Ethical question why are Closed systems wrong?

[wingman4ever]

Hi,

I have an assignment from school and I have to look for arguments that proves that Closed Systems are wrong in an ethical way. He knows there aren't any strong arguments he just want me to research a little.

The teacher said that I had to look into Richard Stallman but I couldn't find any strong arguments from him.

So the question is what makes Closed Systems Morally wrong if there are any. For example IOS from Apple.

I just need a couple simple arguments to show my teacher. I hope you guys can help.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Unforgiven]

I moved this over to the Lounge for you.

 

[ILYfp]

If the end user is told that the system is closed before purchase, then you don't even have an argument. There is nothing wrong with it when they know what they're getting into.

 

[Speed Daemon]

Welcome wingman4ever!

Can you provide more information? Is Closed Systems (Morally) a company? I notice that you're writing it as a proper noun.

Stallman is a neo-Marxist who believes that everything should be completely and totally free, no exceptions. Although he was a gifted programmer, his political extremism has made him a bit of a joke.

Apple has used the trademarked name of Cisco's IOS operating system without permission, and seems to have gotten away with it. Before that, Apple infringed on Microware's popular OS-9 embedded operating system. IIRC they got away with that as well. Apple would be a good case study in ethics, or the lack thereof in Apple's case.

In engineering, the term "closed system" (not a proper noun) has a meaning that is neither moral nor immoral. Ditto for the thermodynamic closed system, which every engineer had to learn to fulfill their chemistry and physics requirements.

I don't know if any of that helps. If you can provide more info...

 

[A.Nonymous]

There's nothing at all wrong with a closed system any more than an open system. Just depends on what is done with said systems.

 

[gtbarry]

Given my discussions with those who work in tech support (I have not), people in a closed environment are rarely empowered beyond the scope of the system they use and are often not intuitive about the system they are a part of. Simple tasks can often not be understood in their own system (i.e. restarting) and users are completely lost trying to do anything beyond simple point and clicks on other environments.

On a macro level, I think closed systems create a click. And that only creates a feeling of elitism and fear of the unknown. (But at the same time it can create a sense of belonging and support.)

 

[dan330]

there are no Moral issues with a closed or open system.
it is NO sin to use or design either system.

Theme parks.. is a closed system.
you pay to get in.. and while there.. they sell you stuff at a much higher markup.
NOT immoral or unethical.

but if i had to try to guess at your professor's needs......
closed systems can create a sheep type mentality. they can lead you to believe that you must pay for services that should come free. also like in the theme park example, pay higher prices.
you are a captured market and if you want these things... you have to pay what they say.

 

[huh]

I believe your teacher was trying to steer you into looking at Stallman and Linus (Tolvads?) not sure of the spelling but he created the Linux kernel and Stallman used it (NEEDED it)..in his rewritten program GNU thus the creation of GNU/LINUX.
This would never have happened in a closed system. So I believe the argument he wants you to explore is that it is unethical to keep advancements in technology, medicine, etc....in a closed system because it hinders the advancement of humanity as a whole.. creating a closed system that benefits a few( it's members) but hinders the masses is ethically wrong...

side note.. as SpeedDeamon and dan pointed out The word "Morality" I think is where the problem lies...

Good Luck!

 

[A.Nonymous]

there are no Moral issues with a closed or open system.
it is NO sin to use or design either system.

Theme parks.. is a closed system.
you pay to get in.. and while there.. they sell you stuff at a much higher markup.
NOT immoral or unethical.

but if i had to try to guess at your professor's needs......
closed systems can create a sheep type mentality. they can lead you to believe that you must pay for services that should come free. also like in the theme park example, pay higher prices.
you are a captured market and if you want these things... you have to pay what they say.

Is that immoral though? And who determines what services should be free?

 

[Speed Daemon]

So I believe the argument he wants you to explore is that it is unethical...

side note.. as SpeedDeamon and dan pointed out The word "Morality" I think is where the problem lies...

Poor kid, things will really get messed up by confusing ethics and morals!

I still think that we need to know more about precisely what type of closed system the instructor is referring to. Unless it's a secret test to see how people make a vague question all about themselves...

 

[davoid]

it is unethical to keep advancements in technology, medicine, etc....in a closed system because it hinders the advancement of humanity as a whole..

I agree that this is probably one of the arguments that the teacher is looking for. It is what I was going to suggest.

