Information Ethics

 
 Editor
Capurro, Rafael  rafael@capurro.de
 Incorporated contributions
Capurro (12/2009), Díaz (2/2009)
 Usage domain
information society
 Type
theory
 French
étique de l'information
 German Informationethik


Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. The Global Impact of ICT on Society and the Environment
  3. Digital Media Ethics: an intercultural concern
  4. Towards a common world: new risks, new responsability

Digital ethics or information ethics in a broader sense deals with the impact of digital Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) on our societies and the environment at large. In a narrower sense information ethics (or digital media ethics) addresses ethical questions dealing with the internet and internet-worked information and communication media such as mobile phones and navigation services. As we will argue, issues such as privacy, information overload, internet addiction, digital divide, surveillance and robotics, which are topics of prevailing discussion, requires an intercultural scrutiny. Information Ethics is posed as an endeavour to cope with the challenging problems of our digital age.


1. Introduction

 

Since the second half of the last century computer scientists, such as Norbert Wiener (1989/1950) and Joseph Weizenbaum (1976), called public’s attention to the ethical challenges immanent in computer technology that can be compared in their social relevance to the ambivalent promises of nuclear energy. In the beginning the discussion was focused on the moral responsibility of computer professionals. But for scientists like Wiener and Weizenbaum the impact of computer technology was understood to be something that concerned society as a whole.

 

Half a century after Wiener’s seminal work the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) developed the vision

 

“[…] to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” (WSIS 2003).

 

The WSIS also proposed a political agenda, namely

 

“[…] to harness the potential of information and communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and development of global partnerships for development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world.” (WSIS 2003).

 

The academic as well as the social debates on these issues have increased rapidly particularly since the rise of the Internet. Digital ethics or information ethics can be considered in a narrower sense as dealing with the impact of digital ICT on society and the environment at large as well as with ethical questions dealing with the Internet digital information and communication media (digital media ethics) in particular. Information ethics in a broader sense deals with information and communication including -but not limited to- the digital media.

 

2. The global impact of ICT on society and the environment

 

Economic, political and ecological activities of modern societies rely heavily on digital communication networks. 

 

The relevance of digital ICT on the economy became obvious with the burst of the 2000 dot.com bubble. Its close dependence with the financialisation of economy as well as the transformation of economical activities in the last two decades leading to a increasing globalisation of  the economical structure (Estefanía 1996, Ramonet 2004, Castells 2007) lead us to consider ICT as one of the main factors leading to the recent world economic crisis (Bond 2008). Beyond the moral individual responsibility of politicians, bankers and managers, there is a systemic issue that has to do with the digitalization of communication and information in finances and economics. Digital capitalism was and is still able to bypass national and international law, control and monitoring institutions and mechanisms as well as codes of practice and good governance leading to a global crisis of trust not only within the system but with regard to the system itself.

 

Many  experts in politics and economic agree that in order to develop a people-oriented and sustainable world economic system, national and international monitoring agencies as well as international laws and self-binding rules are needed. Academic research in digital ethics should become a core mandatory issue of economics and business studies. Similarly to the already well established bioethics committees, ethical issues of ICT should be addressed taking as a model for instance the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission (EGE; Capurro 2004).

 

ICT has a deep impact on politics leading to a transformation of 20th century broadcast mass media based democracy, or mediocracy, on the basis of new kinds of digital-mediated interactive participation. New interactive media weakens the hierarchical one-to-many structure of traditional global mass-media, giving individuals, groups, and whole societies the capacity to become senders and not “just” receivers of messages (®message®dialogic vs discursive).

 

We live in message societies. I call the science dealing with messages and messengers angeletics (from Greek: άγγελία /̉̉̉̉ άγγελος = message/ messenger) (Capurro 2003,®angeletics). New ICTs are widely used for political participation and grass-roots protest groups as well as by liberation and peace movements. By the same token, digital communication networks make possible new structures of political surveillance, censorship and control on individuals and whole societies. Digital ethics should address the question of the human right to communicate (®Critical Theory of Information).

