Ethics in Cyberspace: How Cyberspace May Influence Interpersonal Interaction

219 Pages·2009·2.585 MB·English

by  Professor Thomas Ploug (auth.)

Ethics in Cyberspace
Thomas Ploug
Ethics in Cyberspace
How Cyberspace May Influence
Interpersonal Interaction
123
ProfessorThomasPloug
CopenhagenInstituteofTechnology,AAUK.
Lautrupvang2B
2750Ballerup
Denmark
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://thomasploug.dk
ArtworkusedinthecoverdesigncourtesyofAlexGomezandKristianNørgaard
ISBN978-90-481-2369-8 e-ISBN978-90-481-2370-4
DOI10.1007/978-90-481-2370-4
SpringerDordrechtHeidelbergLondonNewYork
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2009926162
(cid:2)c SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2009
Nopartofthisworkmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmittedinanyformorby
anymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,microfilming,recordingorotherwise,withoutwritten
permissionfromthePublisher,withtheexceptionofanymaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurpose
ofbeingenteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
Acknowledgements
IntheprocessofwritingthisbookandthedoctoraldissertationonwhichitisbasedI
haveenjoyedvariousformsofassistancefromanumberofpeople.ForallofthisIam
verygrateful.AmongfriendsandcolleaguesIwouldliketothank:PeterØhrstrøm,for
his encouragement, interesting conversation and valuable comment; Klaus Robering,
forhisvaluablecommentsonextensivepartsofthebook;KasperLippert-Rasmussen,
for very clear, competent and balanced criticism on the first parts of the book; and
Søren Holm, for the hospitality shown during my stay as visiting research fellow at
the University of Cardiff, and for his clear, balanced and insightful comment on the
final product.Ialso owe thanks to Springer for seeingthepotential inthe subjectof
thisbook,andinparticulartoNatalieRiebornandNeilOlivier.Thanks,too,tothe
two anonymous reviewers at Springer for their thorough comments and suggestions.
Finally I owe my deepest gratitude to my family: to Mum and Dad, for your tireless
interest in my work; to Berit, for your love and patience throughout: to Naomi and
Celine, forthesmilesandlaughter that canturnanydaytosunshine.
v
Contents
Acknowledgements v
I The basic premise 1
1 Ethics in cyberspace 3
1.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.1 Thefaceoftheother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.2 The‘Legal Tender’experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1.3 Explaining thebasicpremise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.1.4 Roadmap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2 The basic premise revisited 13
2.1 Shortcomings ofthebasicpremise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.1 Thekindofmediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.2 Thecharacter ofactions contrasted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.3 Coincidental differenceininteraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.4 Qualitative identity ofsituations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2 Thebasicpremise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2.1 Restating thebasicpremise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2.2 Exploration ofthebasicpremise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
II Action, explanation and cyberspace 31
3 Actions and explanations 33
3.1 Actions andreasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.1.1 ‘Themoralproblem’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
vii
viii Contents
3.1.2 AHumeantheoryofmotivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.1.3 Internalism inrelation tonormative reasons . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1.4 Purecognitivist internalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2 Explaining thebasicpremise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2.1 Theroleofbeliefsinexplanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2.2 Theroleofontological conditions inexplanation . . . . . . . . 59
3.2.3 Explanatory model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4 Interaction in cyberspace 65
4.1 Cyberspace:Infrastructureandinteraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.1.1 Conceptual computers anddigital electronic machines . . . . . 66
4.1.2 Definingcyberspace:Virtuality andinteraction . . . . . . . . . 69
4.1.3 Specifickindsofinteraction incyberspace . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.2 Keypropertiesofcyberspatialinteraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.2.1 Limited exchangeofdataandinformation . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.2.2 Limited sensoryaccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.2.3 Extensive anonymity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.2.4 Logical relationship betweenkeyproperties . . . . . . . . . . . 83
III Explaining the basic premise 85
5 Belief and particularity 87
5.1 Structureofanalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.2 Thethreehypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.2.1 Beingconvincedtoacertainextent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.2.2 Thereality ofthepatient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.2.3 Reliable andrelevantevidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6 Belief and reality 99
