One Net One World
Global Citizenship and the Internet
Jenny Shearer
(HyperMedia Unit and Department of Political
Studies University of Auckland, New Zealand
jshearer@cs.auckland.ac.nz)
Abstract: The development of a global ethical system is
desirable to fulfil the societal promise of the technology of the
Internet. The author attempts to construct such a "pragmatic" ethical
system (in an age of relativism and ethical scepticism) using concepts
drawn from a number of moral philosophers. The global ethics construct
uses the quality of human rationality as a basis, co-existing with the
essence of "identity" in religious, cultural, and personal terms for
individuals. The potential of the constructed Internet "global
citizen" is unquantifiable, but the concept represents an opportunity
for global co-operation and mingling of ideas, personalities,
cultures, and solutions to problems. It is an unconstrained scenario
utilising key qualities of the technology including rapid information
turnaround and unprecented individual access by vast numbers of the
global population. Category: K.4.2 Social Issues [Computers and Society];
K.5.2 Governmental Issues [Computers and Society]
1 Introduction
The developing technological architecture of the Internet invites the
construction of a parallel social infrastructure which could serve
people in ways which are unprecedented. This paper is an attempt to
extrapolate from the possibilities of the new technology a "global
ethical environment", that is use of an Internet architecture to
create a new field of social and political opportunity. It is an
attempt to engage with the difficult issue of finding something which
could be held up as global ethics, and possibly the simplest lead in
is to take a straightforward principle many people would aspire to,
that of global improvement, and base the construct on that. The
environment may be inhabited by the "global citizen" who would in
postmodern terms be a created "self", informed by the universal human
quality of rationality, conversant with his or her own identity
(ethnicity, gender, nationality, and so on, in the "real world") and
ready to pass beyond existing social boundaries to experience other
people's perspectives. It is this process of perceiving the points of
view of other people, and of engaging in positive discussion on a
basis of equality, which is well facilitated by the Internet. The
Internet offers high quality mass interpersonal communications, allied
with a massive scale of information base access. It is the medium of
choice for vastly increasing numbers of people, with some developed
countries debating the issue of universal access by their
populations. However Page 842
problems of creating "information rich" elites or countries with
Internet access, at the expense of "information poor" will be a major
ethical question for an emerging Internet community to
address. Organising the on-line community to aid navigation on the
World Wide Web and prevent information overload is another prospective
task. However the possibilities of an ethically moderated environment
are not futuristic scenarios. The beginnings of such an environment
may be observed in on-line education, and the activities of pressure
groups which support free speech and privacy of communications where
they may be under threat from national governments. The term
"Netizen", meaning committed member of the Internet community, is
already in use on the Internet. To visualise the social and political potential of a radically
different means of communication such as the Internet requires a
rewriting of what is possible. Generally in the past, a set of given
principles held by a social or national group have been built upon
within a framework of geographic and cultural constraints. These
constraints of national objectives, religion, or economic imperatives,
have greatly modified utopian or idealised political ideologies. The
Internet holds within its structure the potential for development of a
global public forum unprecedented in scope and opportunity. For
philosophers such as Jurgen Habermas, [Habermas 1989] public spheres
created in the past, such as those of ancient Greece and the
Enlightenment of eighteenth century Europe, have pointed the way to
advances in human endeavours and thinking. Though imperfect in many
respects (women were not included, political and social structures to
some extent hindered function) these forums put thinkers together in
conditions of relative equality, and produced highly influential
intellectual streams of thought. Such a forum already exists in an
informal interaction of networks and newsgroups within the
Internet. But one of the primary lessons of Habermas is the fragility
of these forums, which may be perceived as threatening to the power of
established groups. It is an imperative to development of an Internet
political identity that the Internet forum should be mapped and
defended, so that its freedoms are not lost to commercial or outside
political interests. The Internet currently has the key quality of unfettered global
access, within the constraints of computer access and pricing. A
person can interact with a computer to fulfil his or her information
and social requirements, publish on the Net, and hold personal power
by doing so. Information is not censored or "fed" with the user as a
market. However, possibly more importantly, the Internet meets a
social requirement of an individual to establish relationships before
making an effort to understand another point of view. Here the
behaviour of the person as an ethical being, as someone with cultural
and psychological boundaries, may possibly be changed very
considerably. The Internet represents an opportunity for a liberal, or unconstrained
political ideology of the type described by Sowell [Sowell
1987]. Large-scale fruitful political discourse already exists through
networks set up by individual organisations such as environmental