 

The Internet has become a local and global basic social communication infrastructure. Freedom of access should be considered a fundamental ethical principle similar to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Some of the rights stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights such as the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art. 18), the right to freedom of opinion and expression (Art. 19), and the right to peaceful assembly and association (Art. 20) need to be explicitly interpreted and defined taking the new and unique affordances of internetworked digital media into consideration. Lawrence Lessig (1999) envisaged a situation in which the universality of Cyberspace is endangered by local codes of the market, the software industry, the laws of nation states, and moral traditions. He writes:

 

“If we do nothing, the code of cyberspace will change. The invisible hand will change it in a predictable way. To do nothing is to embrace at least that. It is to accept the changes that this change in code will bring about. It is to accept a cyberspace that is less free, or differently free, than the space it was before.” (Lessig 1999, 109)

 

A free Internet can foster peace and democracy but it can also be used for manipulation and control. For this reason, a necessity to strive for a future internet governance regime on the basis of intercultural deliberation, democratic values and human rights has been pointed out (Senges and Horner 2009, Capurro 2010).

 

Another issue arisen in contemporary societies concerns the impact of the materialities of ICT on nature and natural resources. Electronic waste has become major issue of digital ethics (IRIE 2009). It deals with the disposal and recycling of all kinds of ICT devices that already today have devastating consequences on humans and the environment particularly when exported to Third World countries. Issues of sustainability and global justice should be urgently addressed together with the opportunities offered by the same media to promote better shelter, less hunger and combat diseases. In other words, I advocate for the expansion of the human rights discourse to include the rights of non-human life and nature. The present ecological crisis is a clear sign that we have to change our lives in order to become not masters but stewards of natural environment.

 

3. Digital media ethics: an intercultural concern

 

The main topics of digital media ethics or digital (information) ethics commonly addressed are: intellectual property, privacy, security, information overload, digital divide, gender discrimination, and censorship (Ess, 2009; Himma and Tavani 2008). However a more critical reflection -as previously argued- should also embrace issues concerning: economical responsibility, political participation and materialities of ICT.

 

All these topics are objects of ethical scrutiny not only on the basis of universal rights and principles but also with regard to cultural differences as well as to historical and geographical singularities leading to different kinds of theoretical foundations and practical options. This field of ethics research is now being called intercultural information ethics (Capurro 2008; Hongladarom and Ess 2007; Capurro 2006; ®Intercultural Information Ethics).

 

One important challenge in this regard is the question about how human cultures can flourish in a global digital environment while avoiding uniformity or isolation. Research networks on Information Ethics are flourishing in Africa (ANIE: African Network for Information Ethics: ANIE) and Latin America (RELEI: Red Latinoamericana de Ética de la Información).

 

An example of the relevance of the intercultural approach in digital media ethics is the discussion on the concept of privacy from a Western vs. a Buddhist perspective. While in Western cultures privacy is closely related to the self having an intrinsic value, Buddhism relies on the tenet of non-selfand therefore the social perception as well as the concept of privacy are different (Nakada and Tamura 2005; Capurro 2005). However, a justification of privacy from a Buddhist perspective based on the concept of compassion seems possible and plausible (Hongladarom 2007).

 

Digital surveillance of public spaces is supposed to ensure safety and security facing unintentional or intentional dangers for instance from criminal or terrorist attacks. But at the same time it threatens autonomy, anonymity and trust that build the basis of democratic societies (RISEPTS 2009). New technologies allowing the tracking of individuals through RFID or ICT implants are similarly ambiguous with regard to the implicit dangers and benefits. Therefore they need special scrutiny and monitoring (EGE 2005).

 

Recent advances in robotics show a wide range of applications in everyday lives beyond their industrial and military applications (ETHICBOTS 2008). Robots are mirrors of ourselves. What concepts of sociality are conceptualized and instantiated by robotics? An intercultural ethical dialogue – beyond the question of a code of ethics to become part of robots making out of them “moral machines” (Wallach and Allen 2009) – on human-robot interaction is still in its infancy (Capurro and Nagenborg 2009,®roboethics).

 

Another example is the question of information overload, which has a major impact in the everyday life of millions of people in information-rich societies (Capurro 2005b) giving rise to new kinds of diseases and challenging also medical practice (Capurro 2009). We lack a systematic pathology of information societies. Similarly the question of internet addiction particularly in young generations, is worrisome. For example there is a growing need for cell-phones-free times and places, in order to protect ourselves from the imperative of being permanently available.