 

[A.Nonymous]

So I believe the argument he wants you to explore is that it is unethical to keep advancements in technology, medicine, etc....in a closed system because it hinders the advancement of humanity as a whole.. creating a closed system that benefits a few( it's members) but hinders the masses is ethically wrong...

I completely and totally disagree. A closed system does not necessarily hinder the masses. Nor does it benefit only it's own. The Internet (in the US at least) is privately owned.

 

[dan330]

Is that immoral though? And who determines what services should be free?

it is immoral to take what is not yours...
but not immoral for you to sell something/anything.. if you are willing to pay for it.

bottled water!!!
water is free.. and can be gotten anywhere.
but we pay $1 and up for 12oz bottle of water.
that is more than gas (gas is $3.45 /gallon!)

is it immoral to sell water in a bottle?

 

[huh]

I completely and totally disagree. A closed system does not necessarily hinder the masses. Nor does it benefit only it's own. The Internet (in the US at least) is privately owned.

Didn't say I agreed with the premise, I just thought that maybe that is what his teacher was looking for. He has to present an argument as to why it is unethical to have a closed source system such as Apple. If it were my assignment I would try to assimilate technological advancements with medical advancements...i.e say .. advancements in diagnostics of cancer etc... if medical technology was based on a closed source system or only available to those who pay to to be in the system and only they are able to use or study or expand on the research ..... that would constitute an unethical and immoral dilema..

sometimes the assignment is the assignment..ya know? and the Prof just wants to see if you can make a valid argument out of pure crap

 

[argedion]

If we buy a closed system in this case an OS then there is nothing ethically wrong with that. Nor is it ethically wrong to give away a Free OS. Ethics is a matter of perspective and while some may feel that M$ and Apple are ethically wrong in offering a closed system people buy it with out any complaints. I realize some people do complain but really no one forced them to buy such a system and they really in the end have no one to be upset with except themeselves if they don't like said system.

If I create something it is my right to profit or not to profit from it. Neither is immoral, however if I commited an infrigment on someone else such as having them sell only my product and hense hindering them from other forms of profit then that is immoral and unethical. Also being givin a copywrite to something someone else has done is also unethical and immoral. So really the only way to be unehical or immoral with a Closed System is the way you handle such product with the marketing, producing and legalalites of the product.

If I create the cure for any and all cancer I'm not bound by any law to give the cure to the world. It is my right to give it to whom I see fit to give it to. It's neither immoral or unethical as I am not under contract to the world to give them a cure. If someone dies of cancer when I have the cure its not my problem. I am not legally or ethically bound to help said person. Should I help everyone in the world maybe but that doesnt fit into this discussion as what is really being asked is, is it immoral or unethical.

 

[EarlyMon]

The teacher said that I had to look into Richard Stallman but I couldn't find any strong arguments from him.

The entire GNU movement came about because of experiences that Stallman found unethical.

Free as in Freedom: Chapter 1

 

[A.Nonymous]

Didn't say I agreed with the premise, I just thought that maybe that is what his teacher was looking for. He has to present an argument as to why it is unethical to have a closed source system such as Apple. If it were my assignment I would try to assimilate technological advancements with medical advancements...i.e say .. advancements in diagnostics of cancer etc... if medical technology was based on a closed source system or only available to those who pay to to be in the system and only they are able to use or study or expand on the research ..... that would constitute an unethical and immoral dilema..

sometimes the assignment is the assignment..ya know? and the Prof just wants to see if you can make a valid argument out of pure crap

I'm not sure how you can make the argument that a closed system is unethical. Would your basic premise not be that people should not keep anything proprietary? It would seem to me your argument would have to be that people should have no proprietary information even if they created it themselves. That sounds like you're advocating for some sort of communistic system wherein you argue that what belongs to you belongs to everyone.

Furthermore a lot of research and advancements in the medical field are purely proprietary. Doesn't mean people don't benefit from them. Is there a moral obligation that if I develop something that I must make it available to everyone and let everyone build on what I've developed? That I don't buy. Open sourced and closed sources have their pros and cons, but to me they're ethically neutral. Not sure how to argue otherwise.

 

[huh]

Hi,

I have an assignment from school and I have to look for arguments that proves that Closed Systems are wrong in an ethical way. He knows there aren't any strong arguments he just want me to research a little.

The teacher said that I had to look into Richard Stallman but I couldn't find any strong arguments from him.

So the question is what makes Closed Systems Morally wrong if there are any. For example IOS from Apple.

I just need a couple simple arguments to show my teacher. I hope you guys can help.

Thanks in advance!

