Digital Ethics as Translational Ethics

Introduction

As our world becomes increasingly digital, we must ensure that we do not lose our ethical compass. Algorithms are now frequently used to determine the allocation of critical resources, in some cases even making literal life-and-death decisions. Our lives are measured, collected, analyzed, and stored, thereby reducing us in some cases to simply a set of numbers. We carry digital devices that track our every location, volunteer information to improve our online experiences, and extend our minds, families, and communities through digital means. But much, perhaps all, of these transformations have been designed, implemented, and dictated primarily by technological and economic demands. We risk the creation of digital technologies that serve the values and interests of the few, rather than the values and interests of the many. The recent calls for digital ethics are, at their heart, an effort to return our focus to humans and our values. How do we have the right digital technology for us, and how can we achieve it in practice?

One barrier to the development and implementation of digital ethics has been uncertainty or misunderstanding about the scope and nature of ethics itself. For some people, ‘ethics’ refers to their personal or cultural beliefs and principles. For others, ‘ethics’ is a matter of law, regulation, and compliance. Or perhaps ‘ethics’ is understood as an entirely relativistic domain where there truly are no right and wrong answers, or even better and worse answers. Along a different dimension, some people view ‘ethics’ as a purely negative enterprise that provides only restrictions or constraints (e.g., “killing someone is not morally acceptable except in certain extreme circumstances”). Alternately, one could conceive of ‘ethics’ in terms of positive principles (e.g., “you ought to have freedom of expression”). Of course, the reality of ethics is more complex than either of these possibilities, even if only because many positive principles presuppose restraint or constraint on others. For example, if I have freedom of expression, then others are prevented from stopping my speech (unless there are compelling counter-reasons).

In light of these disagreements about the exact nature of ethics, one might wonder whether any progress is possible at all, let alone in the specific case of digital ethics. Perhaps surprisingly, though, it can sometimes be easier to gain ethical insights in specific domains, rather than always trying to operate at an extremely high level of generality. As we briefly discuss below, ‘digital ethics’ is not properly understood as the “mere” application of well-established ethical principles to the particular case of digital technologies. Rather, we need to develop ethical principles, guidelines, and practices that are specific to the digital ecosystem. Even with this narrowed focus, though, we might still wonder “what is ethics?” For the purposes of this chapter, I will adopt a relatively simple characterization, with the full awareness of its limitations when trying to do highly abstract and general ethics.

I will understand ‘ethics’ as primarily concerned with two questions: (1) what values ought we have? and (2) given our values, how ought we act? Neither of these questions will have a unique answer. Ethical reasoning and analysis almost never determine our values; some of my interests and needs are specific to the peculiarities of my situation and life. And even if we know the values and interests of all of the relevant people, there will typically be multiple actions that are morally acceptable. Moreover, I acknowledge that these specific questions lack the subtlety that we normally expect and require from ethics, but they are nonetheless valuable in focusing our attention in productive directions. In particular, they place the focus of ethics squarely where it should reside—on the people who are impacted by the digital systems, technologies, and actions.