 

The ethical reflection on these issues belongs to a theory of the art of living following some paths of thought by French philosopher Michel Foucault. He distinguishes the following kinds of technologies, namely:  

 

"technologies of production, which permit us to produce, transform, or manipulate things,"

"technologies of sign systems, which permit us to use signs, meanings, symbols, or significations,"

"technologies of power which determine the conduct of individuals and submit them to certain ends or domination, an 

"technologies of the self, which permit individuals to effect by their own means or with the help of others a certain number of operations on their own bodies and souls, thoughts, conduct, and way of being, so as to transform themselves in order to attain a certain state of happiness, purity, wisdom, perfection, or immortality." (Foucault 1988, 18)

 

How can we ensure that the benefits of information technology are not only distributed equitably, but that they can also be used by the people to shape their own lives? (Capurro 2005a; See also Capurro 1996; 1995; 1995a).

 

Another important issue of digital media ethics concerns the so-called digital divide should not be considered just a problem of technical access to the Internet but an issue of how people can better manage their lives using new interactive digital media avoiding the dangers of cultural exploitation, homogenization, colonialism, and discrimination. Individuals as well as societies must become aware of different kinds of assemblages between traditional and digital media according to their needs, interests and cultural backgrounds (Ong and Collier 2005). An inclusive information society as developed during the WSIS must be global and plural at the same time. Concepts likehybridization or polyphony are ethical markers that should be taken into account when envisaging new possibilities of freedom and peace in a world shaped more and more by digital technology.

 

In a recent report on “Being Human: Human-computer interaction in the year 2020,” a result of a meeting organized by Microsoft Research in 2007, the editors write:

 

“The new technologies allow new forms of control or decentralisation, encouraging some forms of social interaction at the expense of others, and promoting certain values while dismissing alternatives. For instance, the iPod can be seen as a device for urban indifference, the mobile phone as promoting addiction to social contact and the Web as subverting traditional forms of governmental and media authority. Neural networks, recognition algorithms and data-mining all have cultural implications that need to be understood in the wider context beyond their technical capabilities. The bottom line is that computer technologies are not neutral – they are laden with human, cultural and social values. These can be anticipated and designed for, or can emerge and evolve through use and abuse. In a multicultural world, too, we have to acknowledge that there will often be conflicting value systems, where design in one part of the world becomes something quite different in another, and where the meaning and value of a technology are manifest in diverse ways. Future research needs to address a broader richer concept of what it means to be human in the flux of the transformation taking place.” (Harper, Rodden, Rogers and Sellen 2008, 57)

 

This remarkable quote from a meeting organized not by anti-tech humanists, but by one of the leading IT companies, summarizes the main present and future tasks of digital ethics as a critical interdisciplinary and intercultural on-going reflection on the transformation of humanity through computer technology.

 

4. Towards a common world: new risks, new responsability

 

Humanity is experiencing itself particularly through the digital medium as a totality or system of interrelations. Who are we and what do we want to be as humanity? This question asks for a historical not a metaphysical answer. A negative vision of such unity are balkanisations and imperialisms of all kinds, including digital ones.

 

Whereas the digital technologies might diminish “vulnerability and commitment” (Dreyfus 2001), the global challenges (as those gathered in the UN Millennium Goals), bring about unpredictable dangers in which information technologies are undoubtedly involved (in both positive and negative aspects), and claim for a renewal of responsibility, regarding what technology we want, how we develop it, how we share it, how we use it. We might cope with all these challenges, which include inequalities, divides and injustices of many types, if we jump over the human wall, i.e. we consider our endeavour for human rights as a part of a wider objective for a common world where carefulness extends towards natureAnd this carefulness itself, should jump over a formal strive for rights, probably needing a rebirth of carefulness -for instance in health care (Kleinman et al. 2006), for which a critical appraisal within digital environment is needed (Capurro 2010)- since needs, human or not, are much more than simple collections of data, requiring a careful interpretation process, a closer interplay among partakers (®Hermeneutics).


