Paper 1 instructions
One of the central questions we’re attempting to answer in
Paper 1 instructions
One of the central questions we’re attempting to answer in this course is the following: under what conditions is the deployment of an algorithm (within different domains) morally permissible? To make progress on answering this question, we’ve looked at multiple examples to try to better understand the relevant ethical considerations that can arise when using these algorithms. The next step in answering this question is looking at possible policies that can be adopted to address these worries. Your Paper #1 will specifically attempt to do that.
Rubel et al. proposed a heuristic that could be followed when trying to resolve ethical issues. (If you don’t remember the heuristic, I strongly recommend going back and re-reading it.) The final step of the heuristic is “Critical Reflection,” in which one reflects on the empirical and moral reasoning that one has just engaged in and assesses what one has learned. For purposes of this assignment, we’re going to replace that step with a Policy Proposal.
So, in 5-6 pages (double-spaced, size 12 font), I want you to apply the first three steps of the heuristic (plus a Policy Proposal) to the use of an algorithm that you research and find at least one outside source discussing at length. Which algorithm you choose to focus on is entirely up to you, just make sure that your description, evaluation, and policy proposal concerning it are complete and thorough.
With that said, your paper should have the following sections (i.e., your paper should include following section headings):
Introduction: Briefly introduce your topic and advance a thesis statement (i.e., the main claim that you will attempt to demonstrate in your paper). A thesis statement for this paper will likely look something like “Deployment of algorithm X is morally permissible only if policy Y is adopted.”
Clarify Concepts: Define or illustrate any technical terms or concepts that are necessary for your reader to understand your selected case.
Facts Straight: Describe, in sufficient detail, your chosen case in purely factual, descriptive language. If helpful, provide a description of an example that illustrates how the algorithm functions.
Moral Theory: Identify at least one morally relevant consideration present in your chosen case and explain why it is a moral issue (e.g., it concerns using people as a mere means which is prohibited by The Principle of Humanity).
Policy Proposal: Propose and defend a policy (concerning the deployment of the algorithm itself) that you believe would address your identified moral consideration. Make sure to explain clearly how your proposal would help eliminate the moral issue you identified. (If you have space, present and respond to what you believe would be a likely objection to your proposal. Presenting and addressing an objection is not necessary for Paper #1, but it will be for Paper #2. So, getting some practice structing your writing in this way will be helpful.)
A few tips
Do not use quotations. This is an opportunity for you to write what you think concerning an issue in this class. If the idea of someone else is sufficiently relevant to your paper that you want to include it, re-express it in your own words and then cite the originator of the idea parenthetically.
Feel free to cite assigned readings in any citation format you prefer, but make sure to include enough information that a reader could find your references if they wanted to. With that in mind, include a short bibliography. (For citations of assigned readings in class, simply including the author’s name and title of the piece is enough.)
There’s no need for a conclusion in a paper this short.
Focus on clarity and conciseness in your writing. These are not long papers, and one of the skills we are trying to develop is your ability to write within length requirements.
Your papers will be graded holistically with an eye towards the following questions:
Following instructions. Does your paper follow the instructions of the assignment? Was it turned in on time? Does it conform to our formatting guidelines?
Grammar and style. Do you avoid grammatical, spelling, and usage errors? Do you have any run-on sentences or non-sentences? Are your sentences clear and concise?
Thesis and structure. Does your introduction contain a clear thesis? Does your discussion of your selected topic, your moral analysis of it, and your policy proposal fit together well?
Use of sources. Does your paper demonstrate that you understand the sources you use? Does your thesis deal with the central concerns rather than peripheral issues?
Arguments and evidence. Do you support your thesis with compelling evidence and arguments?
Paper 2 additional requirments:
Paper 2 will have the same instructions, overall structure, and grading expectations as Paper 1 (and so I strongly recommend re-reading the instructions for Paper 1), but with the following additions:
Paper 2 should be 7-9 pages (double-spaced, size 12 font).
You must identify at least two morally relevant considerations in your “Moral Theory” section (e.g., both Kantian and Utilitarian considerations).
You must include at least four outside sources, one of which must be scholarly.
You must present, and respond to, at least two objections in your “Policy Proposal” section.
The inclusion of a “Conclusion” section at the end of your paper.
Some Clarifying Points:
You are permitted (but are not required) to expand on the research that you’ve already conducted for either SADIE 1 or SADIE 2 for Paper 2.
Concerning (2): Although I say two “morally” relevant considerations above, you could also choose to identify two legally relevant considerations. To do this, simply explain what legal statutes are relevant and how they apply to your chosen case. (If you choose to do this, feel free to change the section title from “Moral Theory” to “Legal Theory.”)
Concerning (3): If you have questions about what is required for a source to be scholarly, I suggest you re-read the library module. If you find a source that you’d like to use and are unsure if it counts as scholarly, feel free to email myself or either of the TAs and we can tell you if it is. (In general, if it is published in a scholarly journal, you can be confident that it is scholarly.) Your scholarly source should concern your chosen algorithm and/or some ethical principle/theory/consideration that bears directly on a discussion of your chosen algorithm. (Simply put, find someone talking about some aspect of what you’ve chosen to write about and engage with their writings/ideas!)
Concerning (4): The objections you present, and respond to, can be actual objections you encounter while conducting your research (i.e., someone has already suggested them as worth discussing) or then can be potential objections that you come up with yourself. (The crucial thing is that you demonstrate to your reader that you are aware of potential problems that might arise with your Policy Proposal, and that you believe they can be adequately addressed/mitigated.)
Concerning (5): In your conclusion, you should remind your reader of your main thesis statement, briefly re-express what you’ve taken yourself to have demonstrated, and (if space permits) indicate any further lines of discussion on the topic that you believe are worth having that you didn’t explicitly address. (Your conclusion, and introduction, do not need to be long; just a few sentences is usually sufficient.)
Potential topics: Grade prediction algorithm
Facial recognition algorithm
A-levels algorithm
Skin cancer screening algorithm
Self-driving cars ( highly recommend this one )
EVAAS algorthim