.
@argedion..
actually the question was asking for help in finding arguments FOR the premise that closed systems are unethical or immoral...
it's a stretch I know...but apparently so does his teacher...I think he just needs to make a somewhat reasonable argument..
My bet is that it is a forensics assignment...
just trying to help the kid out!

 

[EarlyMon]

I completely and totally disagree. A closed system does not necessarily hinder the masses. Nor does it benefit only it's own. The Internet (in the US at least) is privately owned.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

The internet exists and works because it's based on open standards.

And it functioned for many years before you used it using donated computer time, largely from university servers.

Privately-owned networking services, based on closed systems, died the death they deserved.

That the backbone is physical, physical things cost money, and are therefore the subject of private ownership has nothing to do with why the internet actually works.

All scientific work of any merit is peer-reviewed and then published openly for all to use and build on. There are few prerequisites, but they include full disclosure and full credit for those whose work you used for your own.

If we were to operate on a strict principle that closed systems are best, not only would there not be the internet as you know it today, there wouldn't be a fraction of the technical advances you enjoy in life.

The ethical dilemma in free and open software is this - at what point are things you've added yours and yours alone and at what point are they an enhancement to community property?

The telling point in what the term open means comes from Stallman - it's free as in speech, not free as in beer.

The big companies dead against open software, most especially and most certainly Microsoft, trot out the tired old set of phrases that people believing in open software are just chaotic thieves, not mantled in the righteousness of private industry. Vendors of closed systems would have you believe that FOSS proponents are just in it for the free beer.

It sells well at the corporate level, but it's simply not the truth.

Hear the one about the first working TCP software stack in Microsoft Windows? The one where all the MS suits jumped up and down claiming they invented it? Until someone pointed out that the MS flack that stole it forgot to remove the BSD comments from the source code, establishing beyond doubt that it was in fact stolen, free software that Microsoft was making money on?

If the private sector were honest, there would be no need for openness. If openness could advance everything without money, there would be no need for the private sector.

So I would submit that to say a closed system does not hinder the masses cannot be defended using past history where software is concerned.

Hope this helps!

 

[EarlyMon]

I'm not sure how you can make the argument that a closed system is unethical. Would your basic premise not be that people should not keep anything proprietary?

No.

That's an reductio ad absurdum - a reduction to the absurd - and is going to only prove that you can't get free beer.

Which, everyone already knows.

Closed systems tend towards bad outcomes because while individuals may be basically good, as a crowd and when there's money on the line, the group will work to its own self-interest and against the interests of other similar groups.

It's called competition. And without regulation, history has shown that it can, will and does lead to dishonest, unethical practices by some.

Closed systems aren't unethical based on some theory. They've been observed to _often_ (not always, often) end in unethical practices.

And if it can be shown that just one closed system has - as I've done already in the charge against Microsoft's theft - then that's the one that proves the point.

 

[EarlyMon]

Mac computers have come with a nice app called iPhoto, and have for probably over a decade.

Times were, you could plug in your digital camera, the operating system would recognize it, mount it, and auto-launch iPhoto. You could even set preferences so that your photos would automatically download and then clean up your camera storage when complete.

Easy. Nothing complicated to think about. Perfect for my wife, so I've seen that beast since it launched.

With each update, the library of known digital cameras was expanded. More fun for more people.

After an update one day, her Olympus camera, recognized since day one in iPhoto, was no longer recognized.

And suddenly, neither were Android phones, despite their sd cards using a DCIM (digital camera image) folder - the industry standard.

I went to the support forums at apple.com and people were already complaining about it, so I lurked - but here's what happened: first, the iPhone faithful flamed the Android users. Mods usually shut down flame wars, but those were allowed. Next came the charge from fans that Apple couldn't support the wild west called Android and more flames. Then came 3 posts by 3 different people in rapid succession that their Android phones had been working just fine until the last update, and the update was violating the DCIM storage standard. Then the thread was locked.

That's an example of people paying for a product, enjoying its use, and then not being able to use it as intended and as they had before, because one maker decided to engage in anti-competitive practice against Android to enhance the position of their own product. Even if it meant cutting out support for popular cameras that once worked and had no part in the Android/iOS war.

That's a behavior example involving the closed system from the other big vendor.

Was that ethical?

 

[A.Nonymous]

Again, though you're making the argument that because one company engaged in unethical behavior that their system is therefore unethical. On that I disagree. I just don't see an ethical argument here. If we're going to say that closed systems, are, in and of themselves, unethical then the biggest desktop and server OS in the world is unethical and the most successful mobile OS (in terms of $$$ at least) is unethical as well.

