ethics

Introduction: The concept of the “responsibility gap” in artificial intelligence (AI) was first raised in philosophical discussions to reflect concerns that learning and partially autonomous technologies may make it more difficult or impossible to attribute moral blame to individuals for adverse events. This is because in addition to designers, the environment and users also participate in the development process. This ambiguity and complexity sometimes makes it seem that the output of these technologies is beyond the control of human individuals and that no one can be held responsible for it, which is known as the “responsibility gap”. In this article, the issue of the responsibility gap in artificial intelligence technologies will be explained and strategies for the responsible development of artificial intelligence that prevent such a gap from occurring as much as possible are presented. Material and Methods: The present article examined responsibility gap in AI. In order to achieve this goal, related articles and books were examined. Conclusion: There have been various responses to the issue of the responsibility gap. Some believe that society can hold the technology responsible for its outcomes. Others disagree. Accordingly, only the human actors involved in the development of these technologies can be held responsible, and they should be expected to use their freedom and awareness to shape the path of technological development in a way that prevents undesirable and unethical events. In summary, the three principles of routing, tracking, and engaging public opinion and attention to public emotions in policymaking can be useful as three effective strategies for the responsible development of AI technologies.

Introduction: In recent years, approaches based on environmental ethics have emphasized the need to protect the environment from the effects of industrial pollutants. This trend is reflected in new and developing international policies for environmental protection, such that, for example, in the field of protecting the marine environment from oil pollution, the existing international approach is based on the development of laws that protect the environment and protect humans. Therefore, the present study was conducted with the aim of examining ethical considerations in protecting the marine environment from the effects of oil pollution and its support by international laws. Material and Methods: This study used reliable sources and international scientific articles in the field of environmental ethics and the support of international laws for the marine environment from oil pollution in a descriptive and review manner. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that it is not possible to define a specific and unified ethical framework for protecting the marine environment. In the present study, three ethical perspectives were discussed, which represent the ways in which people view the environment in general and the marine environment in particular and their interactions with it. These are anthropocentric, ecocentric and biocentric ethics. Five general ethical principles have also been identified, which are included in international legal instruments and thus represent an agreement reached by signatories with different cultural backgrounds. These are: sustainability, conservation of biodiversity, protection, environmental justice and human dignity. In view o