Digital globalization should make us aware of the human interplay with each other in such a common world instead of making of the digital perspective over our lives and over reality a kind of digital metaphysics or (political) ideology. This relativization of the digital perspective has been called digital ontology (Capurro 2006).

 

Who are we in the digital age? As human cultures become digitally hybridized this process affects social life in all its dimensions as well as our interplay with nature. The key task of digital ethics is to make us aware of the challenges and options for individual and social life design. The digital medium is an opportunity for the subjects of the 21stcentury to transform themselves and their relations in and with the world. This implies allowing each other to articulate ourselves in the digital network, while taking care of historical, cultural and geographical singularities. An ethical intercultural dialogue is needed in order to understand and foster human cultural diversity. Hereby we must look for common ethical principles so that digital cultures can become a genuine expression of human liberty and creativity.

 

 

References


  • ANIE (African Network for Information Ethics) <http://www.africainfoethics.org/>
  • BOND, P. (2008). Post-imperialist north-south financial relations? Studies in Political Economy, 81, 77-97.
  • CAPURRO, Rafael and NAGENBORG, Michael (Eds.) (2009). Ethics and Robotics. Heidelberg: Akademische Verlagsanstalt.
  • CAPURRO, R. (2010). Medicina 2.0. Reflexiones sobre una patología de la sociedad de la información. [Medicine 2.0: Reflections over a pathology of the Information Society] Humanitas, 48, 1-12.
  • CAPURRO, Rafael (2009). Leben in der message society. Eine medizinethische Perspektive. [online] <http://www.capurro.de/paracelsus.html> [accessed: 9/3/2010]
  • CAPURRO, Rafael (2008). Intercultural Information Ethics. In: Kenneth E. Himma, Kenneth Einar and Herman Tavani (Eds.): The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley, 639-665.
  • CAPURRO, Rafael (2006). Towards an Ontological Foundation of Information Ethics. In: Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 8, Nr.4, 175-186.
  • CAPURRO, Rafael (2006a). Ethik der Informationsgesellschaft. Ein interkultureller Versuch [Ethics of the Information Society. An intercultural approach]. [online] http://www.capurro.de/parrhesia.html  [accessed: 8/3/2010]
  • CAPURRO, Rafael (2005). Privacy. An intercultural perspective. Ethics and Information Technology, 7, 37-47.
  • CAPURRO, Rafael (2005a). Passions of the Internet. In: Wolfgang Palaver, Petra Steinmair-Pösel (Eds.): Passions in Economy, Politics, and the Media in Discussion with Christian Theology. Vienna: Lit Verlag, 331-343.
  • CAPURRO, Rafael (2005b). Between Trust and Anxiety. On the moods of information society. In: Richard Keeble (ed.):Communication Ethics Today. Leicester: Troubadour Publishing Ltd., 2005, 187-196.
  • CAPURRO, Rafael (2004). Ethics between Law and Public Policy. Journal of International Biotechnology Law (JIBL) Vol. 1, Issue 2, 2004, 62-66.
  • CAPURRO, Rafael (2003). Angeletics – A Message Theory. In: Hans H. Diebner, Lehan Ramsay (Eds.): Hierarchies of Communication. An inter-institutional and international symposium on aspects of communication on different scales and levelsZKM - Center for Art and Media, Karlsruhe, Germany July 4-6, 2003. Karlsruhe: Verlag ZKM, 58-71.
  • CAPURRO, Rafael (1995). Leben im Informationszeitalter. Berlin: Akademie Verlag
  • CAPURRO, Rafael (1995a). Information Technologies and Technologies of the Self. Journal of Information Ethics 1996, Vol. 5, No.2, 19-28.
  • CASTELLS, M. (2007). Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society. International Journal of Communication, 1(2007), 238-266.
  • DREYFUS, H.L. (2001) On the Intenet. New York: Routledge
  • ESTEFANÍA, J. (1996). La nueva economía. La globalización[The new economy. The Globalisation] Barcelona: Debate.
  • ETHICBOTS (2008). Emerging Technoethics of Human Interaction with Communication, Bionic and Robotic Systems. [online] http://ethicbots.na.infn.it/ [accessed: 8/3/2010]
  • EGE (European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies). [online] <http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/index_en.htm> [accessed: 8/3/2010]