Arguing that groups tend to work towards their own best interests (which I agree with btw) is fine, but I can't agree that this is somehow bad. Let's be honest here, competition got us where are now. Evolution itself is based on competition. And Android has proven that there can be competition (and all of the good and bad stuff that goes with it) with open systems as well.

 

[argedion]

Mac computers have come with a nice app called iPhoto, and have for probably over a decade.

Times were, you could plug in your digital camera, the operating system would recognize it, mount it, and auto-launch iPhoto. You could even set preferences so that your photos would automatically download and then clean up your camera storage when complete.

Easy. Nothing complicated to think about. Perfect for my wife, so I've seen that beast since it launched.

With each update, the library of known digital cameras was expanded. More fun for more people.

After an update one day, her Olympus camera, recognized since day one in iPhoto, was no longer recognized.

And suddenly, neither were Android phones, despite their sd cards using a DCIM (digital camera image) folder - the industry standard.

I went to the support forums at apple.com and people were already complaining about it, so I lurked - but here's what happened: first, the iPhone faithful flamed the Android users. Mods usually shut down flame wars, but those were allowed. Next came the charge from fans that Apple couldn't support the wild west called Android and more flames. Then came 3 posts by 3 different people in rapid succession that their Android phones had been working just fine until the last update, and the update was violating the DCIM storage standard. Then the thread was locked.

That's an example of people paying for a product, enjoying its use, and then not being able to use it as intended and as they had before, because one maker decided to engage in anti-competitive practice against Android to enhance the position of their own product. Even if it meant cutting out support for popular cameras that once worked and had no part in the Android/iOS war.

That's a behavior example involving the closed system from the other big vendor.

Was that ethical?

This is why I'm all for Open Source and Free as in Freedom. I don't use many proprietary systems when there is an alternative. However though for some there is no alternative and the fact that some devices are cheaper then others shouldn't put them out of business. This is yet another way that ethics enter the realm. In my perspective yes this is unethical however is it? Not sure its unethical compared to just being wrong. If I had that system I'm not sure I could support it for much longer. That is a bad way to do business and I'm sure people will speak out about it with their wallets. Question is will it be enough to hurt Apple into changing thier ways? So far it seems not enough people have been affected by it to make a difference to Apple. So long as the whole iNamed product is popular it doesn't seem to make that much of an ill affect.

Closed Systems will be able to get along as long as we support them. Once we no longer support them they will die out.

 

[argedion]

Again, though you're making the argument that because one company engaged in unethical behavior that their system is therefore unethical. On that I disagree. I just don't see an ethical argument here. If we're going to say that closed systems, are, in and of themselves, unethical then the biggest desktop and server OS in the world is unethical and the most successful mobile OS (in terms of $$$ at least) is unethical as well.

Arguing that groups tend to work towards their own best interests (which I agree with btw) is fine, but I can't agree that this is somehow bad. Let's be honest here, competition got us where are now. Evolution itself is based on competition. And Android has proven that there can be competition (and all of the good and bad stuff that goes with it) with open systems as well.

Yes his argument is on one company however we know that just not one company is involved in doing things "Unethically" Again ethical is based on perspective. What Apple did was down right wrong. A Practice Microsoft has also participated in. Not the device thing yet but in strong arming. Intell during the time of the Microsoft Trial was also facing the Government for the same practice they decided to plead guilty to the anti trust laws and the whole thing was dropped. Ethical?

 

[yfan]

There is no *moral* case to be made that closed systems are "wrong." But there IS an *ethical* case to be made for that. The first thing you need to recognize when making an ethical case is that not everyone needs to agree with you. You should make your case with the acknowledgment that your ethics may not mesh with others'.

Now on the particular case of closed systems. There are several points one can make that such systems are ethically inadvisable:

• Closed systems forbid the owner of a device from knowing what is on their device! (Angle: Consumer's right to know.)
• Closed systems deprive a community of users from improving their own experiences even if they have the expertise to do so by closing the code.
• Closed systems harm consumer choice. For example, by not allowing anyone else to license iOS, Apple keeps consumers locked into arguably overpriced devices.
• Closed systems allow their makers to create monopolies and then use that monopoly for anticompetitive purposes. Monopolies can use price manipulation, as well as manipulate associated markets (such as accessories for electronic devices).

I'm sure there are others, but there's a starter list for you.