Just Consequentialism According to Moor, (2001) the theory of just consequentialism imply that the ends, however good, “do not justify using unjust means”. Regardless the action, there is need to ascertain if unjust means will enhance the action of the user, the mobile agent and the host. Therefore, if it is not possible to achieve the envisaged end (the given task) without using unjust means, the requirement of just consequentialism is not satisfied. Disclosure Module This module applies the Brey’s disclosure cyber-ethical algorithm (Brey, 2005). In this module, the embedded features that are associated with mobile behaviours, will be extracted and identified. The expected behaviours are mobility, reactivity, communication, responsiveness, …show more content…
M = MOBILITY 3.2 Scenario Analysis Module The output of the disclosure module will be the input to the scenario analysis module. This module implements the first step of the five steps of the ethical analysis in Maner, (2002). It is responsible for requirement analysis and the identification of the facts about the behaviours, the stakeholders, related ethical and social issues. Formal Validation Module The output of the scenario analysis module is the input to the formal validation module. This module implements the second step of the ethical analysis in Maner, (2002). The identified behaviours of the mobile agent and the host will be checked against some known ethical theories. The two-level ethical approaches namely duty based and consequence based, at first and second level, respectively. Applying the duty-based ethics of kant approach, the actions and behaviours of the mobile agent will be checked against the rule of fidelity, reparation, justice, non-injury, beneficence and gratitude.( (Spinello, 1997),( Maner,2002). Therefore a mobile agent ethical behaviour can be express mathematically as: E (ma) = F (f, r, j, b, g, nj ) …show more content…
The Other Person’s Shoe tests: Nomad’s intimidating behavior and its execution of task as demonstrated by its continued presence in the eauction house is not fair. However if these inherent character flaws of Nomad is reverse, the other stakeholders will also show the same unfair behaviour, therefore it implies that Nomad action have no difficulty in passing the Other Person’s Shoe test. In this paper we presented a framework for the analysis of ethical issues in a mobile agent system. We discussed the agent’s behaviour towards the host and other stakeholder. The application of this framework on a given mobile agent is expected to reveal the controversial behaviours that can be classified as ethical issues like, interferences, spying snoop around, stealing of information and harming other mobile agent in the agency. Most of the behaviours or acts are dishonest, unjust, and irresponsible, which does not support the principles of ethics – fairness Hence this ethical framework will enhance the level of ethics and security of a mobile agent system