Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia

World Association for Triple Helix and Future Strategy Studies (세계트리플헬릭스미래전략학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Charles Ess's Pros Hen Ethical Pluralism: An Interpretation

  • Hongladarom, Soraj (Department of Philosophy and Center for Science, Technology, and Society, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University)
  • Published : 2021.08.19
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper proposes an interpretation of Charles Ess's pros hen pluralism, especially concerning what constitutes the single end point (hen) toward which the pluralistic viewpoints converge (pros). The single end point, I argue, is constituted by an empirical social reality that obtains in the world at a particular period. In other words, it is the fact that we happen to agree largely and broadly on several ethical issues that serves as the end point in Ess's theory. The reason is that humans happen largely to share the same goals and values qua human beings, such as the desire for communication and cooperation with one another. It is not their rationality, or any other permanent and ideal characteristic, that serves as the source of normativity for human beings, but rather the contingent facts that obtain at a particular place and time, facts that humans happen to agree on. This raises an obvious objection of what to do with those who might cherish a very different set of values. The answer is that the globalized nature of the world today, especially deepened by information technology, makes it increasingly difficult for any groups to remain isolated. This does not imply, however, that disagreements are not possible. On the contrary, disagreements are a part of the whole process from the beginning. At the theoretical level, there is always a need for those who disagree on the theoretical issues rationally to persuade one another. This is also part of the empirical reality referred to earlier.

Keywords

References

  1. Bynum, T. (2006). Flourishing ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 8, 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-9107-1
  2. Bynum, T. (2021). Global ethics for the digital age - flourishing ethics. Journal of Information, Communication, and Ethics in Society, 19(3).
  3. Capurro, R. (2008). Intercultural information ethics: foundations and applications. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 6(2), 116-126. https://doi.org/10.1108/14779960810888347
  4. Capurro, R. (2009). Intercultural information ethics: foundations and applications. Signo y Pensamiento, 28(55), 66-79.
  5. Chachavalpongpun, P. (Ed.). (2020). Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Thailand. New York: Routledge.
  6. Ess, C. (2003). Liberal arts and distance education: can Socratic virtue (arete) and Confucius' exemplary person (junzi) be taught online?. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 2(2), 117-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022203002002002
  7. Ess, C. (2005). Moral imperatives for life in an intercultural global village. In Cavalier, R. J. (Ed.), The Impact of the Internet on Our Moral Lives (pp. 161-193). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  8. Ess, C. (2006). Ethical pluralism and global information ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 8, 215-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-9113-3
  9. Ess, C. (2007). Cybernetic pluralism in an emerging global information and computing ethics. International Review of Information Ethics, 7(9), 94-123 https://doi.org/10.29173/irie11
  10. Ess, C. (2007). Universal information ethics? Ethical pluralism and social justice. In Information technology and social justice (pp. 69-92). IGI Global.
  11. Ess, C. (2008). Culture and global networks: hope for a global ethics. In van den Hoven, M. J. & Weckert, J. (Eds.), Information technology and moral philosophy (pp. 195-225). Cambridge University Press.
  12. Ess, C. (2008). Luciano Floridi's philosophy of information and information ethics: Critical reflections and the state of the art. Ethics and Information Technology, 10(2-3), 89-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-008-9172-8
  13. Ess, C. (2013). East-West perspectives on privacy, ethical pluralism and global information ethics. From ontos verlag: Publications of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society-New Series (Volumes 1-18), 7, available at http://wittgensteinrepository.org/ojs/index.php/agora-ontos/article/view/2083/2292.
  14. Ess, C. (2020). Interpretative pros hen pluralism: from computer-mediated colonization to a pluralistic intercultural digital ethics. Philosophy and Technology, 33, 551-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00412-9
  15. Floridi, L. (2002). On the intrinsic value of information objects and the infosphere. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(4), 287-304. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021342422699
  16. Floridi, L. (2006). Four challenges for a theory of informational privacy. Ethics and Information Technology, 8(3), 109-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-9121-3
  17. Floridi, L. (2007). Global information ethics: the importance of being environmentally earnest. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 3(3), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.4018/jthi.2007070101
  18. Floridi, L., & Sanders, J. W. (2002). Mapping the foundationalist debate in computer ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 4, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015209807065
  19. Habermas, J. (1984) [1981]. Theory of communicative action, volume one: reason and the rationalization of society. (T. A. McCarthy, Transl.). Boston: Beacon Press.
  20. Haciyakupoglu, G. & Wu, S-S. (2019). China's social credit system: the black market and inequalities. The Interpreter, March 18, 2019, available at https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/china-social-credit-system-black-marketand-inequalities.
  21. Hiruta, K. (2006). What pluralism, why pluralism, and how? A response to Charles Ess. Ethics and Information Technology, 8, 227-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-9114-2
  22. Hongladarom, S. (1999). Global culture, local cultures and the Internet: The Thai example. AI & Society, 13(4), 389-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01205985
  23. Hongladarom, S. (2008). Analysis and justification of privacy from a Buddhist perspective. In Information security and ethics: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 3644-3658). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  24. Hongladarom, S. (2008). Floridi and Spinoza on global information ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 10, 175-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-008-9164-8
  25. Hongladarom, S. (2016). Intercultural information ethics: a pragmatic consideration. In Kelly, M. & Bielby, J (Eds.), Information Cultures in the Digital Age (pp. 191-206). Springer VS, Wiesbaden.
  26. Hongladarom, S. (2020). The Ethics of AI and Robotics: A Buddhist Viewpoint. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
  27. Kitiyadisai, K. (2005). Privacy rights and protection: foreign values in modern Thai context. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(1), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-005-0455-z
  28. Postow, B. C. (2007). Toward honest ethical pluralism. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 132(2), 191-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-1091-5
  29. Ramasoota, P. (2001). Privacy: a philosophical sketch and a search for a Thai perception. MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities, 4(2), 89-107. https://doi.org/10.1163/26659077-00402007
  30. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  31. Searle, J. (1997). The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press.
  32. Stahl, B. C. & Elbeltagi, I. (2004). Cultural universality versus particularity in CMC. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 7(4), 47-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2004.10856384
  33. Stahl, B. C. (2004). Responsible Management of Information Systems. Hershey, PA: Idea
  34. Stahl, B. C. (2006). Emancipation in cross-cultural IS research: The fine line between relativism and dictatorship of the intellectual. Ethics and Information Technology, 8, 97-108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-9118-y
  35. Walzer, M. (1994). Thick and Thin: Moral Arguments at Home and Abroad. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
  36. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. (G. E. M. Anscombe, Transl.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  37. Wong, P-H. (2020). Cultural differences as excuses? human rights and cultural values in global ethics and governance of AI. Philosophy & Technology, 33, 705-715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00413-8