6.1 Hypothesis I:Reality anddeterminateness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.1.1 Determinateness anddeterminedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.1.2 Belief, reality anddeterminateness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
6.2 Hypothesis II:Reality, causality andlife-world . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.2.1 Causality andlife-world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.2.2 Belief, reality andcausality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.2.3 Belief, reality andlife-world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Contents ix
6.3 Hypothesis III:Reality andvulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6.3.1 Vulnerability anddependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6.3.2 Belief,reality andvulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
6.4 Hypotheses ItoIII:Beliefs andevidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
6.4.1 Linkingbeliefs andevidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7 Belief and evidence 157
7.1 Evidenceincyberspatialinteraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
7.1.1 Lackofevidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
7.1.2 Lackofrelevantevidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.1.3 Lackofreliable evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
8 Belief and action 187
8.1 Belief, reality andethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
8.1.1 Belief,reality andmotivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
8.1.2 Theparticularity ofmoralconcern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
8.2 Explaining themoraldifferenceininteraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
8.2.1 Foundationfor explaining [TBP] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
8.2.2 Explaining [TBP]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
8.2.3 Revisiting sourcesofinspiration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
9 Concluding remarks 205
9.1 Alternative explanations andinterpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Bibliography 213
Index 221
Chapter 1
Ethics in cyberspace
Overrecentdecadesinformationtechnologyhascometohaveanincreasinglypromi-
nent role in our dealings with other people. The computer, in particular, has made
available a host of new ways of interacting, which we have increasingly been able to
use to our advantage. In the wake of this development a number of ethical questions
havebeenraisedanddebated.
This book focuses on the possible consequences for moral agency of mediating
interaction by means of computers. It seeks to clarify how the conditions governing
certainkindsofinteractionincyberspacedifferfromface-to-faceinteraction,andhow
this difference may come to affect the behaviour of interacting agents in a way that
hasrelevanceforethics.Morespecifically,thebookendeavourstoshedlightonsome
of the factors influencing our conviction that a particular other person is real, to
suggesthowthisconvictionmaybeaffectedbymovingthesettingofinteractionfrom
outsidetoinsidecyberspace,andfinallytoshowhowthesechangesmayleadanagent
tobehavedifferently,ethically speaking,inthetwo settings.
Intheprocessofaddressingthetopicsmentionedwewillfocusourattentionmore
specificallyuponinteractioninordinarytext-basedchat-rooms,virtualworldssuchas
Second-Lifeandalso,toacertaindegree,telerobotics.Aswillbecomeclear,however,
theinquirieshaveabroaderapplication.Theymayalsotellatleastpartofthestoryof
how,moregenerally,spatialandtemporaldistancemaycometoaffectthebehaviour
ofinteracting agents inanethically relevantway.
T.Ploug,EthicsinCyberspace:HowCyberspaceMayInfluenceInterpersonalInteraction, 3
(cid:2)c SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2009
4 Ethics in cyberspace
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 The face of the other
Thegenesisofthisbookliesinpartinare-readingofsomeoftheworksoftheFrench
philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. Prompted by an interest in how the mediation of
interaction by means of computers may come to influence agency in an ethically
relevant way,1 it seemed an obvious step to begin the investigation by exploring the
works ofLevinas.Averybriefsummaryofhisideas mayclarify this.
AtthecoreofLevinas’ethicalthinkingliesthenotionof‘thefaceoftheother’.It
isthroughthetranscendentfaceoftheotherthatweenterintoarelationshipwiththe
infinite other.2 The transcendent face of the other has meaning content that is inde-
pendentofcontextandexpressestheappeal,therequirementandthecommandment
expressedby:‘Thoushallnotkill’.3AccordingtoLevinas,thisappeal,requirementor
commandmentconstitutesafundamentalresponsibilityinandthroughwhichtheself
comes into being.4 Without going further into Levinas’ thinking, it seems as though
it may be interpreted as implying the existence of an ethically relevant difference
between interaction in cyberspace and interaction face-to-face. Thus, given that the
requirement of the transcendent face of the other constitutes not only human exis-
tenceitselfbutalsoourspecificmoralresponsibilityfortheother,5andgiventhatthe
transcendentfaceissomehowtiedtothepresenceofthebodilyfaceoftheother,6then,
otherthingsbeingequal,thereisreasontosupposethatultimatelythebehaviourof
interactingagentsmaybeaffectedinanethicallyrelevantwaysimplybecausethatin-
teractiontakesplaceincyberspace.Afterall,certainkindsofinteractionincyberspace
involve theloss ofperceptualaccesstothebodilyfaceoftheinteracting party.