  • EGE (2005). Ethical Aspects of ICI Implants in the Human Body. Opinion No. 20 [online] <http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/avis/index_en.htm> [accessed: 8/3/2010]
  • ESS, Charles (2009). Digital Media EthicsCambridge, UK: Polity Books.
  • FOUCAULT, Michel (1988). Technologies of the Self. A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Ed. by L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, P. H. Hutton. The University of Massachusetts Press.
  • HARPER, Richard; RODDEN, Tom; ROGERS, Yvonne; Sellen, Abigail (2008). Being Human: Human-Computer Interaction in the Year 2020. Microsoft Corporation.
  • HIMMA, Kenneth Einar and TAVANI, Herman (Eds.) (2008).The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
  • HONGLADAROM, Soraj and Ess, Charles (Eds.) (2007):Information Technology Ethics: Cultural Perspectives. Hershey: Idea Group.
  • HONGLADAROM, Soraj (2007). Analysis and Justification of Privacy from a Buddhist Perspective. In: Soraj Hongladarom and Charles Ess (Eds.): Information Technology Ethics: Cultural Perspectives. Hershey:  Idea Group, 108-122.
  • IRIE (2009). Network Ecologies: Ethics of Waste in the Information Society. Vol. 11. <http://www.i-r-i-e.net/index.htm>
  • KLEINMAN, A., EISENBERG, L., GOOD, B. (2006). Culture, Illness, and Care: Clinical Lessons From Anthropologic and Cross-Cultural Research. The Journal of Lifelong Learning Psychiatry, 4(1), 140-149.
  • LESSIG, Lawrence (1999). Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.
  • NAKADA, Makoto and TAMURA, Takanori (2005). Japanese conceptions of privacy: An intercultural perspective. Ethics and Information Technology, 7, 27-36.
  • ONG, Aihwa and COLLIER, Stephen J. (Eds.) (2005). Global Assemblages. Technology, Politics and Ethics as Anthropological ProblemsMalden, MA: Blackwell.
  • RAMONET, I. (2004). Wars of the 21st Century: New Threats New FearsMelbourne, Australia: Ocean Press.
  • RELEI (Red Latinoamericana de Etica de la Información) <http://redeticainformacion.ning.com/>
  • RISEPTIS (2009). Trust in the information society. Report of the Advisory board RISEPTIS (Research and Innovation on Security Privacy and Trustworthiness in the Information Society). European Commission’s 7th Framework. [Online] <http://www.think-trust.eu/riseptis.html> [accessed: 28/11/2009]
  • SENGES, Max and Horner, Lisa (2009). Values, principles and rights in internet governance. Report for the Freedom of Expression Project. Global Parnters & Associates
  • UNITED NATIONS (2008). Millenium Goals. [online, accessed: 8/3/2010]
  • WALLACH, Wendall and Allen, Colin (2009). Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Pres..
  • WEIZENBAUM, Josef (1976). Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgement to Calculation. San Francisco: Freeman.
  • WIENER, Norbert (1989). The Human Use of Human Beings. Cybernetics and Society. London: Free Assoc. Books (First published in 1950)
  • WSIS (2003). Declaration of Principles. [online] <http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html > [accessed: 8/3/2010]
Entries
New entry. Before doing a new entry, please, copy this line and the following ones and paste them at the column bottom. Next fill out the fields: 'name', 'date' and 'text', and delete this upper blue paragraph.
Name (date)
 
[Entry text]


Entries under work
Ruiz, Rodrigo (14. Dec 2018, within the course "Odyssey of Philosophy and Information", facilitated by J.M. Díaz at HM)
[This corresponds to some reflections on the relationship between happiness, ethics and information.]

[NOTE OF THE FACILITATOR: 
(1) The comments of the facilitator will be edited using this style, brackets, 8 pt, color change. These will be introduced in between your own text to discuss and further co-elaborate the content. Whenever the authors consider to have addressed the issue, they can simply remove the comment
(2) Simple corrections, corresponding to quite obvious missteps or disalignment with editorial style guidelines, are directly corrected, marking the involved characters in red in order to let the author know what was changed. The authors can turn it into black if they agree upon] 

NOTE of the AUTHOR (in interaction with the facilitator and colleagues): these are edited using this style, no-brackets, 8 pt, this color. 

