Topic: Can software be morally "bad"

[Mike]

In your opinon can a piece of software be morally "bad" or morally objectionable.  Or is it the employment of it that determines the morality?

[Major_Small]

yes.  you can create software with nothing other than immoral intent.

most 'hacking' software is really network security software, but people use it in ways they weren't intended... maybe

[Mike]

yes. you can create software with nothing other than immoral intent.

But that's my intent.  Does that make the software immoral?

You can kill a person with a hammer.  Does that make the hammer immoral?

[Major_Small]

well, taking that stance, no.  software has no 'right' or 'wrong' software is not a being--it is an organization of elecrical signals that, if they had naturally occured elsewhere in the universe in any environment other than the one they were 'compiled' for, would be completely and utterly meaningless and would almost certainly go unnoticed.

so no.

and I thought of this approach just after I posted the first time...

[A Bit of Fruit]

In your opinon can a piece of software be morally "bad" or morally objectionable

Yes

[Mike]

God damn it face we can't use any MS works since we know they are the spawners of satan!

[ober]

I agree with major's points, but I do think that software takes on the personality of the creator, and can therefore have an immoral purpose, therefore making it immoral.

Then again, what is your definition of immoral?

[joshdick]

Well, only rational agents like humans can have morality. As was pointed out, much of the software that is used for nefarious ends has substantial, moral uses; however, I think there exists some software like viruses that exist only to do harm. But even in that case, it wouldn't be completely useless if it were studied in an academic environment. So, no, I don't think software can be inherently "bad."

"there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." -- Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2.

[Steve]

Can software be immoral? That depends, i have to say no actually. The original intent, purpose, or theory of the software can be evil based on the creator, but it is the user of the said software that determines what it does and how it does it.

For example, lets use your hammer example.

Creator one makes a hammer, and states "This is a tool to build homes". He sells the hammer to a local carpenter, who proceeds to bash in his wifes skull.

Creator two makes a hammer, and states "This hammer is to be used to kill". He sells the hammer to a local sadist, who proceeds to build a house for a group of less fortunate children.

In both situations the tool was created and used for two different purposes. The tool is a inanimate object that has no control over anything that happens to it, and its use and purpose was entirely defined on the user.

So was the hammer evil? No. Was the one creator, and one user evil? Absolutely.

[Tama]

If the software is created in such a way that the only possible use is immoral then yes, otherwise it depends on how it's used.

[Steve]

If the software is created in such a way that the only possible use is immoral

But is this really possible? Even the worst viri, trojans, network probes, etc can be used in ways that are completely moral and ethical for security purposes.

[Tama]

>Even the worst viri, trojans, network probes, etc can be used in ways that
>are completely moral and ethical for security purposes.
Those security purposes being to protect against the malware. It's not being used ethically, it's being analyzed so as to develop a defense. And it's viruses, not virii.

[Steve]

So in turn that thought would make defense immoral? Use of a virus on a personal network with all consenting parties for the purpose of defense strategy cannot hardly be considered malicious use.

So even the most malicious virus could be used ethically.

[BMJ]

Yes

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP  

virii

(that's not a word )

[Steve]

I took a trip to try and prove you wrong, but dictionary.com didnt stand beside me.....seems im a moron