No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In light of the relation between culture and markets, an analysis of cultural evolution reveals that globalization will not lead to the homogenization of world cultures.

Purpose – The paper aims to examine the nature of computer ethics as a field of study in light of 20 years of Ethicomp, arguing that computer ethics beyond mere compliance will have to be pluralistic and sensitive to the starting places of various audiences. Design/methodology/approach – The essay offers a philosophical rather than empirical analysis, but the ideal of open inquiry is observed to be manifest in the practice of Ethicomp. Findings – If computer ethics is to constitute a real engagement with industry and society that cultivates a genuine sensitivity to ethical concerns in the creation, development and implementation of technologies, a genuine sensitivity that stands in marked contrast to ethics as “mere compliance”, then computer ethics will have to persist in issuing an open invitation to inquiry. Originality/value – The celebration of 20 years of Ethicomp is an occasion to reflect on who we are and what we mean to be doing. Inclusive of previous accounts (e.g. Moor and Gotterbarn), while going beyond them, an inquiry-based conception of computer ethics makes room for all the various dimensions of computer ethics.

Several proposals for moral enhancement would use AI to augment (auxiliary enhancement) or even supplant (exhaustive enhancement) human moral reasoning or judgment. Exhaustive enhancement proposals conceive AI as some self-contained oracle whose superiority to our own moral abilities is manifest in its ability to reliably deliver the ‘right’ answers to all our moral problems. We think this is a mistaken way to frame the project, as it presumes that we already know many things that we are still in the process of working out, and reflecting on this fact reveals challenges even for auxiliary proposals that eschew the oracular approach. We argue there is nonetheless a substantial role that ‘AI mentors’ could play in our moral education and training. Expanding on the idea of an AI Socratic Interlocutor, we propose a modular system of multiple AI interlocutors with their own distinct points of view reflecting their training in a diversity of concrete wisdom traditions. This approach minimizes any risk of moral disengagement, while the existence of multiple modules from a diversity of traditions ensures pluralism is preserved. We conclude with reflections on how all this relates to the broader notion of moral transcendence implicated in the project of AI moral enhancement, contending it is precisely the whole concrete socio-technical system of moral engagement that we need to model if we are to pursue moral enhancement.

Analyses of cultural change routinely turn on observations or evaluations regarding what some institution, system of belief, or technology is doing to "us," but it can be obscure how one is supposed to fix the meaning of such claims. This essay explores such analyses, calling attention to their reliance on the rhetorical force of the first person plural when the literal meaning of their claims strongly suggests the third person would be more literally appropriate. In many cases, "we" has to mean "them---not us." The essay describes how this rhetorical move invites readers to conceive the relation between individuals and the cultures they inhabit as legitimizing a dubious paternalism, how pluralism undermines confidence in the paternalist attitude entwined within that conception, and finally sketches an alternative in which individuals are vested with ultimate cultural authority.

Virtual Reality (VR) experiences have arrived for a wide audience, and some worry that VR experience entices us to abandon experience In Real Life (IRL). While such worries cannot be dismissed out of hand, they are liable to be imprecise and distorted without careful analysis of the opportunity costs of VR experience. Generally, we are not liable to abandon real experience for its virtual analogue. Even a perfect VR experience is generally not a perfect substitute for a like experience IRL. Instead, the success of VR will depend on its ability to produce experiences valued for what they actually are.