pressure groups, but these networks appear to be reproducing existing Page 843
organisational and ideological constraints through their
structure. The architecture and ideals of a liberal or unconstrained
community could be set up with reference to an agreed theoretical base
without suffering the penalties traditionally associated with
imposition of radical ideologies. That is without having to fight, or
suffer punitive action from competing regimes. The Internet is
currently not controlled by any particular regime, though it is likely
the next few years will see a critical power struggle for its
control. Change fostered by an ethical global environment in the
Internet would be of the secondary variety produced by changing public
opinion, and the purpose of such an ethical environment would be to
protect the freedom of speech of Internet users and to develop its
public sphere potential towards global levels of ethical thought and
action. The motivation is firstly, that such a liberal ideology should
be embraced by Internet users because they are at risk of losing
existing freedoms, and secondly, such an ideology provides in a global
sense the "right" path forward. The Internet is not the first communication technology which has been
the focus of dreams of human improvement. Television, for example, was
supposed to educate the population but its potential has largely
foundered under the weight of ratings-driven mass-appeal
programming. Why should the Internet be any different? Possibly,
because the global citizen will have learned the lessons of the
failure of these earlier technologies, and the global citizen will in
a sense be driving his or her own car - that is, will have choice. In
the event of societal infrastructure failure, the citizen will be able
to construct something different which works.Utopian visions were
expressed 20 years ago by Ted Nelson. [Nelson 1987] The prevailing
philosophy of the Internet has always been relatively anarchistic,
resulting in a free and sprawling environment which has always held
the possibility of fulfilling visions such as Nelson's. This freedom
is now under threat [Elmer-Dewitt 1994] from a number of competing
ideologies. The most obvious aggressor is free market ideology,
becoming successful possibly because it mimics the typical Internet
mindset in terms of promoting individualism. However the free
marketeer is motivated towards profit rather than teamwork and the
common good. Interests of sovereign states now pose a threat, as
national governments move to impose regulation in areas such as
control of pornography, and use of cryptography by individuals wishing
for privacy in their communications. Interventions by national
governments may limit access to or cause damage to the Internet
structure, not as a deliberate attempt at damage, but as a flow- on
effect of policy decisions. Lining up against the well-rehearsed
arguements of the market and national governments, the Internet
community currently lacks an agreed base of principle from which to
develop a self-protective strategy. By developing a philosophical
position, the Internet community may employ strategies such as
mediation to uphold free speech while addressing the persistent
problems caused by pornography on the Internet. [Shearer 1996]. In the
area of cryptography, the principle of privacy of communications is
able to be upheld in opposition to the perceived right of governments,
such as the US Government, to regulate the use of
cryptography. [Shearer & Gutmann 1996]. The principle of freedom of
development Page 844
of the Internet is able to be employed in arguing that current US
software patents policy is damaging to the Internet [Shearer & Vermeer
1995]. In an intellectual climate this century which has foregone moral
certainty it is difficult to build an "ethical" framework with the
purpose of protecting freedom of users and developing the potential of
the Internet. However when the alternative is paralysis in the face of
moral challenge, it is appropriate to attempt to establish a
defensible ethical structure. On a practical level many good things
could be seen to flow from the setting up of an information, or
rather, knowledge system, together with a public forum as an ethical
environment within the Internet. Such matters as classification of
information in terms of its authenticity or to provide ease of access
to the user, the control of certain types of socially disruptive
behaviour such as sending abusive messages or extreme (such as
classifications outlawed in most countries) pornography, the
opportunity to facilitate free and open discussion, new understanding
between people on the basis of a shared global interest, and an
efficient organisation of the market, are positive potential
outcomes. An "ideal community" could be set up within the Web, for
example, with links to cooperating sites and a developing new media
which would incorporate global views and voices. However, the visionary aspect entails more; that such an ethical
environment should include in its architecture an open political
function which could potentially be used for global citizens to better
their world, for example to end world hunger, and war, to improve the
environment, to build a sustainable future. To take a laissez-faire
approach to development in the Internet is to deny the potential
benefits of global citizenship to future generations. The function of
the technology will be limited by its social architecture to supply of
information rather than development of knowledge bases and political
pathways with the aim of global improvement. An agenda for debate on
the future of the Internet may be set by attempting to justify a
particular ethical environment. A liberal camp needs also to defend
itself against attacks on its right to exist, from people such as
supporters of free market ideology. The market, stripped of its
associated dominant libertarian or elitist ideology, would function
most efficiently within the boundaries of an ethical environment.