1Notethattheconceptsofmoralityandethicsareusedinterchangeably.
2Levinasin[55,pp.100and103].
3Levinasin[55,pp.100–101,103and114],andin[56,p.195].
4Levinasin[55,pp.111–112],andin[57,p.206].
5AlthoughLevinasisprimarilyconcernedwiththebasicconditionsofhumanexistence,hetakes
hisconsiderationstohavenormativeethicalimplications.Cf.[55,p.105].
6CentraltoLevinas’ethicalthinkingistheideathatanotherpersonisinfinite,irreducible‘other-
ness’.Theotherescapesanyattemptofconceptualrepresentationavailabletothemind.Hence
the notion of a ‘transcendent face’. To ‘see’ the ethical content of the transcendent face thus
requires ‘a meeting’ – and this seems to presuppose the presence of the bodily face. Moreover,
Levinasseemstolinktheethicalcontentofthetranscendentfacetothevulnerabilityandpoverty
ofthebodilyface.Cf.[57,pp.44–45and110–112].
1.1 Introduction 5
IntuitivelyLevinas’thinkingseemstocapturesomethingimportantanduncontro-
versial.Beingface-to-facewithanotherpersondoesappeartoinfluencethecharacter
of those of our actions which affect that other person. Whether or not this is to be
explained by invoking notions such as a transcendent face is, however, more contro-
versial.HereourapproachdivergesfromthatofLevinas.WhileLevinas’observation
that the face of the other is of importance for ethics forms the starting-point of this
book, in what follows we will develop an alternative account of his observation. Ac-
cordingly, this book may be seen as an investigation into the role of the bodily face
for the ethical character of interaction, where ‘bodily face’ is to be taken in a rather
broadsense.Thisbookhasimplications,therefore,thatgobeyondcyberspatialinter-
action.Ifperceptualaccesstothefaceofanotherpersonissomehowimportantforthe
ethicalchoiceswemake,thentheconsequencesoflosingperceptualaccesstoanother
agent’s face may also become apparent where this loss is due to separation in space
and time – and not only where the loss is due to the interaction being mediated by
computers.Relevantexampleswouldbethegeographicaldistancebetweenpeopleon
eachsideofthenorth-southdivideorthedistanceintimebetweenpresentandfuture
generations.However,sincewearefocusinginthisbookonthespecificconditionsof
certain kinds of interaction in cyberspace, we will delve into these implications only
toalimited extent.
TheLevinasianthemewillbegivenatwistinthisbook.Thishastodowithsome
oftheothersourcesofinspirationencounteredintheearlydaysinthewritingofthis
book,primarily thetelerobotic artproject‘Legal Tender’.
1.1.2 The ‘Legal Tender’ experiment
The telerobotic art project ‘Legal Tender’ was a fascinating cyberspatial experiment
inwhichpeoplevisitingawebpagewerepresentedwithapairofpurportedlygenuine
US$100bills.Afterregistering,theywereofferedtheopportunitytoexperimentwith
the bills by burning or puncturing them online. Having chosen an experiment, the
participantswereinformedthatitisaFederalcrimeknowinglytodefaceUScurrency–
punishablebyupto6months’imprisonment–andwereleftwiththeoptiontoclick
the button ‘accept responsibility’. Having accepted responsibility, the participants
werethenallowedtoconductthechosenexperiment.Intheendtheparticipantswere
asked if they believed the bills and experiment to be real. Almost all responded
negatively.7
7Goldbergin[34,p.60].