So far we discussed several moral perspectives and theories. A problem with most theories based on societal interactions is the difficulty of testing these theories, since society cannot be altered in any way. However, the creation of a new moral sphere can provide valuable clues on the plausibility of these theories. The internet is a complete new moral playground with virtually no laws. It is evident that real world morality cannot be applied to the internet, making it a moral sphere, and with contemporary minimal morality. We would expect that without laws, a hermeneutical driven morality would emerge. However, basic moral values applicable to the internet sphere seem not to be upheld. Copyright violations are numerous because punishment is absent, deception in chat rooms is common practice, and the porn industry certainly does not uphold moral values. It seems that since internet laws are not emerged yet, and anonymity provides shelter from societal judgment, people tend to ignore moral values, an argument in favor of the functional perspective.
Another example: when the internet first emerged, plagiarism was a major problem, until an algorithm was created to detect plagiarism. Since plagiarism was now detectable and thus punishable, it declined. Apparently, the moral value on itself was not enough to prevent plagiarism. And there are many examples, think about hacking, creating viruses, or internet bullying. However, this does not mean we can throw away the hermeneutical theory. Maybe people simply do not know yet the proper moral values. Maybe the internet will reappear as a reflection of the real societies. Personally I think the internet will remain a sphere with minimal morality, because anonymity and lack of laws provide no incentive to act morally. I hope I have showed the internet is a valuable tool to asses different moral theories. Perhaps it would be useful to think about the interaction between the business discourse and the internet.
s312501
2 comments:
the anr is 312510
The rights based theory would therefore totally be applicable to the internet.
First one has to know that from a rights based perspective every transaction happens voluntarily for both parties. Another aspect is that both parties have an identity. This identity may be a brand name or maybe even just a friend of a friend. If you do not like a certain company, it is not necessary to do business with that company in the free market.
All these facts go equally for the internet. Internet is also voluntarily, there was never used force to establish a connection between people and with having e-mail one has an identity. Furthermore, every siteowner decides what to publish or not.
Thus, it can be said that just like in the real world, abandoning freedom (of speech) on the internet would infringe your natural right to use your property and body as you prefer.
s901648
Note that I, of course, do not promote unlimited freedom with property and body as one has to respect the same property rights of others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
Post a Comment