2 Rationality, "Location" and the Constructed "Global Citizen."
To move beyond the philosophical problems presented by what Romand
Coles refers to as the "rationalist versus relativist swamp," it is
necessary to qualify the reliance of this paper on a notion of
rationality, with the awareness that rationality may be regarded as a
quality exercised by choice of the global citizen, rather than as an
article of faith. Coles [Coles 1992] describes postmodernist Jean-Francois Lyotard's
position that reason is a mythical and undesirable "metanarrative"
with totalitarian implications. That is, that instead of being a
standard by which human thought and activity may be Page 845
judged, "reason" is simply a construct devised by a group of people
who wish to impose their view of the world on others, and to gather
power by doing this. "He urges us to abandon our search for a
singular Reason that rises above the multiplicity and contingency of
human life and instead affirm the the incompatibility and specificity
of increasingly diverse language games, which develop not according to
truths but by way of the creative impulses of sublime imaginations. He
urges us to to view our society as a "pathwork" of utterly
heterogenous games." In other words, Lyotard doubts that different
people may be able to truly share a rational way of thinking, and
maintains that each individual is encased in his or her own
perceptions. However, Habermas finds rationality is a path for
communication and consensus. "Far from being a dangerous myth, reason, for Habermas, is a barrier
against injustice, rooted in the inherent interests of the human
condition and the tacit telos of every effort to
communicate. Rationality functions as a regulative principle rooted in
the idea of an "ideal speech situation" (an idea that goes underground
but still remains central to his later work) which would allow us to
discriminate between tolerable and intolerable differences. Implicit
and explicit in the rhetoric and logic of Habermas' texts is an
imperative consensualism, an endlessly repeated assertion that our
positions "must" strive to converge." Coles himself offers a position dealing with "edges", the productive
area where differences meet and mingle. "It is not that of a "communicative rationality," but rather one that
embraces the sense, fertility and value of the intermingling
development of and communication amoung our differences themselves." He offers an "artistic ethos" which fosters a communication amoung
games, selves, and practices which transcends the limits of each. This
is a position matching to a degree the current somewhat anarchic
social system of the Internet, and to some extent it defines the value
of the minimally moderated newsgroups. To impose an imperative
consensualism on this situation would be to destroy the valuable
quality based on the specific geographical and cultural "location" of
members of the Internet community. However, I would argue that it is
possible to create knowledge "hubs" or systems where global citizens
choose a mode of communicative rationality which acknowledges location
and difference, and does not strive for consensus, but rather a
productive dialogue. The area of tension between differing opinions
and viewpoints may produce valuable insights and moderate actions, as
long as the parties accept a rational environment as the best tool for
progress. This scenario of global citizens working, as the case may be,
harmoniously or in a state of creative tension towards rational
solutions to global problems, depends on whether the quality of human
rationality may be used in this concious way. Nozick suggests [Nozick
1993] rationality of mind is an evolutionary survival pattern. His
insight is to strip the mystique from rationality and to examine it as
an evolutionary characteristic of humans, a part of the whole evolved
person. "Evolutionary theory makes it possible to see rationality as one
amoung animal traits, an evolutionary adaptation with a delimited
purpose and function." [Nozick 1993] Page 846
A first reading may lead to the conclusion that rationality is simply
a tool for the survival of the fittest, and that the most successful
of the species will be those who use rationality to survive and
compete. Nozick describes the person who may uphold certain
principles, not because he or she believes in them, but because in a
human society people may place their trust more easily in someone who
appears to behave consistently, that is, someone who gives the
appearance of believing in certain principles. This may enable the
person to operate more successfully in society. To follow this line of
thought is to find humans may have an evolutionary "programme" of
rationality : that it will be used as a tool for self-interest and
that its use will be constrained by other, psychological, evolutionary
mechanisms. The most that could be hoped for in terms of global
betterment would be a schema of enlightened self- interest. This does
not take us very far in dealing with complex problems on a global
scale, given the human psychological propensity to select short or
medium term benefits over long term gains. However, consideration of the word "delimited", reveals the potential,
as well as the limitations, of the concept of rationality as an
evolutionary function. Humans may be a product of evolutionary
processes, but are not entirely captured by them. Rationality embodies
an ability to think beyond limits of age, race, occupation, or status,
and an ability to develop principles which may be accepted as
universal by rational, informed people. A view of rationality as a useful construct, tempered with an
awareness of diversity of perception, gives a perspective to the use
of the Internet as a vehicle to promote the exercise of human
