No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Is There Collective Responsibility for Misogyny Perpetrated on Social Media?
Abstract
This handbook is currently in development, with individual articles publishing online in advance of print publication. At this time, we cannot add information about unpublished articles in this handbook, however the table of contents will continue to grow as additional articles pass through the review process and are added to the site. Please note that the online publication date for this handbook is the date that the first article in the title was published online. For more information, please read the site FAQs.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
This handbook contains thirty-two previously unpublished contributions to consequentialist ethics by leading scholars, covering what’s happening in the field today as well as pointing to new directions for future research. Consequentialism is a rival to such moral theories as deontology, contractualism, and virtue ethics. But it’s more than just one rival among many, for every plausible moral theory must concede that the goodness of an act’s consequences is something that matters even if it’s not the only thing that matters. Thus, all plausible moral theories will accept both that the fact that an act would produce good consequences constitutes a moral reason to perform it and that the better that act’s consequences the greater the moral reason there is to perform it. Now, if this is correct, then much of the research concerning consequentialist ethics is important for ethics in general. For instance, one thing that consequentialist researchers have investigated is what sorts of consequences matter: the consequences that some act would have or the consequences that it could have—if, say, the agent were to follow up by performing some subsequent act. And it’s reasonable to suppose that the answer to such questions will be relevant for normative ethics regardless of whether the goodness of consequences is the only thing that matters (as consequentialists presume) or just one of many things that matter (as nonconsequentialists presume).
This chapter explores the rise of ethics as the discipline to address issues in robotics and artificial intelligence (AI). But why single out the discipline of “ethics”? I show how ethics is not a homogeneous, or unitary, body of knowledge, and that we have to pay attention to narratives in ethics that reproduce class and sex biases. In this sense, I focus on the theme of corporate and academic interest in the ethics of robots and AI, which, as I argue, is motivated by a metaphysical project to redefine the human as equivalent to a machine (robot) and to algorithmic programs (AI). I argue that the rejection of humans as distinct from machines represents the failure of mainstream philosophy to assimilate perspectives of class and sex into ethics as a body of knowledge that is capable of solving human crises. Rather than see ethics as neutral, I show a connection between corporate interest in ethics of robots and AI on the one hand, and the redefinition of the human on the other. I propose we should question ethical paradigms and ensure that feminist and class analyses are integrated into contemporary narratives of ethics of robots and AI.
The Internet Apologies …
- Noah Kulwin
Unsocial Media: The Real Toll of Online Abuse against Women
- Azmina Dhrodia
The History of Twitter’s Rules
- Sarah Jeong
How Twitter Sees Itself
- Jason Koebler
- Joseph Cox
Share of U.S. Adults Using Social Media, Including Facebook
- Andrew Perrin
- Monica Anderson
Is Melbourne in the Grip of African Crime Gangs? The Facts behind the Lurid Headlines
- Calla Wahlquist
Twitter by the Numbers: Stats, Demographics, and Fun Facts
- Omnicore