Morality and law in a digital society

Authors

  • Вoris V. Маrkov St Petersburg State University, 7–9, Universitetskaya nab., St Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation; Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 12/1, Goncharnaya ul., Moscow, 109240, Russian Federation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2022.406

Abstract

The traditional values of truth, justice, shame, conscience, responsibility, duty, forgiveness, and love in the process of civilization give way to functional and formal relations. A new impetus in this direction is given by digitized technologies that open up the possibility of making ethical and legal decisions not by people, but by machines. It is about formalizing morality and law, creating algorithms for making assessments and decisions that could be programmed and executed by artificial intelligence. Fears are caused by the fact that a person in the face of digital rights ceases to be a person, a subject, becomes an element of the law. But, given that the “human factor” often turns into corruption, we have to admit that the formal approach is more objective than emotional assessments based on sympathy. Therefore, in the Critique of Practical Reason, I.Kant contrasted the ethics of feeling with morality based on duty, which the thinker defined as the law of freedom. Obviously, the existing ethical and legal norms require a change or addition of new rules governing the behavior of people in situations that has not been encountered before. This problem arises in the context of the transition from an estate society to a civil one. As man became more and more tightly enmeshed in economic and social orders, he was already thinking according to the formula of nothing personal. The article discusses the problem of substantiation of rational and emotional prerequisites of ethics and law. Models of ethical and judicial decision-making are proposed, including an analysis of the specific application of formal norms and laws, taking into account moral values.

Keywords:

digital society, morality, law, ethics, justice, guilt, shame, conscience, forgiveness

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Литература

Hanson, O.V. (2018), How to Perform an Ethical Risk Analysis (ERA), Risk Analysis, vol. 38, iss. 9, рр. 1820–1829. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12978

Освальдо, Д. (2017), От генеалогии чувства стыда к спасению невинности становления, в: Фридрих Ницше. Наследие и проект, М.: Языки славянской культуры, с. 512–524.

Агамбен, Дж. (2011), Homo sacer. Суверенная власть и голая жизнь, М.: Европа.

Хабермас, Ю. (2016), Структурное изменение публичной сферы. Исследования относительно категории буржуазного общества, М.: Весь мир.

Дробницкий, О.Г. (1970), Совесть, в: Философская энциклопедия, т. 5, М.: Советская энциклопедия, с. 41–42.

Янкелевич, В. (2004), Ирония. Прощение, М.: Республика.

Саррацин, Т. (2012), Германия. Самоликвидация, М.: Рид Групп.

Липовецки, Ж. (2011), Времена гипермодерна, СПб.: РХГА.

Ricœur, P. (2011), Le Juste, Paris: Edition Esprit.

Хабриева, Т.Я. и Черногор, Н.Н. (2020), Будущее права, М.: ИНФРА.

Зорькин, В.Д. (2019), Справедливость — императив цивилизации права, Вопросы философии, № 1, с. 5–4. https://doi.org/10.31857/S004287440004029-6

Colman, F.J. (2019), Digital biopolitics: the image of life, Resisting biopolitics: philosophical, political and performative strategies, Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge.

Oakeshott, M. (2011), Religion, politics and the moral life, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Macintyre, A. (1981), Study of moral theory, Indiana: Norte Dame University Press.

Папакостас, А. (2016), Становление цивилизованной публичной сферы: недоверие, доверие и коррупция, М.: ВЦИОМ


References

Hanson, O.V. (2018), How to Perform an Ethical Risk Analysis, Risk Analysis, vol. 38, iss. 9, рр. 1820– 1829. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12978

Osvaldo, G. (2017), From the Genealogy of Shame to the Salvation of Innocence of Becoming, in: Friedrich Nietzsche: Legacy and Prospects, Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury Publ., рр. 512–524. (In Russian)

Agamben, J. (2011), Homo sacer. Sovereign power and naked life, Moscow: Evropa Publ. (In Russian)

Habermas, Y. (2016), Structural change in the public sphere. Studies on the Category of Bourgeois Society, Moscow: Ves’ mir Publ. (In Russian)

Drobnitsky, O.G. (1970), Conscience, in: Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 5, Moscow: Sovetskaia entsiklopediia Publ., pp. 41–42. (In Russian)

Yankelevich, V. (2004), Irony. Forgiveness, Moscow: Respublika Publ. (In Russian)

Sarrazin, T. (2012), Germany. Self-liquidation, Moscow: Reed Group Publ. (In Russian)

Lipovetsky, Zh. (2011), Times of Hypermodernism, St Petersburg: RHGA Publ. (In Russian)

Ricœur, P. (2001), Le Juste, Paris: Edition Esprit.

Khabrieva, T.Ya. and Chernogor, N.N. (2020), The Future of Law, Moscow: INFRA Publ. (In Russian)

Zorkin, V.D. (2019), Justice is the imperative of the civilization of law, Voprosy filosofii, no. 1, рр. 5–14. Publ. (In Russian)

Colman, F.J. (2019), Digital biopolitics: the image of life, Resisting biopolitics: philosophical, political and performative strategies. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Oakeshott, M. (2011), Religion, politics and the moral life, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Macintyre, A. (1981), Study of moral theory, Indiana: Norte Dame University Press.

Papakostas, A. (2016), The formation of a civilized public sphere: distrust, trust and corruption, Moscow: VTsIOM Publ. (In Russian)

Published

2022-12-31

How to Cite

Маrkov В. V. (2022). Morality and law in a digital society. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 38(4), 512–524. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2022.406