rationality. A positive note is that technology brings humans together
without overt constraints of power, nationality, appearance, gender,
or other difference, which traditionally has made intercultural
communication difficult, if not impossible. The practical barriers to
rational communication may be broken down, but it must be accepted
that people carry these constructs in their heads. The hope must be
that they build on the initiatives already in existence in the
Internet, to set up a dialogue as equals in a global forum. Each
person may be a "self" constructed by socialistion, genetic
inheritance, nationality, gender and so on, with a cultural and
geographic location. However this "self" may choose to extend its
identity to include the construct of "global citizenship", a concept
which is necessary built on the quality of human rationality.
3 The Search for a Meta-Ethic
The difficulties involved in developing a defensible Internet ethical
environment in the absence of provable ethical certainty include
consideration of historical political events (the failure of
communism, the manipulation of democracies by capital interests) and
the awareness that the ethical system would be global in application.
That is, it must be able to be recognised as valid by people from all
cultural backgrounds. Page 847
An ethical environment would have at its base the intention to better
the world as a global environment and as a human community. The
ethical system proposed is a construct focusing on human rationality,
derived from a development of Aristotelian ethics by Flynn [Flynn
1973] and interpreted in the light of works by Habermas, Nozick and
Sowell. Placed in the context of the Internet, it may be held to have
a cross-cultural appeal which fits its global task, that of uniting
people in a shared vision of a better future. Meta-ethics is the study
of (and the development of concepts in which) "ethics" is
discussed. The goal here is to develop a meta-ethic concept which may
be accepted by people of all cultures and religions, not as a
replacement for their beliefs, but as an acceptance of ethical
progress in a global environment. From this acceptance, global
strategies and actions may be developed. Rationality is a universal quality which may at first be best assessed
in terms of its limitations rather than its possibilities. If the
whole person has a cultural life, a spiritual conviction,
psychological limitations, and so on, the exercise of a wider rational
conciousness may fail before a pragmatic acceptance of the dominant
order in the individual's environment. However, if you offer a new
public persona in which traditional hierarchies are lost and
rationality is chosen, through acceptance of a global meta-ethic, that
person becomes delimited in terms of his or her potential to accept
new ideas and solutions. Flynn proposes a "half-solution" to the problem of ethical certainty
(the problem is put forward by philosophers who argue ethical
certainty is not achievable) by proposing that that it is possible to
embrace ethical scepticism, while still constructing a humanist ethic
based on the observation of outcomes which promote maximum human
happiness of a specific type, based on the full utility of human
potential. That is, the exercise of human rationality leads to this
essentially practical proposal, and it may be defended with rational
arguement. If it is accepted that the full utility of human potential
may in future balance on the well-being of the world environment and
its species we are able to start to construct the rational
"meta-ethic" of global citizenship. Flynn argues that in the absence
of absolute ethical truth the best status of humans may be found by
using observed data on their strategies of the past, and finding what
creates the maximum collective "happiness" in humans, defined as a
broad experience of life rich in harmony, and vividness. A life rich
in peaceful interaction and fulfilment, rather than a life rich with
money and possessions, may be seen as "happiness" in this context. "Aristotelians ... wish to emphasise that a certain state of human
functioning, as distinct from happiness simply, is the good for men in
a practical sense." [Flynn 1973] Using this approach, the principles upheld by a modern Aristotelian
may change with the advent of new and important information showing
how the best interests of people are upheld. For example, the
challenge to patriarchal academic constructs Page 848
masquerading as "discovered truth", by feminists such as Donna Haraway
[Haraway 1991]. Haraway contends political and physiological factors
have been built in to the "Body Politic." "That union (of the political and physiological) has been a major
source of ancient and modern justifications of domination, especially
of domination based on differences seen as natural, given,
inescapable, and therefore moral. It has also been transformed by the
modern biobehavoural sciences in ways we must understand if we are to
work effectively for societies free from domination. The degree to
which the principle of domination is embedded in our natural sciences,
especially those disciplines that seek to explain social groups and
behaviour, must not be underestimated. In evading the importance of
dominance as a part of the theory and practice of contemporary
sciences, we bypass the crucial and difficult examination of the
content as well as the social function of science." However Haraway defends the structure of science: "In our search for an understanding of a feminist body politic, we
need the discipline of the natural and social sciences, just as we
need every creative form of theory and practice. These sciences will
have liberating functions in so far as we build them on social