Happiness, Ethics and Information

Abstract

Currently, the new trend is informatization. We are in the "Information age", and we are going to evaluate how this change will affect global ethics, more specifically, we will try to focus on happiness. Many will think about how these two concepts are related, but if we take into account Gregory Bateson's definition of information "difference that makes a difference" (Steps to an Ecology of Mind, 1972), the numerous changes brought by the new information will make that our vision of happiness changes, or how to achieve it. The question is: what changes can informatization bring to happiness? To answer this, we must think ethically.

We will talk about information ethics, since this is the responsibility of the information age, in which we find ourselves, together with the thousands of Information and Communication Technologies, which we will call from now on as ICT.

In my opinion, it is evident that above all, what must be preserved are the rights of the ecosystem in general and those of the human being, which according to Andrew Outhwaite, Regional Incubator Facilitator of the startup WA are: protection, leisure, creation, understanding, participation, identity, freedom, transcendence, subsistence and affection. But the easy access to information puts decent human life at risk. What to do with it, socialize it or limit it?

1. The changes that it brings

We have always heard the expression "money does not give happiness", but, Capurro and Díaz in their article "Information Ethics" (2009-2010), write: information technology and communication influence the economy. If we consider that the information depends on the economic financing, and this information gives us the opportunity to be happy, then, could we say that money and happiness begin to be related? In addition, if we believe that the ICT, are to a greater or lesser extent, guilty of the economic crisis that we have just passed, (as expressed in the same article by the authors mentioned), many have been condemned to a full life of drama because of the crisis, and in turn, by the information, making it clear, that money, perhaps does not give happiness, but its absence, excludes it.

This leads us to believe that information should be regulated, have limits. But as humans, what is evident, is that we have the right to think and express what we think. In fact, for example, this is part of the first amendment of the constitution of the United States of North America.

In the same article of which I have spoken before, the main topics to which the information ethics is dedicated and defended are dictated: intellectual property, privacy, security, overload, discrimination, censorship and digital divide. It is talk of anonymity, threatened by tracking, which harms our privacy, which for me and surely for many others, contribute to our happiness. It is talk of information overload, which since many are negative, develop diseases such as stress, dependency or depression. I have made the decision not to see the news, since most of them are bad and caused me a tremendous sadness, and in this sense, my happiness is greater in ignorance. All this is important and must be controlled, but in my opinion, there are other more important factors. If we go back to review the list, we will see that there is nothing, not even related, with the ecological consequences. Control the ecosystem, should be the number one priority, because if we destroy the planet, there will be no need to inform, or educate, let alone be happy, because we would not exist. I am not saying that communication is guilty of the state of the ecosystem, but everything adds up and with good changes, we will collaborate to recover a better state.

But, how do you manage to control all this? How to help achieve a better world? With all that this implies. As the previously mentioned article said, being prudent, interpreting the messages, narrowing relationships between issuers and recipients, and looking for common ethics. I am nobody to discuss this policy, but I find it little "invasive". The human being, has shown that he is not able to follow the guidelines that are dictated to him unless he is under some type of "threat" or is going to retaliate. For that reason, I believe that the option of compensating should also be considered, such as fines or social or environmental services, before the disobedience of the rules dictated by the ethics of information.

As we see, managing information is essential for a decent human life (where of course happiness enters). But in addition to dealing with the points already discussed, we will face discrepancies in opinion between different people. Some are in favor of socialized information, (defenders of the first amendment), but in turn, there are others who defend greater intellectual property. I wonder, could not reach a state of balance between the two? I'm not an expert, but is not it a personal matter? He who wants to spread his opinions, then lets them fly, and who wants them in cages, keep them safe.

That idealistic state of equilibrium satisfying everyone could be affected by the fact that Díaz narrates in "Ethics at the age of information" (2014), where he expresses that, today, go hand in hand equality and inequality, democracy and capitalism. Unfortunately, its balance is not such, since the ICT support capitalism, since they are the powerful ones, those that regulate the flow of information; those who decide whether or not to count, if affirmative, if they are counted partially or totally, or if a parallel "truth" is counted for the common good. They create secrets, and they move the world. It sounds conspiratorial, but is not that true?

