International Journal of Accounting Research

The Connection between Accounting Regulations and Ethics in Technologies

Tang Guo^* Department of Law and Ethics, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom
^*Correspondence: Tang Guo, Department of Law and Ethics, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom, Email:

Received: 05-Aug-2022, Manuscript No. IJAR-22-17998; Editor assigned: 08-Aug-2022, Pre QC No. IJAR-22-17998 (PQ); Reviewed: 26-Aug-2022, QC No. IJAR-22-17998; Revised: 01-Sep-2022, Manuscript No. IJAR-22-17998 (R); Published: 08-Sep-2022, DOI: 10.35248/2472-114X.22.10.286

Description

We may tell that something is wrong when "ethical" becomes synonymous with "supreme." "Ethical standards" appear to lose more feathers with every data governance scandal and business "ethics board" that is established, to the point that mentioning them in any official report now instantly raises suspicion. Suggest that defining the ethics-regulation interface more accurately is a significant challenge in this regard. Give a brief summary of current efforts to create ethical frameworks for technology development before doing this. The third section presents a description of how a more solid ethics-regulation interface might appear, supporting a process of mutually reinforcing the political, ethical, and legal perspectives.

Every time there is a data governance crisis or a corporate "ethics board" is established, "ethical standards" appear to lose a few more points, to the point where they now instantly raise skepticism when mentioned in any official report. How did "ethics" become associated with such a poor reputation in the fields of data governance and AI? Mostly as a result of a subtle conflation between ethics and politics. This ambiguity is not brand-new. The propensity to "resort to ethics" as a way to ignore the power struggles inherent in politics. No different is the current "ethical board fashion": as the breadth and depth of the regulatory authority given by pervasive data collecting technologies become clear, the firms deploying such technology strive to avoid regulation. Powerful businesses rush to take over as much of the space that is still under investigation as regulators struggle to find solutions to issues whose full breadth and character are as difficult to define as they are to handle. Those gleaming ethics committees and guidelines really have more political motivations than ethical ones; if they can stop legal regulation, they will have accomplished their goal.

Efforts made recently to create ethical guidelines for technology. We will also draw attention to some of the drawbacks of these strategies and how they could unintentionally undermine the implementation of a legal framework capable of preserving fundamental human rights. The second portion examines how the link between ethics and legislation has been successfully improved in the example of UK healthcare ethics. The third section presents a description of how a more solid ethicsregulation interface might appear, supporting a process of mutually reinforcing the political, ethical, and legal perspectives.

Oftentimes, references to "ethics" are made in an effort to thwart the political processes that lead to regulation. The majority of the time, this occurs when the pertinent ideals within these ethical discourses are portrayed as "self-evident" or broadly accepted, whereas in reality, every "consensus" should be interpreted as the transitory outcome of a provisional hegemony, as a stabilization of power. It always involves excluding something. The issue is that such exclusive politics can be covered up by an "ethical" discourse. Existing manifestos and ethical initiatives in the "AI" sphere with a view to drawing attention to the absence of responsibility attribution framework emphasizes the degree to which ethical arguments of all types increasingly divert attention from such regulatory gaps. Emphasizes the concerning way in which the core fundamental rights are being weakened as a result of the EU Commission's Draft Ethics Guidelines' emphasis on the "ethical purpose" of such rights.

The speed with which it has expanded throughout society in such a short period of time and the degree to which it has been strongly politicized are perhaps the two most striking features of the current status of "data ethics." Google chose to dismantle its "AI ethics" board less than a week after it was established as a result of harsh criticism from both its personnel and the wider public questioning its makeup and mandate. Some people argue that the AI ethics rules are an example of "ethical whitewashing." The creation of ethical standards has become a contentious political issue that can result in both ethics washing and ethics bashing. A significant trend toward “ethical” governance techniques as well as a general absence of regulatory frameworks has been highlighted in inventories and thorough assessments of ethical approaches to artificial intelligence. This flurry of standard-setting by professional organizations demonstrates a willingness to think about better methods to address the requirement to create ethical frameworks suitable for the particular difficulties posed by data-intensive technology.