relations not based on dominance." Scientific "truths" may be debunked by such work, but the means to
make such revelations are those of the rational mind. It is pragmatic
to suggest the uptake of the existing scientific framework as a
default position, that is, to make use of it until this position is
challenged and more equal or rational schema may be put in place. The point of strength is that the ethics of the Aristotelian may be
defended and argued for on the basis of practicability for all
people. In this way, the Aristotelian is justified in supporting the
humanist ideal, as the life of humane love and creative work, as
having the best outcome. In this sense the survival of humans may be
seen as a primary principle. And for the human species to survive in a
"humane" way, that is, with a broad experience of life rich in harmony
and vividness, it may be deemed essential that our fellow travellers,
the other species which live in and help to define our real world,
survive also. The rights of the world citizen must include an
appreciation of the integrity of our planet and the species which
occupy it. Thus the Aristotelian approach may build an ethical framework which
expands to take in concepts unknown by the ancient philosophers, that
is, the human in a context of "global" politics. The Internet world
citizen with this ethical framework is justified in saying his or her
ethical system should be supported by everyone, and to make value
judgements on what is happening on the Net and in the larger
world. The appeal of this practical "ethical bridge" is that the
acceptance of what is rationally the best view given the current state
of human knowledge, may be acted apon in the arena of global
citizenship in the Internet. Yet because no claim of absolute ethical Page 849
truth is made citizens do not have to make moral transformations which
they may find impossible given their cultural backgrounds. The
meta-ethic may be accepted as an ethical standard by virtual world
citizens of the Internet, which would nevertheless allow them to
retain their traditional moral absolute beliefs, or remain ethical
sceptics, or keep whatever religious beliefs they hold, in the "real"
world. This acceptance of a rational meta-ethic may be seen as human
ethical development, not ethical scepticism. Someone could be a
fundamentalist Muslim or work for IBM, and still support it. Every
person would be able to recognise that rational work towards a better
world is a higher function open to everyone. This scenario differs
from the regimes of existing international agencies which express
highflown sentiments of international co- operation. These regimes in
fact operate from a tacit acceptance of nationalistic and economic
imperatives and work from a basis of negotiation, diplomacy, and
imposed solutions. In contrast to existing international agencies, new modes of
communication might be established through the Internet. Citizens may
be presented with radical change in the form of a rationally operating
Internet global society. Solutions would develop in the minds and
Internet meeting places of global citizens, rather than be foisted
apon them by an outside agency. The aim would be a constructive
interaction rather than a process of cultural homogenisation or
consensus. Ethical guidelines would operate allowing citizens to find
a future direction, while also countering threats to their own public
forum, whether these threats emerged as widespread software patents
hindering development, sale of pornography affecting public forum
functions, large scale propaganda, inappropriate commercialisation, or
whatever. History teaches us that public freedoms and public free
speech are always under threat. The conclusion that the maintenance of human ethical "identity" is
important for the functioning of society, is drawn from the work of
postmodernists who have argued for equality and recognition of the
value of various societal groups. But the concept of global
citizenship also implies a recognition that enhanced global
communication and co-operation amoung peoples is possibly the only
practical way to cope with the major ills that assail our planet
environmentally, with overpopulation, in the issues of mass slaughter
and hunger of people, the disappearance of many species of plants and
animals, and many other issues. The "constrained" ideology described
by Sowell [Sowell 1987] as being the confidence in traditional
process, in politics, religion, family, and other matters, with each
person confining their endeavours to their own field of expertise,
holds no promise of solving the major global problems of the next
century. In contrast, the "unconstrained" ideology of a new global
citizen dependent on new solutions devised by the best judgements of
rational minds, holds some hope of recognising the "big picture" and
devising solutions. The inclusive nature of the neo-Aristotelian reliance on rationality
creates, further, the opportunity for those with a conservative
ideology such as that of the free market to work within an Internet
ethical environment. People who believe in the survival or prosperity
of the fittest, operating in a competitive marketplace, may still
recognise Page 850
that their own long-term survival in a world they recognise may be
dependent on a level of global co-operation about use of the world's
resources. They may for a time support the concept of the global
citizen as valid, though they do not personally believe in the
underlying ethics. This adoption of principles without necessarily
believing in them works also for existing schemes including
capitalism, muslim or christian fundamentalism, and so on. However
clearly those people who did wholeheartedly support the principles
adopted by the community would be the force which would create it and
drive it.
4 Defending an Internet Ethical Environment as a Moral Choice
Flynn [Flynn 1976] maintains that ideological opponents must be
confronted with a specific moral agenda rather than ruled out of the
ethical arena entirely. In other words supporters of a rational global
citizenship project could not deny opponents entry into the moral
realm, but they could defend themselves as providing the best ethical
solution, and criticise opponents on specific moral grounds. Flynn provides a list of issues that are typical of moral discourse in
order to establish what these grounds of moral comparison could
consist of if a person with certain ethical views is assessed. The
points relevant to this case are listed as follows. The person must:
- - Have ideals that take priority over whims or desires.
- - Continue to hold the ideals having gained a reasonably full
knowledge of what they mean in practice.
- - Be willing to to universalise the ideals - be willing to give
reasons for the moral assessments, and stand by the ideals with
logical consistency.
- - Have concern for the welfare of a group of people (the group may or
may not include all of mankind), rather than the person alone - this rules out pure egoism.
- - The person must possess some criterion of justice, at least justice
as fairness, and will probably have a criterion of justice as
rewarding excellence as well - if so, he or she must have something to
determine the balance between the two with logical consistency, for
example, a criterion of importance or significant life.
- - Use the ideals to pass judgement on the person's own way of life in
total, as well as bit by bit.
- - Be willing to argue that the ideals, or a blueprint which aims as
close to them as reality allows, are capable of ordering a human
society.
Page 851
- - Welcome the remaking of mankind in general in the light of the
ideals.
- - Give happiness (perceived satisfaction) an important place - he or
she need not give it top priority and certainly need not endorse the
happiness of all mankind.
The list is designed to encourage communication with
opponents and clarify the problem of justification. Firstly, it is appropriate to show why an Internet ethical environment
incorporating ideals of global citizenship could be put forward as
morally justifiable, using the terms above, by Flynn. A rational
global citizen, having educated himself or herself through the
facilities provided could be expected to make decisions on ethical
grounds which would take precedence over whims and desires, as the
individual saw fit. This person would universalize his or her ideals
that everyone should work towards a better world as rational global
citizens. It would follow that this person would have concern for all
global citizens, as well as the earth itself and all its plant and
animal species. To be realistic, a global citizen's view would consider trade-offs
between what might be considered unfettered ideal outcomes, and the
constraints of the real world. For example the global citizen would
attempt to find a balance between recognising the equality of all
citizens and their rights to a full life, while including the market
and its rewards for excellence. The boundaries to the workings of the
market would be established by the global citizens' visions for the
future. If optimal outcomes in terms of the global community's ethics
were established these outcomes would be based on the concept of
global co-operation and the best interests of all people. A negative
scenario could also be devised, in which unregulated competitive
markets, nationalistic interests and non-humane scenarios prevailed. A rational scenario would presumably establish the way the market
could best operate to cause economic efficiency without threatening
the higher ethical purpose of global citizens. It could be argued that
this operation of the market would be necessary to get things done in
an efficient way, and to allow for motivation and reward in the
important areas of research and development of things which would
further the global community's aim of preserving itself in good
heart. However the global community would not, by doing so, endorse
free market ideology. It would endorse its own principles on the
understanding that people could make the best ethical choice, that is,
the choice of promoting global harmony and co-operation. The market
could operate efficiently within that ethical framework. As seen above, the concept of global citizenship implies more than
participation in a public forum though this is an important
function. It implies that the individual be ready to make personal
changes to better the life of all people, and of other species. The
potential of the technology is the creation of opportunity to educate,
and increase understanding and peaceful interaction between people of
different nationalities and Page 852
ideas. The nature of the interaction would not be coercive, but the
intention would be to improve the quality of life for global citizens
of the present and future. The principles may not be acceptable to
ideological adversaries, but would effectively arm the Internet
community to debate and take action against infringements of their
perceived rights, in the inevitable conflict with groups attempting to
impose other ideologies on the Internet. "Internet citizens" would be
empowered by their ideology to protect and develop their cyberspace
domain.
5 The Challenge to Conservative Ideologies
The probable primary ideological opponents of a rational ethical
environment are likely to be supporters of the free market represented
by people with libertarian or elitist views who promote, for example,
the unregulated activity of major capital interests and multi-national
communications corporations. It is worthwhile testing the defences of
an ethical environment against their likely arguments. However, it
could just as easily be followers of absolutist religions, who might
object to the humanist derivation of the postulated ethic, or national
governments, who may perceive national advantage as more important in
the short to medium term than global advantage in the long term. If we take the "constrained" view of society put forward by Sowell,
and contrast it with the "unconstrained" view, we see, essentially, an
irresolvable conflict. However Sowell tells us that not every ideology
is entirely "constrained", or "unconstrained". Some are a
mixture. [Sowell 1987] The ideology of the rational global citizen would appear to be
primarily "unconstrained", that is, has features of leadership by
intellectuals, and the following of rational lines of thought to
wherever they may lead. It incorporates the belief that human
knowledge has advanced historically, if imperfectly, and that good use
may be made of that knowledge to improve the world. However it may
rightly include features of the "constrained" viewpoint. It does not
argue against the importance of traditional process but rather seeks
to establish a system which would create change through education and
rational debate, rather than coercion. It accepts elements of human
nature such as the competitive drive, and thus accepts that in some
areas the market may be the best way to progress. It is in the concept of progress that the ethics of the global citizen
would diverge from those of the traditional conservative. The
postulated rational global citizen would argue that progress must be
directed by rational global assessment of factors, environmental,
economic, social, and so on, in order to preserve the earth for future
generations and to improve the lot of many global citizens. Typically,
the traditionally conservative person would not argue against the
ideals put forward but would argue that the way the global citizens
would go about achieving these ideals would be Page 853
destructive, or ineffective. The conservative would put his or her
faith in the processes of existing institutions such as international
political bodies. However the meta-ethic of the rational global citizen's new world
would be backed by the modes of mass communication made possible by
the technology of the Internet. Citizens could develop classified
"knowledge" systems which would enable them to better themselves as
informed participants in global politics, and integrate or connect
existing Internet initiatives in areas such as the environment,
national regulation of Internet use, and so on. They could overcome
existing technical problems of vote- taking on issues, and form news
systems and interfaces to keep citizens informed on issues perceived
as important. The process would be unlike anything seen in
international relations, because of the direct uncensored input (given
that the Internet community was able to win in the critical matter of
use of cryptography for privacy of communications, against national
interests) of very large numbers of global citizens. In this way, the
raising of awareness of the mass of people of the issues and the
possibility of mass acceptance of solutions to global problems by
global public opinion, could potentially be a peaceful and profound
precursor of useful change. In itself, it is a process which the
traditional conservative would have once derided as impossible. The
Internet may well make it possible, and in doing so, challenges the
conservative view on the grounds of overcoming a major traditional
objection. The reliance on tradition and unarticulated social structures of the
essentially conservative view of politics may be the primary cause of
inertia towards radical social change on any scale. It tends towards
an acceptance of , for example, inequalities in economic advantage due
to the laissez-faire operation of the market. However, it may be
argued that both the ideology of the free marketeer is ethically
flawed, and that the traditional view put forward by Smith, [Smith
1976] that the free operation of the market will result in a
favourable outcome, may be challenged on wider economic grounds. In
this paper, the ethical aspects only are examined. Attempts to establish a moral basis for the free market, such as the
libertarian philosophy of Tibor R Machan [Machan 1989] which is based
on a specific moral theory, Classical Egoism, are readily
challenged. In his critique of Machan's philosophical justification,
Pullar comments : "Machan's work is seriously lacking in scholarship, and... his
arguments are often based on dubious premises. Machan's work is no
case for the free market economy." [Pullar 1994] Given that Machan's work is broadly representative of free market
ideology, we can gain insight into the moral status of the free