The overload of information that we talked about together with these possible manipulations of the same, make us continually consider what is true and what is not, as Edgar Morin says. Independently of which now we must more than ever corroborate the veracity of the information that arrives to us, it is something that we have done since our beginnings.

This last, reminds me of a reflection that arrived a few years ago that has to do with one of the concepts that concerns us, happiness. I wanted to know for sure, if the happiness I thought I knew, it was. Many different concepts came to me from what for many people happiness meant. It was then when, to try to know if I had got it, I decided to define it. What is happiness? A concept studied from always, on which great philosophers have thought throughout history, and as I have just said, completely subjective, each one has its own definition. Being therefore a subjective concept, there is no common definition. In the absence of a common definition, I try to know it through experience, but then I came across another wall; How do I know that I have achieved happiness if I can not know in advance what it is? Or how do I know that I have reached 100% of it?

2. A dependent happiness

According to José María Díaz Nafría, as he relates in his article "Ethics at the age of information" (2014), before a change, it is important to imagine, think, deliberate, evaluate and try new behaviors before the new trends crystallize. I agree with this statement, since it would be too much of a coincidence that the previous behavior "fits" with the change just occurred. In order to preserve the rights of everyone, including their happiness, it is likely that modifications in ethical questions will have to be made in turn.

Now, why are these changes occurring? In my opinion, it is due to our human nature. The human being, since its inception has had doubts, has raised things, (which has made it differentiate from the rest of the species), has asked questions and has taken the trouble to resolve them. But what drives to solve this annoyance? As I said, our nature, our intrinsic curiosity, which makes us move, motivates us to "convert" those doubts into information or even into applicable knowledge. Once we have reached it, new curiosities emerge from it, and again, we start again the same cyclical movement. I think that is what Diaz tried to express in the article mentioned in the previous paragraph, when he said: energy represents the possibility to make changes in the system, information enables us to select such changes and moves energy to look for new changes. I have simply elaborated on something else trying to make it more understandable.

I will apply this to the concept of happiness, through a personal example. A few years ago, the upliftest of my happiness I reached it by taking a walk on the farm of my godfather, in Cáceres. Walk calmly, hearing the birds, the sound of the wind against the trees, the frogs croaking as the river goes down the valleys, breathing fresh air... Enjoying nature. This led me to want to try other ways to experience nature, merging with it even. So I ended up trying the diving, it was simply spectacular, discovering another world and a new facet of my happiness, this had not reached its ceiling. Years later I had the opportunity to travel to Hawai'i, by then my passion for the ocean had multiplied, pushing me to practice apnea. I trained in the pool of my house before traveling there. I started by holding 25 seconds under the water. My longing to stay down there for a longer time, has led me to endure, to this day, more than two minutes underwater. Plunging into lungs, watching the bubbles rise, swimming among fish, encountering turtles and sharing space with sharks, I felt more alive and happy than ever, as if I had really found my place.

As we can see, finding myself already happy with nature, I look for new ways of relating to her, until I reach the state in which I am. In other words, my curiosity, motivate there was a new change, a search for new information, and this in turn another. What used to be the top, now only supposes an excellent, and, who guarantees that I will not "suffer" another change?

3. An increasingly unattainable goal

We live in an increasingly complex world at a sociopolitical level. This is reflected, for example, in the stress levels of the people or in the increasingly wide inequality between social classes. Happiness occupies day to day positions less priority for people. Why? Do we forget her? Do we prioritize security? Does money have something to do with it?

