Kant and Information ethics

1. Kant andInformationethics Savaş Takan “SAPERE AUDE”

2. KANT (eleştirel felsefenin babası ) • “Aydınlanma, insanın kendi suçu ile düşmüş olduğu bir ergin olmama durumundan kurtulmasıdır. Bu ergin olmayış durumu ise, insanın kendi aklını bir başkasının kılavuzluğuna başvurmaksızın kullanamayışıdır. İşte bu ergin olmayışa insan kendi suçu ile düşmüştür; bunun nedenini de aklın kendisinde değil, fakat aklını başkasının kılavuzluğu ve yardımı olmaksızın kullanmak kararlılığını ve yürekliliğini gösteremeyen insanda aramalıdır SapareAude! Aklını kendin kullanmak cesaretini göster! Sözü şimdi Aydınlanmanın parolası olmaktadır.”

3. KANT (eleştirel felsefenin babası ) • “Başkasının aklını ödünç alma, kendi aklını kimseye emanet etme. Düşünmeye, öğrenmeye cesaret et.” • “Öyle davranışta bulun ki, bu davranış herkesin uymak zorunda kaldığı evrensel bir hareket olsun” • “herkesin nasıl davranmasını istiyorsan sen de öyle davran”

4. KANT ( Etik ) • kişisel amaçlarımızı karşılamak için diğer insanları araç olarak kullanmamamız gerektiği ilkesidir (Pehlivan, 1998: 29). Bütün bireyler biricik ve insan oluşlarından dolayı değerlidir, o nedenle herkese eşit ve saygılı davranılması gerekmektedir. • Kant’a göre ahlâki kusursuzluk, doğruluk ve dürüstlük olarak tanımlanabilecek erdemli davranış, ilkelere uygun davranmak anlamına gelmektedir. Fırsatçı, çıkarcı bireyler erdemli değildirler. Bir bireyin erdemli sayılması için, ahlâki ilkeleri içselleştirmesi ve bunları eylemlerinde kılavuz olarak alması doğrudur (Pehlivan, 1998: 28).

5. Kant (Etik) • “Kendi aklının kitle önünde, kamuoyu önünde ve hizmetinde serbestçe ve açık bir biçimde kullanılması her zaman özgürce olmalıdır; ve yalnızca bu tutum insanlara ışık ve aydınlanma getirebilir; buna karşılık aklın özel olarak kullanılışı [der Privatgebrauch], genellikle çok dikkatlice ve dar bir alanda kalacak bir biçimde sınırlandırılabilmiştir ve bu da aydınlanma için bir engel sayılmaz. Kendi aklını kamu hizmetinde kullanmaktan [der öffentlicheGebrauch], bir kimsenin, örneğin bir bilginin bilgisini ya da düşüncesini, yani aklını, onu izleyenlere, okuyanlara yararlı olacak bir biçimde sunmasını anlıyorum.”

6. Abstract • our reasons for seeking to bring Kant to bear on contemporary information andcomputing ethics (ICE).

7. GOALS • Buildingtrust online • Regulatingthe Internet • Search enginealgorithms should be made public • Kantianapproach to ethical issues inICE

8. The papersdeveloped from workshop • Kant revisited in light of newtechnology: Consciousness, identity and public reason/judgment,’’ (March 19–20, 2007), at NTNUNorwegian University of Science and Technology,Trondheim.

9. Kantian perspective was chosen for examining new technologies • addressboth philosophers but also the engineering faculties. • his philosophy takes up all the basicaspects of philosophical interest that are of importance to new technologies: epistemology, ethics andpolitical philosophy and aesthetics.

10. Kant’s basicthoughts on autonomy and the public domain arehighly relevant to challenges concerning modernsociety, particularly to communication in the publicsphere. • Trust is but one important topic being discussed here; openness another. • Thus, our aim has notonly been to demonstrate how Kant can be productively applied to new technology; in addition, it hasbeen to show how the basic philosophical queriesraised within this context can be fruitfully explainedwithin Kant’s conceptual frames.

11. BjørnMyskja • Kantianon the matter of trust • Kantian thought to the problem ofregulating the Internet and the Web: Myskja therebyargues for an important middle ground betweenexcessive regulation and no regulation at all.

12. BjørnMyskja • Kant in the (in)famous exampleof the Categorical Imperative requiring us to tell thetruth even to those obviously bent on harm, • Myskjapoints out that in Kant’s later work, a more realisticunderstanding of human nature and thereby, a morenuanced understanding of the role of deceptionemerges. • Briefly, deception may take place for lessthan ideal reasons – but as deception allows us tohide our more negative characteristics while nonetheless developing more virtuous character, it canhelp us become better persons. This role of deceptionfits wonderfully well with what is otherwise oftenregarded as a highly morally problematic dimensionof online communication – precisely that we can therehide our real selves.

