMD4BAKYAUQGEVTE2P5IQIU Alex

    “Not Thinking” could also refer to “Greed.” Why does it take Asif-Mandvi on the Daily show to point out that a Canadian company in Asbestos (town in Quebec), Canada sells the product to India and 100,000 people die a year from it! I guess not thinking is right..”People die all the time” seems to be in some peoples heads. What people won't do for money..A Sick world we are promoting.. I hope for Justice..”At the end of the arc of the universe tends to point toward justice.”-M.L.K.

  • http://twitter.com/livethefuture Andrew Trapp

    @twitter-230973551:disqus :  John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant are “obscure” philosophers?  You've just proven Horowitz's point.

  • Jim Linn

    obscure philosophers? you proved his point

  • Jim Linn

    EDIT: Sorry Andrew, I just noticed you posted the same thing an hour ago

  • http://profiles.google.com/shane.selman Shane Selman

    Obscure?  Are you mad? And the golden rule is a good start to a moral framework, but it breaks down in all kind of places.  If I had an unknown plague, I would want you to take me in and either help me recover, or die with as little misery as possible.However, if I have a family, doing so puts many more lives at risk than yours.  Should I still do it?  What if I, and my family produce something critical to the survival of my community?  Should I still take you in on that risk?  I run a business, so here are a few dilemmas I have faced where the golden rule just isn't enough.  If times are tough, which is the more ethical course?  To fire a few people and treat them as I would not want to be treated in order to try to save the business, or to go do down in flames and fail all of the clients and employees that depend on me.  My personal opinion on the matter should be clear.  If I decide to fire someone, whom do I fire?  The young single guy who is a huge asset to my company, but will find work easily – or the aging, less skilled employee with a mortgage and kids in school?  I have the best prospect of saving my company if I keep the young skilled kid, but can I really justify putting the guy with kids in college out of work in a lousy job market?  Is that how I would want to be treated?… and if you say anything at all about “the good of the many”, I shall be forced to slap you because that framework is called utilitarianism, and it is the moral framework articulated by one of the obscure philosophers you so casually dismissed.

  • Kosol Seubtayat

    I agree with you 100%. Even now google need to do CSR on the internet.

  • http://twitter.com/ikoniqueOS ikonique OS

    Having trouble reading this part did we?”… barely anyone knew what he was talking about.”

  • http://twitter.com/ikoniqueOS ikonique OS

    Thanks for questioning my sanity and then presenting a series of quandaries that are obviously exceptions to the rule and are best decided by collective experience. Not navel-gazing.Nice technique though. Are you this rude with everyone whos opinions differ from yours? Also Mr. Tough Guy…That threat of 'slapping me' might work with your wife and children but you might want to take off that 'wifebeater' and rethink your streategy on this occasion as I am a grown man more than capable of dealing with a bully like you.FYI I never “casually dismissed” any philosophers. I was merely pointed out that as most of Horowitz's audience had little idea of what he was talking about it was a pointless comparison. Maybe in your rhaste to 'flame' me you missed that.How about you go about adressing Horowitz's duplicity in questioning public ethics whilst working for one of the most unethical companies in human history when it comes to the systematic invasion of personal privacy for profit instead of PR for Google?

  • http://twitter.com/ikoniqueOS ikonique OS

    Cal me silly for questiong this guy's own ethics :-]

  • http://twitter.com/ikoniqueOS ikonique OS

    Guess you did not actually bother to read the post either…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RJH2UTXXZBM77I2O5MIWIP2UTE Richard Zulu

    Ethics are something that Googlers clearly have an issue understanding.Might be caused by those Google-goggles that translate the exploitation of personal privacy into piles of cash that is the problem.Only sayin…. lol

  • bgbs

    A PHD philosopher needs to see complexity of things, or else he will be out of business.There are complicated philosophical questions and less complicated, which require less thinking and more doing – such as “do unto others…” as you have suggested.  I think Horowitz is consulting the wrong philosophers to try to achieve answers to less complicated issues, that is why his whole talk produced no fruit; it remained an open-ended babble.  He should consult C.S. Lewis' works on Theology.

  • http://twitter.com/ikoniqueOS ikonique OS

    Just as Freud crafted complex rationality for his patient's disorders ensuring repeat-business from his patients?

  • http://twitter.com/ikoniqueOS ikonique OS

    Pop-quiz:What do all these 'like-minded' people have in common?

  • Sean Conroy

    That was a great article. We need more brave, intelligent persons to speak in this manner regarding privacy and morality. The world is looking for new pioneers, maybe we just found one. was a great article. We need more brave, intelligent persons to speak in this manner regarding privacy and morality. The world is looking for new pioneers, maybe we just found one.

  • AidanHannigan

    Ikonique OS: totally agree – well said!

  • http://profiles.google.com/amanzed Aman Zed

    Yikes, I'd point to somebody other than C. S. Lewis. We can find better common ground than this steadfastly Christian author. His writings are all rather clever but — even as practical, popular philosophy — pretty self-congratulatory and dated.

  • peter grove

    Your and the audiences ignorance of two of the big names in philosophy does not make them obscure philosophers it makes the audience ignorant of philosophy.

  • http://f1newswire.org/silicon-valley-needs-humanities-students/ Silicon Valley needs humanities students | f1newswire.org

    [...] who co-founded a company, Aardvark, which sold to Google for $50 million. He is presently the In-House Philosopher / Director of Engineering at Google. Wait, you say, that’s insane. At a time when record numbers of people, among them those with [...]

  • http://mobileindustrynewswire.org/silicon-valley-needs-humanities-students/ Silicon Valley needs humanities students | Mobile Industry Newswire

    [...] who co-founded a company, Aardvark, which sold to Google for $50 million. He is presently the In-House Philosopher / Director of Engineering at Google. Wait, you say, that’s insane. At a time when record numbers of people, among them those with [...]

  • http://allltechnews.org/2012/05/18/silicon-valley-needs-humanities-students/ Silicon Valley needs humanities students | All Tech Newswire

    [...] who co-founded a company, Aardvark, which sold to Google for $50 million. He is presently the In-House Philosopher / Director of Engineering at Google. Wait, you say, that’s insane. At a time when record numbers of people, among them those with [...]

  • http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/19/silicon-valley-needs-humanities-students/ Silicon Valley needs humanities students | VentureBeat

    [...] who co-founded a company, Aardvark, which sold to Google for $50 million. He is presently the In-House Philosopher / Director of Engineering at Google. Wait, you say, that’s insane. At a time when record numbers of people, among them those with [...]

  • http://www.ktkt.tk/?p=6107 Silicon Valley needs humanities students | Share Blog

    [...] who co-founded a company, Aardvark, which sold to Google for $50 million. He is presently the In-House Philosopher / Director of Engineering at Google. Wait, you say, that’s insane. At a time when record numbers of people, among them those with [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus