Author:
(1) Angelica Sofia Valeriani, Ethics of Information Technology, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy. Table of Links 1 Introduction 2 The new Empire of Surveillance Capitalism 3 Target Advertisement 4 Military technology and Politics 5 Focus on Ethical Frameworks 5.1 Utilitarian Framework 5.2 Deontology Framework 5.3 Direct comparison between Utilitarianism and Deontology 6 Conclusions, Acknowledgements, and References 5 Focus on Ethical Frameworks In this Section, the proposed Ethical Frameworks, of core importance for Ethic Sciences, will be analyzed through their core principles. Consequentially, a comparison between their assumptions, axioms, and implications will be proposed. In Table 1, a direct comparison of the key points of the considered philosophical theories is presented [18]. Both the phenomenon described in previous sections, i.e. target advertising in Section 3 and military technology in Section 4, are analyzed through the ethical perspectives. 5.1 Utilitarian Framework In this Section, an analysis under the light of Utilitarian principles is performed. Jeremy Bentham is best known for his theory of utilitarianism, which argues that the ethical value of an action is determined by its ability to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Bentham believed that pleasure and pain were the ultimate factors that motivated human behavior, and that rational decision-making should always aim to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. In the modern era, Bentham’s utilitarian ethic has been applied to various aspects of society, including business practices. One example of this is the rise of surveillance capitalism, which refers to the use of data collection and analysis to tailor advertising and other marketing strategies to individual consumers. John Stuart Mill is the second main proponent of utilitarianism, and also his ideas are particularly relevant, as he also emphasized the importance of individual freedom and autonomy, and argued that the state should only interfere with individual liberty in order to prevent harm to others. From a utilitarian perspective, surveillance capitalism could be seen as a way to maximize happiness by providing consumers with products and services that are tailored to their individual needs and desires. However, there are also concerns that this practice can be exploitative and invasive, particularly if users are not aware of the extent to which their data is being collected and used. Bentham himself was a proponent of the use of surveillance as a means of promoting social welfare. He believed that constant monitoring and evaluation of human behavior could be used to identify and address social problems, such as crime and poverty. However, Bentham also recognized the potential for abuses of power in a system of surveillance. He argued that such a system should be subject to strict oversight and transparency in order to prevent its use for nefarious purposes. In the context of surveillance capitalism, Bentham’s emphasis on transparency and oversight could be applied to ensure that users are fully aware of how their data is being collected and used, and that companies are held accountable for any misuse of that data. According to Mill, in the case of surveillance capitalism, the collection and use of personal data raise significant concerns about individual privacy and autonomy. Mill would likely argue that individuals have a right to control their personal data and that companies and other organizations should not be able to collect and use that data without explicit and informed consent. Moreover, Mill was concerned about the potential for harm to individuals and society that could arise from unchecked power, whether that power is held by the state or by corporations. In the case of surveillance capitalism, there is a risk that the power and influence of corporations could become too great, leading to the exploitation of individuals and the erosion of democracy. According to the classical Utilitarian framework, propaganda, target advertisements, entertainment, and in general all the new technological goods provided by the Surveillance Capitalist society can be seen as a source of pleasure for the majority of people that makes use of it. This type of business allows to better fit the tastes and preferences of users. Therefore, from a superficial point of view, we can say that it helps in providing happiness for the majority. Besides, from the point of view of business companies, whose only goal is to make successful business, this phenomenon does not produce any damage or hurt a large number of people as data are merely used to cluster consumers and realize a more efficient business [11]. Furthermore, another important element that must be underlined is that the targeted promotions and offers are typically in agreement with the user preferences, so often they are not perceived as annoying. The core challenges are how to quantify the pleasure that is provided and how to weigh the portion of people that eventually derives pleasure, considering the optic “greatest pleasure for the most”. From another perspective, i.e. one of the users (and consumers), the harm can be perceived as a violation of privacy and most of all as a violation of the user’s free will and intention. The first unfairness was that the typical user was not aware, at the beginning, of this process, of the fact that clicking on a specific ad, then it would have been classified in a targeted group of people with a shared interest. Once awareness about the fact that explicitly declared preferences has been obtained, then a second unfairness raises. This is the fact that users and the vast majority of people are exploited and abused because they don’t share only what they think they deliberately put on social networks for example. Much other information that they don’t want to share without their consent is stolen and this is the expression of a hidden and sneaky form of abuse [13, 19]. Consequently, social media lead to an excessive liberalization of the public sphere and its access to private space and the other way around. Sharing online experiences, emotions, and important life events are free decisions that people make. A personal emotion or an event that is shared online by the user implies that almost always its experience becomes associated with a value, in the sense that is a quantifiable money resource for companies [12]. In the context of military technology, surveillance and monitoring can be used to gather intelligence and prevent threats to national security. However, there are concerns about the use of such technologies to violate individual rights and liberties. From a utilitarian perspective, surveillance and monitoring can be justified if they contribute to the overall happiness and welfare of society. However, Bentham recognized the potential for abuses of power in such systems and argued for strict oversight and transparency to prevent their misuse. Bentham’s emphasis on transparency and oversight could be applied to ensure that individuals are fully aware of how their data is being collected and used and that companies are held accountable for any misuse of that data. Additionally, utilitarian ethics would require consideration of the potential negative consequences of such systems on individuals and society, such as the erosion of privacy and autonomy. In the context of military technology and politics, Bentham’s utilitarian ethic would require consideration of the potential benefits and harms of surveillance and monitoring for national security. While surveillance and monitoring may be necessary for preventing threats and protecting citizens, utilitarian ethics would require careful consideration of the potential negative consequences on individual rights and liberties [13, 19]. In conclusion, Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian ethic provides a framework for understanding the ethical implications of surveillance capitalism and targeted advertising. While this practice has the potential to maximize happiness by tailoring products and services to individual preferences, it also raises concerns about privacy and exploitation. Bentham’s emphasis on transparency and oversight can help to address these concerns and ensure that surveillance capitalism is used in a way that maximizes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. Author: (1) Angelica Sofia Valeriani, Ethics of Information Technology, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy. Author: Author: (1) Angelica Sofia Valeriani, Ethics of Information Technology, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy. Table of Links 1 Introduction 1 Introduction 2 The new Empire of Surveillance Capitalism 2 The new Empire of Surveillance Capitalism 3 Target Advertisement 3 Target Advertisement 4 Military technology and Politics 4 Military technology and Politics 5 Focus on Ethical Frameworks 5 Focus on Ethical Frameworks 5.1 Utilitarian Framework 5.1 Utilitarian Framework 5.2 Deontology Framework 5.2 Deontology Framework 5.3 Direct comparison between Utilitarianism and Deontology 5.3 Direct comparison between Utilitarianism and Deontology 6 Conclusions, Acknowledgements, and References 6 Conclusions, Acknowledgements, and References 5 Focus on Ethical Frameworks In this Section, the proposed Ethical Frameworks, of core importance for Ethic Sciences, will be analyzed through their core principles. Consequentially, a comparison between their assumptions, axioms, and implications will be proposed. In Table 1, a direct comparison of the key points of the considered philosophical theories is presented [18]. Both the phenomenon described in previous sections, i.e. target advertising in Section 3 and military technology in Section 4, are analyzed through the ethical perspectives. 5.1 Utilitarian Framework In this Section, an analysis under the light of Utilitarian principles is performed. Jeremy Bentham is best known for his theory of utilitarianism, which argues that the ethical value of an action is determined by its ability to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Bentham believed that pleasure and pain were the ultimate factors that motivated human behavior, and that rational decision-making should always aim to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. In the modern era, Bentham’s utilitarian ethic has been applied to various aspects of society, including business practices. One example of this is the rise of surveillance capitalism, which refers to the use of data collection and analysis to tailor advertising and other marketing strategies to individual consumers. John Stuart Mill is the second main proponent of utilitarianism, and also his ideas are particularly relevant, as he also emphasized the importance of individual freedom and autonomy, and argued that the state should only interfere with individual liberty in order to prevent harm to others. From a utilitarian perspective, surveillance capitalism could be seen as a way to maximize happiness by providing consumers with products and services that are tailored to their individual needs and desires. However, there are also concerns that this practice can be exploitative and invasive, particularly if users are not aware of the extent to which their data is being collected and used. Bentham himself was a proponent of the use of surveillance as a means of promoting social welfare. He believed that constant monitoring and evaluation of human behavior could be used to identify and address social problems, such as crime and poverty. However, Bentham also recognized the potential for abuses of power in a system of surveillance. He argued that such a system should be subject to strict oversight and transparency in order to prevent its use for nefarious purposes. In the context of surveillance capitalism, Bentham’s emphasis on transparency and oversight could be applied to ensure that users are fully aware of how their data is being collected and used, and that companies are held accountable for any misuse of that data. According to Mill, in the case of surveillance capitalism, the collection and use of personal data raise significant concerns about individual privacy and autonomy. Mill would likely argue that individuals have a right to control their personal data and that companies and other organizations should not be able to collect and use that data without explicit and informed consent. Moreover, Mill was concerned about the potential for harm to individuals and society that could arise from unchecked power, whether that power is held by the state or by corporations. In the case of surveillance capitalism, there is a risk that the power and influence of corporations could become too great, leading to the exploitation of individuals and the erosion of democracy. According to the classical Utilitarian framework, propaganda, target advertisements, entertainment, and in general all the new technological goods provided by the Surveillance Capitalist society can be seen as a source of pleasure for the majority of people that makes use of it. This type of business allows to better fit the tastes and preferences of users. Therefore, from a superficial point of view, we can say that it helps in providing happiness for the majority. Besides, from the point of view of business companies, whose only goal is to make successful business, this phenomenon does not produce any damage or hurt a large number of people as data are merely used to cluster consumers and realize a more efficient business [11]. Furthermore, another important element that must be underlined is that the targeted promotions and offers are typically in agreement with the user preferences, so often they are not perceived as annoying. The core challenges are how to quantify the pleasure that is provided and how to weigh the portion of people that eventually derives pleasure, considering the optic “greatest pleasure for the most”. From another perspective, i.e. one of the users (and consumers), the harm can be perceived as a violation of privacy and most of all as a violation of the user’s free will and intention. The first unfairness was that the typical user was not aware, at the beginning, of this process, of the fact that clicking on a specific ad, then it would have been classified in a targeted group of people with a shared interest. Once awareness about the fact that explicitly declared preferences has been obtained, then a second unfairness raises. This is the fact that users and the vast majority of people are exploited and abused because they don’t share only what they think they deliberately put on social networks for example. Much other information that they don’t want to share without their consent is stolen and this is the expression of a hidden and sneaky form of abuse [13, 19]. Consequently, social media lead to an excessive liberalization of the public sphere and its access to private space and the other way around. Sharing online experiences, emotions, and important life events are free decisions that people make. A personal emotion or an event that is shared online by the user implies that almost always its experience becomes associated with a value, in the sense that is a quantifiable money resource for companies [12]. In the context of military technology, surveillance and monitoring can be used to gather intelligence and prevent threats to national security. However, there are concerns about the use of such technologies to violate individual rights and liberties. From a utilitarian perspective, surveillance and monitoring can be justified if they contribute to the overall happiness and welfare of society. However, Bentham recognized the potential for abuses of power in such systems and argued for strict oversight and transparency to prevent their misuse. Bentham’s emphasis on transparency and oversight could be applied to ensure that individuals are fully aware of how their data is being collected and used and that companies are held accountable for any misuse of that data. Additionally, utilitarian ethics would require consideration of the potential negative consequences of such systems on individuals and society, such as the erosion of privacy and autonomy. In the context of military technology and politics, Bentham’s utilitarian ethic would require consideration of the potential benefits and harms of surveillance and monitoring for national security. While surveillance and monitoring may be necessary for preventing threats and protecting citizens, utilitarian ethics would require careful consideration of the potential negative consequences on individual rights and liberties [13, 19]. In conclusion, Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian ethic provides a framework for understanding the ethical implications of surveillance capitalism and targeted advertising. While this practice has the potential to maximize happiness by tailoring products and services to individual preferences, it also raises concerns about privacy and exploitation. Bentham’s emphasis on transparency and oversight can help to address these concerns and ensure that surveillance capitalism is used in a way that maximizes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

Utilitarianism Meets Surveillance Capitalism: Balancing Happiness & Privacy

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

Do AI Models Challenge the Need for Innate Grammar?

10 Reasons Wordpress Sites Get Hacked and How to Avoid Them

10 Features of a Secure Website

10 Cybersecurity Books Every Business Owner Should Read

10 Cybersecurity Tips Everyone Should Follow

Do AI Models Challenge the Need for Innate Grammar?

10 Reasons Wordpress Sites Get Hacked and How to Avoid Them

10 Features of a Secure Website

10 Cybersecurity Books Every Business Owner Should Read

10 Cybersecurity Tips Everyone Should Follow

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps