Unique ethical challenges for the 21st century: Online technology and virtue education

ABSTRACT

Living well in the 21^st century will present human beings with a unique set of demands and ethical challenges, many of which will require a rapid response to developments in the online space. Online activities increasingly permeate our practical lives. Although there is every indication that this activity will intensify, even experts on digital technology recognise that the precise effects of future emergent technology will be uncertain and remain unknown. We argue that education directed at the cultivation of cyber-wisdom and other cyber-virtues provides our best chance of creating a moral vocabulary that can guide us towards living well in the 21^st century. The aim of this article is to offer the first outline of an educational model, founded on neo-Aristotelian theory, that illustrates how these qualities could be cultivated through moral education.

KEYWORDS:

• Virtue
• cyber-wisdom
• digital technology
• human flourishing
• education

Declaration

We confirm that no financial interest or benefit has arisen from the direct application of this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. While Cocking and van den Hoven focus on the dangers of moral fog, it should also be noted that the social disruption that this phenomenon causes could also be said to have upsides. Changing the technological conditions of social norms can allow new norms to arise, including those that have salutatory and beneficial effects. Take the example of virtual friendships. Online technologies provide the conditions for many kinds of relationships that would simply not be possible in a non-online world. See Kristjánsson (2019), Bülow and Felix (2016), and Briggle (2008). Thank you to an anonymous reviewer for encouraging us to think more deeply about this.

2. Vallor lists her technomoral virtues as: ‘1) Honesty. 2) Self-Control. 3) Humility. 4) Justice. 5) Courage. 6) Empathy. 7) Care. 8) Civility. 9) Flexibility. 10) Perspective. 11) Magnanimity. 12) Technomoral Wisdom.’ (Vallor, 2016, p. 120).

3. For Kant, externally imposed rules differ from the internally imposed rules of the Categorical Imperative. Nevertheless, in the case of teaching rules pertaining to the use of technology, externally imposed rules are the most useful for young people and adolescents. As Kant would acknowledge, forming an internally imposed rule requires sophisticated cognitive abilities, which require the appropriate level of development. We would like to thank one of our anonymous reviewers for asking us to clarify this distinction.

4. We would like to thank our three anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. We would also like to thank the conference participants of the Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues for their questions and discussion in January 2020. Finally, we would like to thank Matthew Collins for proofreading the article prior to submission.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Matthew Dennis

Matthew J. Dennis is a philosopher of technology,whose work focuses on the ethics of digital well-being. He is currently a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Research Fellow in the Department of Values, Technology, and Innovation at TU Delft. Prior to this he was an Early Career Research Fellow in Innovationat Institute for Advanced Study, University of Warwick, where he completed his PhD in 2019. 

Tom Harrison

Tom Harrison is a Reader in the School of Education at the University of Birmingham. He is the Director of Education for the Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues. His recent research focuses on character, the Internet and human flourishing.