108
theoretical constructs, particularly in economics and law, thereby influencing economic and societal life. The proponent of the third highlighted
approach, Kant, formulated categorical imperatives for every human being
to obey, whatever the circumstances and whatever the outcome of the
actions following these imperatives. This perspective, more widely known
as Deontological Ethics, focused more on rules that need to be respected
than on the outcome of actions (Hill 2006). Kant’s approach has been
highly influential in relation to applied and professional ethics. The challenge pertaining to this approach relates to the identification of both the
rules to be followed and who is in charge of setting them.
According to the philosopher Julia Annas (Annas 1993), the main difference between the abovementioned approaches to ethics is that ancient
ethical theories (i.e. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics) tend to be centred on the
agent, considering the life of the acting person as a narrative unity with a
telos, a purpose. This agent-centred perspective also characterizes the work
of the later Neo-Aristotelian philosophers (such as Anscombe or
MacIntyre). On the other hand, more modern ethical theories (i.e.
Utilitarianism and Deontological Ethics) are centred on particular actions,
and tend to perceive morality as ‘punitive or corrective’ (Annas 1993, p. 4).
This chronological and thematic overview of the three most prominent
approaches to ethics provides a foundation for ethical analysis of cloud
computing. However, in reviewing existing contributions which claim to
devote their attention to ethical issues related to cloud computing, it
appears that these existing contributions: (i) do not explicitly align to a
particular school of ethics; (ii) do not offer an explicit or exhaustive
account of what ethics is, i.e. do not select a particular definition or
approach to ethics; and (iii) do not disclose conceptions of what is “good”
or what is “right,” which should be the starting point for an analysis which
seeks to determine the boundary of what is acceptable (or not) within a
professional or business domain.
As a consequence, the structure of the chapter does not reflect the differences between the abovementioned approaches to ethics. The next section, Sect. 6.3, appraises recurring topics in the literature that generally
deal with ethical issues related to cloud computing: Section 6.3.1 examines recurring ethical issues linked to the collection, storage and usage of
data, Sect. 6.3.2 analyses the perspective of providers of cloud computer
services, while Sect. 6.3.3 explores issues related to one of the key stakeholders in the cloud computing industry—the final users of cloud computing services.
B. MURPHY AND M. ROCCHI
theoretical constructs, particularly in economics and law, thereby influencing economic and societal life. The proponent of the third highlighted
approach, Kant, formulated categorical imperatives for every human being
to obey, whatever the circumstances and whatever the outcome of the
actions following these imperatives. This perspective, more widely known
as Deontological Ethics, focused more on rules that need to be respected
than on the outcome of actions (Hill 2006). Kant’s approach has been
highly influential in relation to applied and professional ethics. The challenge pertaining to this approach relates to the identification of both the
rules to be followed and who is in charge of setting them.
According to the philosopher Julia Annas (Annas 1993), the main difference between the abovementioned approaches to ethics is that ancient
ethical theories (i.e. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics) tend to be centred on the
agent, considering the life of the acting person as a narrative unity with a
telos, a purpose. This agent-centred perspective also characterizes the work
of the later Neo-Aristotelian philosophers (such as Anscombe or
MacIntyre). On the other hand, more modern ethical theories (i.e.
Utilitarianism and Deontological Ethics) are centred on particular actions,
and tend to perceive morality as ‘punitive or corrective’ (Annas 1993, p. 4).
This chronological and thematic overview of the three most prominent
approaches to ethics provides a foundation for ethical analysis of cloud
computing. However, in reviewing existing contributions which claim to
devote their attention to ethical issues related to cloud computing, it
appears that these existing contributions: (i) do not explicitly align to a
particular school of ethics; (ii) do not offer an explicit or exhaustive
account of what ethics is, i.e. do not select a particular definition or
approach to ethics; and (iii) do not disclose conceptions of what is “good”
or what is “right,” which should be the starting point for an analysis which
seeks to determine the boundary of what is acceptable (or not) within a
professional or business domain.
As a consequence, the structure of the chapter does not reflect the differences between the abovementioned approaches to ethics. The next section, Sect. 6.3, appraises recurring topics in the literature that generally
deal with ethical issues related to cloud computing: Section 6.3.1 examines recurring ethical issues linked to the collection, storage and usage of
data, Sect. 6.3.2 analyses the perspective of providers of cloud computer
services, while Sect. 6.3.3 explores issues related to one of the key stakeholders in the cloud computing industry—the final users of cloud computing services.
B. MURPHY AND M. ROCCHI