اخلاق فضیلت و اینستاگرام: تحلیلی از مسئله شکوفندگی کاربر در تعامل تدریجی با فناوری | ||
| پژوهشهای فلسفی -کلامی | ||
| دوره 26، شماره 4، دی 1403، صفحه 165-188 اصل مقاله (2.16 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22091/jptr.2024.11394.3136 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| رحمان شریف زاده* | ||
| استادیار، پژوهشگاه علوم و فناوری اطلاعات ایران (ایرانداک)، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| آیا طراحی خوب فناوری برای ارزیابی اخلاقی آن کفایت میکند؟ در این مقاله، در چارچوب نظریۀ اخلاق فضیلت و با چشمانداز نظریِ مطالعات علم و فناوری، به این سؤال پاسخ منفی خواهیم داد. این بحث را طرح خواهیم کرد که تمرکز روی طراحی اخلاقی فناوری، این که مثلاً فناوری تبعیضی را علیه گروهی روا ندارد، حق هیچ گروهی را نقض نکند و پیامدهای پیشبینیپذیر نامطلوبی نداشته باشند، کافی نیست، بلکه باید به این مسئله نیز پرداخت که آیا این فناوری به شکوفایی کاربر کمک میکند یا برعکس، منجر به نهادینه شدن عاداتی میشود که کاربر را از شکوفندگی دور میکند. یک فناوری اخلاقاً خوب طراحیشده ممکن است به تدریج عادات مخربی را تقویت و ویژگیهای والایی را تضعیف کند و در نتیجه دستکم از زاویه دید اخلاق فضیلت، مسیر شکوفندگی فرد را با مشکل مواجه سازد. توجه به این مسئله ما را به نگاه متفاوتی در ارزیابی اخلاقی ارتباط فناوری-کاربر میرساند. به عنوان یک مورد مطالعاتی، روی برخی از ویژگیهای شبکه اجتماعی اینستاگرام متمرکز خواهیم شد. میکوشیم به این پرسش پاسخ دهیم که برخی از ویژگیهای اینستاگرام چه نسبتی با شکوفندگی کاربر پیدا میکنند. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| اینستاگرام؛ اخلاق فضیلت؛ منش کاربر؛ اخلاق فناوری؛ مطالعات علم و فناوری | ||
| موضوعات | ||
| فلسفه اخلاق | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Virtue Ethics and Instagram: An Analysis of User Flourishing in Gradual Interaction with Technology | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Rahma Sharifzadeh | ||
| Assistant Professor, Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IranDoc), Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Is the good design of technology sufficient for its moral evaluation? This article, grounded in virtue ethics and informed by science and technology studies, argues that it is not. While ethical design—ensuring technology does not discriminate, violate rights, or cause foreseeable harm—is crucial, it is insufficient on its own. We must also consider whether the technology promotes user flourishing or, conversely, fosters habits that detract from it. A technology that is morally well-designed might still encourage harmful habits and undermine virtuous qualities, thereby impeding one’s path to flourishing from a virtue ethics perspective. This consideration leads to a different approach to evaluating the technology-user relation. As a case study, we will examine certain features of the Instagram social network in the framework of virtue ethics to explore how they impact users’ flourishing. Introduction The primary question in technology ethics isn’t just about designing technology that incorporates ethical values, respects the rights of all groups, is inclusive, and minimizes risks and harms. Instead, it’s about understanding how a user’s character evolves or is shaped through ongoing interaction with technology. Even if a technology is designed ethically and effectively by skilled designers and ethicists, could users still develop morally questionable habits through their interactions with it? This article aims to explore this issue. To make the discussion more concrete, we will examine Instagram, a widely popular social network, through the lens of virtue ethics and the theoretical framework of science and technology studies. We will investigate how this technology impacts user flourishing. Virtue Ethics and Instagram How does a technology like Instagram influence user flourishing? To answer this, we need to consider the concept of the attention economy and its relevance to Instagram. In the attention economy, the attention of users on social networks is a limited resource, leading to competition for this attention. Instagram users, especially those known as influencers, strive to capture and maintain the attention of users. On Instagram, attention is typically directed toward three areas: profession/education, service/product sales, and entertainment/pleasure. Our focus here is on the third area, where individuals create content to entertain or please users, thereby maintaining the attention of their followers. The problem arises when many people compete to produce entertaining or pleasurable content, potentially leading some to engage in actions that, from a virtue ethics perspective, are considered vices. Here are four types of actions or phenomena that can involve individuals in such practices: 1) Humor and Vulgarity: Some pages feature sexual, sexist, or racist jokes or even harmful funny content. For example, consider staged scenes where someone pretends to cheat on his spouse to share her reaction live. These types of content can gradually reinforce traits of buffoonery and vulgarity in both the page owner and their followers. 2) Display and Authenticity: To attract more followers, some individuals present an unrealistic, retouched image of their lives. Users enjoy seeing a happy family with a romantic couple, healthy children, and a luxurious lifestyle. This can lead page owners to display such images, even if they are not true. The ability to produce live shows on Instagram can reinforce the illusion that followers are witnessing real events. 3) Oversharing: Oversharing involves continuously sharing many details of one’s personal life or the lives of close others on social networks. This is another result of the attention economy. To attract more followers, some users increasingly expose their personal lives. Oversharing can weaken prudence and strengthen digital narcissism and sadfishing. 4) Care and Desensitization: Some influencers engage in risky actions to attract followers, which can be seen as practices of recklessness. Repeating these actions can weaken an individual’s ability to assess and discern risks. From 2011 to 2017, 259 deaths were reported while taking selfies. Exposure to violent content is another issue, as continuous exposure can desensitize individuals. The Mediation of Instagram We have discussed how Instagram, particularly at the level of entertainment/pleasure, can reinforce or weaken habits or traits that affect individual flourishing. Two counterarguments can be raised: Instrumentalist Reaction: Does Instagram’s mediation matter? For example, if someone decides to take a selfie on a cliff edge, has a significant change occurred? People engaged in risky actions before Instagram; it seems Instagram has just created new opportunities. This question underestimates the mediational power of technology. Each new possibility changes the individual, creating new interests and paths. Instagram has created a new phenomenon: bringing together many people from different places online as witnesses to an event. Massive and instant feedback through live shows and receiving likes and comments can create new motivations and tastes, gradually weakening or strengthening habits related to flourishing. Relativist Reaction: It may be argued that flourishing is relative; the important thing is psychological satisfaction. But does individual satisfaction suffice? If someone is accustomed to an undesirable situation and is psychologically satisfied, is there no room for constructive criticism or change? The answer seems to be no. Psychologically, a person may be satisfied with a terrible life, which should motivate others to encourage change, not abandonment. Conclusion A well-designed ethical technology may still reinforce destructive habits and weaken noble traits, hindering individual flourishing from a virtue ethics perspective. What should be done? The answer must be broader than classical responses. Users should consider “responsible use”: how much daily time to allocate to these platforms? Setting time limits can help. This issue has been addressed under “digital minimalism.” Setting filters for sensitive content is important, but actions can be expanded. Instagram should impose restrictions on pages displaying risky actions. Regulatory policy-making is also useful, but the important point here is that policies should be made under ethical standards and in consultation with experts in technology ethics so that policies do not violate the rights of users. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Instagram, social networks, virtue ethics, technology ethics | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Alfano, M., Astola, M., & Urbanowicz, P. (2022). Having a sense of humor as a virtue. Journal of Value Inquiry, 58, 659-680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-022-09918-1.
Allen Anita (2011). The ethics of over-sharing; Why being careful is prudent in this Facebook age. Available at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unpopular-privacy/201111/the-ethics-over-sharing. Alloway, T., Runac, R., Qureshi, M., & Kemp, G. (2014). Is Facebook linked to selfishness? Investigating the relationships among social media use, empathy, and narcissism. Social Networking, 3, 150-158.
Andreassen C. S., Pallesen S., & Griffith M. D. (2017). The relationship between addictive use of social narcissism, and self-esteem: Findings from a large national survey. Addictive Behaviors 64, 287–293.
Annas, J. (2011). Intelligent virtue. Oxford University Press.
Aristotle. 1934. Nicomachean ethics (Loeb Classical Library). (H. Rackham, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
Bansal, A., Garg, C., Pakhare, A., & Gupta, S. (2018). Selfies: A boon or bane? Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 7(4), 828-831. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_109_18. Brammer, S. E., Narissra M. P., & Robin S. D. (2022). Oversharing on social networking sites: A contemporary communication phenomenon. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 8, 100236.
Casale, S., & Vanessa, B. (2020). Narcissism and problematic social media use: A systematic literature review. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 100252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2020.100252. Ceballos, N. A., Petrofes, C., Bitney, C., Graham, R., & Howard, K. (2024). Denial, attention-seeking, and posting online while intoxicated: Three key predictors of collegiate sadfishing. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 27(3), 202-207.
Clark, E. (2023). The desensitization dilemma: Social media is taking away our ability to care. Available at: https://sbadamsthetower.com/10470/opinion/the-desensitization-dilemma-social-media-is-taking-away-our-ability-to-care/
Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. Alfred A. Knopf.
Floridi, L. (2019). Translating principles into practices of digital ethics: Five risks of being unethical. Philosophy & Technology, 32(2), 185–193.
Friedman, B., Hendry, D. G., & Borning, A. (2017). A survey of value sensitive design methods. Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction, 11(2), 63–125.
Gaenssle, S., & Budzinski, O. (2020). Stars in social media: New light through old windows? Journal of Media Business Studies, 18(3), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2020.1738694. Gänßle, S. (2021). Attention economics of Instagram stars: #instafame and sex sells? Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers, 27(150), 2-29.
Golby, J. (2015). A teenager has accidentally shot himself dead while taking a selfie. Vice (Archived from the original on 8 November 2015. Retrieved 17 November 2015).
Gräve, J. F. (2017). Exploring the perception of influencers vs. traditional celebrities: Are social media stars a new type of endorser? In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on social media & society (pp. 1-5). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3097286.3097322. Ihde, D. (2009). Postphenomenology and technoscience: The Peking university lectures. Suny Press.
Jancelewicz, C. (2021). Influencer Sophia Cheung dies while trying to take waterfall selfie in Hong Kong Park. Global News. Available at: https://globalnews.ca/news/8039812/sofia-cheung-influencer-dies-selfie-waterfall-hong-kong/
Latour, B. (1994). On technological mediation: Philosophy, psychology, geneaology. Common Knowledge, 3(2), 29-64.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford University Press.
Law, J. (2002). Aircraft stories: Decentering the object in technoscience. Duke University Press.
Meyer, S. S. (2023a). Aristotelian virtues for social media. Available at: https://press.princeton.edu/ideas/aristotelian-virtues-for-social-media. Meyer, S. S. (2023b). How to flourish: An ancient guide to living well. Princeton University Press.
Newport, C. (2019). Digital minimalism: Choosing a focused life in a noisy world. Portfolio.
Piggott, M. (2015). Selfie dangers: Teen falls 9 floors to his death as he poses on rooftop in Russia. International Business Times (Archived from the original on 17 August 2016).
Reyes, A. (2024). What is Sadfishing? Everything you need to know about this social media trend. Available at: https://www.wikihow.com/Sadfishing.
Simon, H. A. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In M. Greenberger (Ed.), Computers, communications, and the public interest (pp. 37-52). Johns Hopkins University Press. Archived from the original on 6 October 2020. Retrieved 28 October 2020.
Sunstein, C. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton University Press.
Vallor, S. 2016. Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford University Press
Van den Hoven, M. J. (2005). Design for values and values for design. Information Age, 7(2), 4-7.
Verbeek, P. P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. University of Chicago Press.
Winner, L. (1993). Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 18(3), 362–378.
Wirtz, J. G., Sparks, J. V., & Zimbres, T. M. (2018). The effect of exposure to sexual appeals in advertisements on memory, attitude, and purchase intention: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 168–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2017.1334996. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 933 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 416 |
||