PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES
The ethicist and moralist probably would argue that ethical decisions and general ethical codes of
conduct should not be developed through the taking of opinion polls. Rather, gathering data on
the moral consensus of a matter is a step along the way in arriving at a solution. It is ethical
theory and moral insights that should be primarily depended on in arriving at solutions. I agree
with this perspective to the extent that once a code has been initiated through observation and
analysis of current practice contexts and moral conditions, code and practice should be evaluated
and honed by continuously reassessing their conformance with theory.
To explore this concept further we need to define several terms in the manner in which
philosophers would define them. Ethics has been defined by philosophers as "the science of
conduct." Ethics may be construed as a science in the sense that its study involves rational
inquiry and the overall goal is attainment of truth. Ethics also focuses on the study of conduct as
opposed to behavior. Behavior refers to activities in which people engage whereas conduct is a
subset of behavior "... in which persons make voluntary choices between alternative courses of
action because they have decided that they ought to choose one of the alternatives rather than the
other" (Johnson 1984, p. 2). In general, social scientists study behavior because they are
interested in how people act whereas ethicists study conduct because they are interested in how
people ought to act.
For clarity, philosophers generally use the term ethics when referring to theory and use the term
morals when referring to behavior in practice. In common language (e.g. "professional ethics")
and as used previously in this article, the term ethics is often substituted for the term morals.
However, the use of the distinction by philosophers allows them to provide another definition of
ethics: the theoretical examination of morals.
The scholarly study of ethics has two primary traditions. The first, called deontological
(concerning duty), is concerned with the rightness and wrongness of actions. Many ethicists have
sought a single rule that would determine the rightness of actions and therefore would serve as a
guide for our future actions. Unfortunately, the rules derived over time by the great philosophers
have been numerous. Other ethicists have sought to answer the question of what makes an action
right. Theories derived to answer the question generally fall within three classes: utilitarian
theories, goodness of motive theories, and morally appropriate theories (Johnson 1984, p. 8). The
second tradition in the systematic study of ethics, termed teleological (concerning ends), is
concerned with the results of actions and their goodness or badness. Again, the suggested
answers to the highest "goods" to be sought in life have fallen far short of being generalizable
across a broad range of social circumstances. Regardless, the theories derived through the
primary lines of ethical study also have many areas of agreement and have value in assessing
behavior in the GIS community. Such concepts as autonomy of the person, beneficence and
nonmaleficence, rights of individuals, and some aspects of paternalism appear to have relevance
across many of the theories of the ethicists (Applebaum and Lawton 1990, pp. 31-48). Thus, this
article suggests that once we know more about the current moral condition of GIS use, any
derived code of conduct should be critiqued from a range of theoretical ethical perspectives.
Rules derived from experience obtain their final validity and meaning from theory.
The social critiques of GIS applications that we have seen to date in the literature have been
primarily by moralists as opposed to ethicists. The moral reformer is dedicated to a cause and
takes strong actions in furtherance of that cause. Stances taken to oppose the use of GIS and
related technologies in war (Smith 1992), to encourage the continued publication of
topographical maps on the grounds that they offer a more democratic and humanistic form of
geographical knowledge than offered by GIS (Harley 1990), and to oppose the use of certain
cartographic techniques to "lie with maps" (Monmonier 1991) are all moral stances. We are
likely to see future moralists advocating use of GIS for a stronger defense, for increased accesss
by people to marketplace goods and services, for protecting the environment, and perhaps for
advocating more obscure causes such as protecting the interests of adult Caucasian males. Many
of the moral causes, of course, may conflict with each other. The ethicist questions the
underlying principles and theories upon which the moralist stands. Such questions may dampen
furtherance of a moral cause but they also help us evaluate which moral causes have merit and
may be worthy of our support.
In developing rules of conduct for the GIS community, one problem in beginning with ethical
theory and then moving to a GIS practice context is that of the disparity among the theories and
derived principles of the respected ethicists. It is difficult to know with which aspects of which
theories to begin. Instead, this article suggests that we should begin by attempting to better
understand whether and to what extent moral consensus exists among those surveyed relative to
the range of conduct that is currently being practiced in the GIS community. Perhaps this
approach is most in line with the ethical theory of cultural relativism as suggested by one of the
reviewers. Regardless, if rational analysis by moralists and ethicists is to follow, further
knowledge of the current moral precepts in practice must be attained. The challenge then
becomes one of providing a rational basis for our shared convictions about the way we ought to
act in the context of our own discipline and the discipline''s relationships to the rest of society.
PURPOSE OF OPINION GATHERING
It is my belief that a significant number of GIS developers and practitioners have preconceived
ethical notions of conduct that are strongly at odds with the ethical notions of the rest of the
professional community and the general public. Whether this is true can only be evidenced
through a data gathering and analysis process. The intent of collecting the opinions of others
regarding past or future GIS practice decisions is not primarily to make judgments concerning
the ethical or moral worthiness of any line of action. Rather, the primary intent of the exercise is
to make practitioners aware of the potential ramifications of their proposed actions.
If it is known that a proposed action may be considered unethical or marginally ethical by a
significant number of people, this allows the GIS practitioner to better weigh the potential
drawbacks of the action against the potential benefits. If put on notice that ethics is an issue, the
rational GIS practitioner is likely to consider the likelihood of sanctions being imposed by peer
groups, customers, and licensing boards. The extent of losses to the GIS practitioner and to the
practitioner''s organization resulting from the potential economic and business sanctions, whether
formal or informal, will be considered. If put on notice, the rational practitioner is also more
likely to consider the effect of the proposed action on the public''s perception of the GIS
community as a whole.
In addition, a practitioner may choose for various reasons to take an action that he or she knows
is likely to be considered unethical by some of the practitioner''s clients or peer group. By
considering the possible ramifications of the action in advance and in detail, the practitioner will
be better prepared to deal with them. By communicating the reasons for an action to those who
are most likely to criticize the action and by describing steps taken to accommodate ethical
concerns, the practitioner may be able to significantly lessen the adverse impacts of the action
when actually taken.
CONCLUSION
This paper calls for the observation of ethics in action. It calls for opinion gathering on the range
of questionable conduct that is currently occurring in the development and use of GIS. It
subscribes to the notion that whether conduct is "ethical, reasonable, and just" can best be
articulated initially through consultation with those most closely involved and affected by the
conduct being evaluated. At present, we do not know the opinions of these people. We should.
Results should be tested against ethical theory prior to any attempt at developing a professional
code of conduct for the discipline.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is based upon work partially supported by the National Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis (NCGIA) under NSF grant No. SBR 88-10917. Any opinions, findings
and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Introductory segments of
this article were drawn from Onsrud 1987. I also wish to acknowledge and thank the anonymous
reviewers for their constructive suggestions.
REFERENCES
Anderson, R.E., G. Engel, D. Gotterbarn, G.C. Hertlein, A. Hoffman, B. Jawer, D.G. Johnson,
D.K. Lidtke, J.C. Little, D. Martin, D.B. Parker, J.A. Perrolle, and R.S. Rosenburg, "ACM Code
of Ethics and Professional Conduct," Communications of the ACM, May 1992, 33(5): 94-99.
Anderson, R.E., D.G. Johnson, D. Gotterbarn, and J. Perrolle, "Using the New ACM Code of
Ethics in Decision Making," Communications of the ACM, Feb 1993, 36(2): 98-107.
Applebaum, D. ans S.V. Lawton, Ethics and the Professions (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice
Hall) 1990
Chrisman, N.R., "Ethics for the Practitioners of Geographic Information Systems Embedded in
''Real World'' Constraints of Guilds, Professions and Institutional Sponsorship," GIS/LIS ''92
Proceedings, 1:129-137.
Firmage, A.D., Modern Engineering Practice: Ethical, Professional, and Legal Aspects (New
York: Garland STPM Press) 1980
Harley, J.B., "Cartography, Ethics and Social Theory," Cartographica, 1990, 27, 2, pp. 1-23
Johnson, D.G., Computer Ethics, Second Ed. (Englewood Cliffs N.J.: Prentice Hall) 1993
Johnson, O.A., Ethics Selections from Classical and Contemporary Writers, Fifth Ed. (New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston) 1984
Kranzberg, M., ed., Ethics in an Age of Pervasive Technology (Boulder, CO: Westview Press)
1980
Mermin, S., Law and the Legal System: An Introduction (Boston: Little, Brown and Company)
1978
Monmonier, M., How to Lie with Maps (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1991
Onsrud, H.J., "Approaches in Teaching Engineering Ethics," Civil Engineering Education,
ASEE, Fall 1987, pp. 13-27.
Parker, D.B., S. Swope, and B.N. Baker, Ethical Conflicts in Information and Computer Science,
Technology, and Business (Wellesley, MA: QED information Sciences, Inc.) 1990
Smith, N., "History and philosophy of geography: real wars, theory wars," Progress in Human
Geography, 1992, 16, 2, pp. 257-271.
APPENDIX
The three examples in the questionnaire that follows are merely illustrative of the types of ethical
conflict scenarios that might be constructed and used with focus groups. Other suggested
scenarios might cover such issues as providing insufficient data quality in the GIS database for
unforeseen uses and therefore causing unreliable decision making, causing unintentional harm to
others such as degradation in the quality of life or safety of others through the use of GIS, selling
the same GIS product to a second client without acknowledgment, protecting "sweat of the
brow" when a GIS database is not protected by copyright, allowing deception in the use of GIS
for analysis where the means are suspect but a socially desirable result occurs, and causing
intentional harm to others through the use of GIS. Scenarios addressing much broader social
issues might also be constructed; such as use of GIS as a tool in support of war or as a tool in
support of electronic democracy
Questionnaire
Instructions: Please read each of the following scenarios concerning the use of geographic
information systems. After each scenario, use your personal opinions to answer the questions.
Scenario 1: Professional Responsibility / Liability
A civil engineering firm has been hired to carry out a site feasibility assessment and
environmental analysis of a large land parcel. Developers would like to place a shopping center
on the site. Under the state''s professional licensing laws, civil engineers are held to a higher level
of care than ordinary citizens or business people.
In initiating the site assessment, the engineering firm acquired extensive amounts of digital data
on soil types, utility locations, ownership boundaries, ground elevations, zoning boundaries,
subsurface waste locations, and similar data from a commercial geographic database that has
been developed and maintained for the city''s geographic area. The engineering firm pays a
monthly fee for direct on-line access to the geographic information system (GIS). The
public/private corporation that developed and maintains the database generates large amounts of
income through its GIS user fees.
In their site feasibility study and subsequent design work, the civil engineering firm has relied
heavily on the GIS data supplied by the public/private corporation. However, individual civil
engineers have complained to their company management that adequate indicators of reliability
for much of the data in the GIS are lacking and therefore they are unable to determine the
correctness and completeness of much of the data in the GIS.
Because their feasibility study and design work relies heavily on the correctness of the data,
errors, blunders, or emissions in the data could cause economic losses or cause harm to people.
The engineers want the data supplier to share the responsibility for any potential future losses.
The data supplier states that it is merely supplying data in a convenient digital form and has no
involvement in its use. The engineering firm has the option of verifying through on-site
measurements, observations, and tests that the data is correct and complete. Therefore, the data
supplier should not be held responsible for any losses that might occur from imprecision,
blunders, or lack of completeness in the data.
Please provide your opinions or reasoning in the following spaces:
Party: Engineers
Conduct: Seeking shared responsibility with the data suppliers for f

Next