Hardt and Negri seemed to have it clear when they pointed out in their writing "Commonwealth" (2009), through a process of globalization, capital not only brings together all the earth under their command, but also creates, invests and exploits social life in its entirety, ordering life according to the hierarchies of economic value. [...] contemporary capitalist production by addressing its own needs is opening up the possibility of and creating the bases for a social and economic order grounded in the common. I would not agree with them, they give capitalism, money, too much importance, in fact I think that capitalism is one of the reasons why inequalities have worsened, I do not think it is the most human system in the world, it is taking us just the opposite, it makes us value money more, the things we can get with it, instead of people, emotions, happiness or love. In fact, I agree much more with the vision of the 14th Dalai Lama:

"Is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers
Wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints
We spend more, but we have less
We have bigger houses, but smaller families
More conveniences, but less time
We have more degrees, but less sense
More knowledge, but less judgment
More experts, but more problems
More medicines, but less wellness
We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values
We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often
We have learnt how to make a living, but not a life
We have added years to life, but not life to years
We’ve been all the way to the moon and back
But have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbor
We have conquered outer space, but not inner space
We’ve cleaned up the air, but polluted our soul
We’ve split the atom, but not our prejudice
We’ve higher incomes, but lower morals
We’ve become long on quantity, but short on quality
These are the times of tall men, and short character
Steep profits, and shallow relationships
These are the times of world peace, but domestic warfare
More leisure, but less fun; more kinds of food, but less nutrition
These are the days of two incomes, but more divorces
Of fancier houses, but broken homes
It is a time when there is much in the show window
And nothing in the stockroom"

Many of these things happen, in my opinion, because of the importance we give to money and what it can get us. We should try to love people again and use objects, instead of doing the opposite as we do now.

As far as happiness is concerned, I reiterate in my opinion, what is important is what one thinks. New information will come to you, evaluate it, ask for advice if you see it necessary, but draw your own conclusions, make your own decisions and do everything possible to achieve your goals, your happiness. In the words of Alan Watts who after one of many afternoons with his students, trying to find what would be the best in their lives, commented that they deliberated to the following conclusion: "When we finally got down to something, what the individual says I really want to do, I will say to him, you do that and forget the money, because, if you say that getting the money is the most important thing, you will spend your life completely wasting your time. You'll be doing things you do not like doing in order to go on living, that is to go on doing things you do not like doing, which is stupid. Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing than a long life spent in a miserable way ". For me this means: look for what you like, for what you are passionate of, what fill your life in order not to need a vacation, because your life walking hand in hand with what you love, will be a vacation. Even if this type of life is more humble, shorter and more economically empty, it will be full as far as happiness is concerned and it will be more rewarding. In my opinion, it is the best of the philosophies of life, and that is what I will try to follow. However, I would add the following: look and dedicate to what fill you, "but without negatively affecting the happiness of others, or the sustainability of the planet." By this I mean that your happiness, should not be above the happiness of others, we all have the same right to be happy, and in the same way, you should seek the subsistence of the planet, so that future generations, can be happy

Terms to consider

Ethics: set of moral standards that govern the behavior of the person in any area of life.

Moral: doctrine of human action that aims to regulate individual and collective behavior in relation to good and evil, and the duties involved.

References:

  • Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago, EEUU. Chandler Publishing Company.
  • Max Neef, M. (1986). Desarrollo a escala humana: Conceptos, aplicaciones y reflexiones. Madrid, España. Icaria Editorial.
  • Capurro, R & Díaz Nafría, J M. (2009) Information Ethics.
  • Díaz Nafría, J M. (2014) Ethics at the age of information. Volume 2 Issue 1 p 43-52.
  • Díaz Nafría, J M. eSubsidiarity: An Ethical Approach for living in Complexity.
  • Best Dalai Lama Quotes. (2003). The Paradox of our age. Dharamsala, India. https://www.bestdalailamaquotes.com/long-quotes/paradox-age/
  • Genius Media Group Inc.. (2011). What if money was no object. New York, EEUU. Recuperado de: https://genius.com/Alan-watts-what-if-money-was-no-object-annotated
  • Genius Media Group Inc. Watts, A. What if money were no object.
  • Academia. (1998). Real Academia Española. Madrid, España. Recuperado de: http://dle.rae.es/?w=diccionario 

Incorporated entries
R. Capurro (12/2009)
 
[It corresponds with the first version of the article, which is now showed in the left column.]
 

J. Díaz (2/2010)

[It corresponds to some passages integrated in the text regarding economical issues, global challenges, carefulness, and references to glossary and external sources]
 

 
Comments