13. BjørnMyskja Myskja’s application of Kant to the problem oftrust onlineissues in a rather striking insightregarding the larger debates over trust, regulations,etc. Over against the potential polarities of an entirely‘‘unruly’’ Internet and an excessivelyregulatedInternet, this Kantian approach argues for a middleground. In this middle ground, sufficient rules andregulations will apply to protect the innocent fromthe evil. But these rules and regulations will remainpartial in the sense that they will not eliminate freedom of choice regarding possible visions of goodto be realized online – including the possibility (butonly as one possibility) of becoming an excellent orvirtuous human being in the Kantian sense.

14. Thorseth • she explores theimplications ofKant’s aesthetics and ethics for the roleof storytelling and rhetoric in efforts to foster deliberative democracy in online environments. • Dewey’s ‘‘problem of thepublic,’’ i.e., the difficulty of effectively communicatingwith one another, as citizens and as policy makers, incomplex contemporary societies.

15. Thorseth Thorseth points out that Kant’s notion of reflective judgment is of possible judgments, in con- trast with actual judgments – where the former refer to something virtual in the sense of what is possible for human beings to imagine. For Thorseth, the well- known virtual world of Second Life stands as an example of a virtual reality in which a key condition of reflective/possible judgment is met – namely, that we are able to avoid the illusion that our purely private and personal conditions somehow constitute anobjective context or reality.

16. Thorseth In these diverse ways, Thorseth sees that ICTs – as they facilitate communicative venues that allow Kantian reflective judgment and enlarged thought to come into play – may thereby provide a solution to Dewey’s problem of the public. In particular, as she notes in her Conclusion: ‘‘The liberation of ourjudgments from subjective private conditions is anecessary condition for weighing our judgments withthe possible judgments of others, by putting ourselvesin the position of everyone else.’’

17. DagElgesem • Elgesem applies these specifically to the dilemma ofsearch engines – i.e., whether their ranking algorithmsshould be public or secret – arguing (perhaps surprisingly for those overly focused on Kant’s (in)famousargument against lying) in favor of the secrecy of searchengine algorithms.

18. DagElgesem • If the algorithms areopen – then webmasters (and anyone else) interestedin having their websites appear at the top of a searchresult will be able to manipulate their sites so as toachieve that result • but such results would then bemisleading in terms of genuine popularity, potentialrelevance to a searcher’s interests, etc., therebyreducing users’ trust in the search engine results andhencereducing the usability and accessibility ofimportant information.

19. DagElgesem • On the other hand, if thealgorithms are secret, then the legitimate public interest inunderstanding how web pages are rankedis foiled: in particular, users cannot know whether ornot a high ranking is the result of payment – andagain, such secrecy reduces trust and thereby theusability and accessibility ofimportant information.

20. DagElgesem • HelenNissenbaumin favor of the claim that search enginealgorithms should be made public. • He counters that Introna and Nissenbaum fail totake fully into account the problem ofoverwhelmingspam that would result from such publicity: indeed,he points out that the anti-democratic potentials ofsuch publicity are even greater than in the currentcontext of (semi-) secrecy.

21. DagElgesem • he concludes that while asolution to the problem of massive spamming following publication of search engine algorithms mightlead to a different conclusion – • currently, at least,especially the Kantian principle regarding the self-preservation of reason does not support a policyrequiring such publication.

22. AnnamariaCarusi • helps explainthe central role visualization plays in contemporarye-Science, beginning with essential trust-building. KANT’S ACCOUNT • Therole of imagination as an image-building faculty • the role of the sensuscommunis. • Kant’s aesthetic theory canhelpfully explain the central role visualizations mayplay indeveloping the intersubjective frameworkneeded for trust

23. Susan Stuart’sconcluding Stuart argues that her approach can be solidly rooted in Kant as she thinks that Kantalreadysteps in the direction of blurring the boundariesbetween the real and the virtual. At the same time,however, this blurring leads to Stuart’s concludingand urgent warning: we are well advised to beginthinking about the ethical dimensions of the disappearance between the real and the virtual now.

24. Susan Stuart’sconcluding • Kant remains directly relevant tocontemporary concerns in Information and Computing Ethics (ICE) – Stuart thus sketches out for ushow we must review and revise Kantian conceptionsin order to further exploit their potentialfruitfulnessfor our reflections.

25. Conclusion