| Course | MGMT 8825M Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Peer reply |
| Length | About 510 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion reply, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGMT 8825M Week 9
Week 9 Discussion: Who Does Your Principle Protect?
The People a Principle Leaves Out: Two Peer Replies Asking a Classmate About Pedestrians Who Never Joined a Sidewalk Robot Trial and Another About the Contract Workers Who Label a Chatbot's Data, Each Proposing a Revised Wording
Response to Darnell
Darnell, your principle reads: "A delivery robot's behavior should be judged by the benefit it brings to the customers who use the service." For the campus trial you described, where robots carry food orders from the dining hall to dorms, that standard captures a real good: students get meals faster and at lower cost.
My question is about the people on the sidewalk who never ordered anything. Your post mentions that the robots share paths with pedestrians, cyclists and at least one student who uses a wheelchair and wrote to the campus paper about a robot blocking a curb cut. Friedman and Hendry (2019) distinguish direct stakeholders, who interact with a system, from indirect stakeholders, who are affected by it without using it. Your principle counts only the first group. The wheelchair user did not agree to the trial and cannot opt out of the sidewalk.
Would you consider a revised wording such as: "A delivery robot's behavior should be judged by its benefit to customers, subject to the condition that it imposes no new barrier on people who share the space it travels through"? Your original principle is right that customer benefit is the reason the service exists, and any revision should keep that at its center.
Response to Ana
Ana, your principle states: "A customer service chatbot must protect the privacy of users by never retaining personal data beyond the conversation unless the user consents." That is a strong commitment, and I agree that consent should govern what happens to what users type.
Your post also mentions that the vendor improves its model by having contractors review a sample of conversations and label them as resolved or unresolved. Those contractors read what users wrote, so they are part of the privacy question. They are also stakeholders in their own right. Gray and Suri (2019) document how much of what is presented as automation depends on hidden workers who label data and check outputs, often paid by the task, with little job security and no say over the material they must read. Some of what users type to a customer service bot is distressing, and the contractors see it.
A revised wording might read: "A customer service chatbot must protect users' privacy by retaining personal data only with consent, and conversations reviewed by people must be stripped of identifying details and handled by reviewers who are told what they may encounter and paid for the time." Nissenbaum (2010) argued that privacy depends on whether a flow of information respects the norms of the setting where it was first disclosed; a user writing to a company does not expect a stranger elsewhere to read the message. Your principle already protects users from retention, which matters most, and the revision only extends it to the people the vendor relies on.
References
Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. G. (2019). Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. MIT Press.
Gray, M. L., & Suri, S. (2019). Ghost work: How to stop Silicon Valley from building a new global underclass. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press.
What the MGMT 8825M Week 9 instructions ask for
The ninth week's discussion has you answer two classmates' AI ethics principles. Address each classmate by name and quote the principle under discussion before commenting. Then identify a group the principle overlooks, using details from the classmate's own post where possible. Draw on one source that names the distinction or concern you raise. Propose a revised wording of the principle that addresses the gap without abandoning the classmate's purpose. Close each reply by granting what the original principle gets right. Keep the two replies of roughly equal length. Avoid restating your own principle or turning the reply into a general lecture; the aim is to strengthen the classmate's principle through one precise question.
How the MGMT 8825M Week 9 example is put together
The reply to Darnell quotes his customer-benefit rule, credits the faster meals and then uses his own mention of a blocked curb cut to raise people who share the sidewalk. Friedman and Hendry's indirect stakeholders name the gap, and a revised wording adds a condition against new barriers. The reply ends by keeping customer benefit at the center. The reply to Ana quotes her consent rule, agrees with it and points to the contractors her post says review conversations. Gray and Suri's ghost work and Nissenbaum's contextual integrity support a revision requiring de-identified review and prepared, paid reviewers. It closes by noting that her principle already protects users from retention.
MGMT 8825M Week 9 rubric: what earns full marks
Each reply earns most of its credit by finding a real gap and grounding it in the classmate's own details. Quoting the principle exactly shows the reply engages what was written. The cited source should name the concept the reply turns on, not decorate it. The revised wording is judged on whether it closes the gap while preserving the classmate's purpose; rewrites that replace the principle entirely lose marks. Granting what the original gets right shows good faith and is part of the assignment. Replies that praise without questioning, that raise gaps unrelated to the classmate's case or that are very unequal in length score lower, as does a reply that offers criticism with no proposed revision.
Common MGMT 8825M Week 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Read each classmate's post twice and underline details about who is affected: bystanders, workers, families, people who cannot opt out. Those details usually reveal the overlooked group. Choose a source that names the distinction precisely, such as direct versus indirect stakeholders. Write the revised principle by adding a clause, not by replacing the original. Then write one sentence saying what the original does well, and mean it. Half a page apiece is plenty. Avoid the temptation to argue for your own principle instead. If you would like a second opinion on tone, a tutor can read your replies, and the two answers printed above model the pattern.
Get a MGMT 8825M Week 9 example written to your instructions
Copy in the reply instructions and rubric for Week 9 along with the posts from classmates that need answers. Two drafted replies come back within 24-48h, and the first pair costs nothing. The replies are written to the exact wording of those posts, so the posts are required rather than optional.
More MGMT 8825M papers and PhD in Management samples
- MGMT 8825M Week 1: Discussion Post
- MGMT 8825M Week 2: Principles Brief
- MGMT 8825M Week 3: Ethics Analysis
- MGMT 8825M Week 4: Accountability Memo
- MGMT 8825M Week 5: Case Analysis
- MGMT 8825M Week 6: Harms Assessment
- MGMT 8825M Week 7: Autonomy Brief
- MGMT 8825M Week 8: Position Memo
- MGMT 8825M Week 10: Deployment Analysis
- MGMT 8825M Week 11: Ethics Argument
- MGMT 8900M Week 9: Peer Critique
- MGMT 8815M Week 9: Peer Reply
- MGMT 8805M Week 9: Peer Reply
- MGMT 8725M Week 9: Retention Analysis
MGMT 8825M Week 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MGMT 8825M Week 9 sample paper?
Both peer replies, to Darnell and to Ana, can be read in full above with margin notes.
What gap does the MGMT 8825M Week 9 sample raise for the robot principle?
Pedestrians and a wheelchair user who share the sidewalk but never agreed to the delivery trial.
What is an indirect stakeholder?
Friedman and Hendry's term for people affected by a system who do not use it themselves.
Who are the overlooked workers in the chatbot reply?
Contract reviewers who read and label conversations to improve the vendor's model.
How does each reply close?
By granting what the classmate's original principle gets right before ending.