Create an annotated list of the values and ethical theories

Create an annotated list of the values and ethical theories presented in this module. Bullets work very well for this.For the most part, you will find the values in the online readings and the ethical theories in Quinn.For each of the values or theories, cite the source(s) of your information. It will be important to keep track of where each bit of information comes from as this course proceeds. (Several of them are mentioned by more than one author).Explain the meaning of each value in your own words.Show in 1 or 2 sentences how each value or theory might be related to an issue in computing. Here is a list of values and theories to get you started: Moor – core values framework Life & happinessAbilityFreedomKnowledgeResourcesSecurityBrey – disclosive ethics JusticeAutonomy (and freedom)DemocracyPrivacyTruilli and FloridiInformation transparency QuinnKantianismAct UtilitarianismRule UtilitarianismSocial ContractVirtue EthicsTextbookQuinn, M. J. (2016). Ethics for the Information Age Chapter 2: Introduction to EthicsRequired Online ReadingsSee links below for both required readings and additional readings of interest.TheoryMoor, J.H. (1998). Reason, relativity, and responsibility in computer ethics. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Socirty, 28(1): 14-21. Moor (1998) talks about ‘policy vacuum’ and ‘conceptual muddle.’ It is this focus on understanding in order to inform policy decisions that is the focus for this course. Pay particular attention to Moor’s discussion of ‘core values’ (p. 19). Do you accept his core values? Are there more that he hasn’t included? Do you understand those that he’s listed?Brey, P. (2000). Disclosive computer ethics. ACM SIGCAS Computer and Society, 30(4): 10-16. Brey (2000) makes the case that ethical analysis of new technologies must start with the professional, in this case, the IT professional, preferably in the design process. Only by disclosing all of the various features in the new technology can others then find moral dilemmas. This is one way in which imagination comes into the analysis; it is not always easy to see the implications of projected features in future applications.Turilli, M., & Floridi, L. (2009). The ethics of information transparency. Ethics and Information Technology, 11(2): 105-112. Turilli & Floridi (2009) point out the definite relationship between computational artifacts and ethics. They define information transparency, not as an ethical principle, but as an operation that becomes ethically ”enabling” when dealing with information disclosure and deciding what kind of information should be disclosed.Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109 (1): 121-136. Read before Johnson article. Winner (1980) is a classic science and technology studies look at power (politics). Winner urges the reader to not embrace technological change (innovation) without seriously considering the potential inherent risks to society.Johnson, D.G., & Miller, K.W. (2006). A dialogue on responsibility, moral agency and IT systems. Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing: 272-276. Johnson & Miller (2006) point out IT systems/human dynamics which can lead to ascribing human values to the technology.PracticeWeb Accessibility Initiative, The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization: OverviewMaking a Web Site Accessible: Both for People with Disabilities and for Mobile DevicesAccessibility