marketeer. It is certainly true they take up an ethical stance, and
will adhere to their views under pressure. A well-known example of
this may be the immovable stance of Margaret Thatcher during her years
as Prime Minister of Britain. Page 854
It may be argued against the free market that outcomes are not
satisfactory. Perfectly free markets are not able to be achieved in
the real world, given the presence of modifying external factors, and
no such perfectly free market has been achieved. A result of free
market political decisions in terms of deregulation has resulted in
monopolisation and concentration of ownership in major industries,
particularly those concerned with global communication and information
systems. As a result, individuals are faced with less rather than more
choice in the way their knowledge systems are served up to them. This
raises the potential of indoctrination of the consumer. As the issue
of individual freedom and choice is central to the free market
ideology, this is a major criticism. It is also possible to argue that
technology can also help to make markets more free, as seen in the
development of Java, where Java applets may be employed across
Internet platforms, and give the user independence from the systems
provided by the giant multi-national corporations which seek to place
their own standards on the Internet. While free marketeers believe everyone should participate in the free
market, to enable it to work, there is no intent that everyone will
benefit from this participation. Individuals subscribing to the free
market ideology are involved in establishing winners and losers. The
assumption, which I have challenged, is that the process of
competition will give the best outcome. In a global scenario not only
individuals, but whole countries may be the losers. The environment,
the welfare of many species of plant and animal life, and the quality
of life for future generations are also secondary issues or ruled out
of the ethical realm of the free marketeer. The ethical stance of the
free marketeer may be challenged on the basis of being highly
individualistic, and thus not concerned with the welfare of all or a
group of people. Its basis of egoism ensures the state protects only
the right of individuals to compete with other individuals. This does
not equate with concern for their welfare. The personal happiness of the free marketeer is considered to be of
very high value, in fact far more important than altruistic notions of
being of service to other people. Within the ethical realm this is a
major moral failure. Similarly, free market ideology makes little or
no moral distinction between dealing with, for example, genocidal or
torturing regimes, and dealing with democratic regimes which support
human rights. Business is business. The process argument would state that the rights
of ordinary citizens of these regimes are infringed by such measures
as trade embargoes, and countries should be left to sort out their own
political problems. But in the ethical arena of global citizenship,
this situation becomes a strong case for the workings of a market
stripped of its ideological component. In an ethical environment, new
solutions may be devised which may or may not include trade
embargoes. Political issues cannot be separated from economic issues,
environmental or other issues, but are seen as part of the big
picture. Certainly, there would be large scope for objections to be
transmitted to the citizens of the offending country, in much the same
way as Chinese citizens learned by fax of world reaction to the
massacre of students at Tienanmen Square. Page 855
It could be argued that one of the key issues of the progress of South
Africa to the breakdown of the apartheid system and towards democracy
was the glare of international publicity and the feeding of key ideas
back into South Africa from dissidents both outside and inside the
country. However, a rational global citizenry may not see the
establishment of democracy in every country as necessarily the best
solution to global political troubles. Establishing global political
solutions might be one of its tasks. Upgrading of the World Wide Web will be necessary to achieve a
technical infrastructure to support the societal needs of global
citizens. Features of Hyper-G [Maurer 1996] pioneer some of the
structures required, for example, improved navigation tools,
information "hubs", levels of anonymity of contributors, and copyright
charging systems. These structures, within the context of the
Internet, have prompted the author to track back to an ethical
framework, presented here, which will justify attempts to build an
optimal technical/social infrastructure.
6 Conclusion
The Internet, in particular the second generation World Wide Web
architectures, have the potential to host a global ethical environment
based on a qualified interpretation of the quality of human
rationality. Building on this "meta-ethic", concerned with the welfare
of the world community expressed as its people, its environment, and
its other species, a global citizenship may be created. The aim of
such a citizenry would be, not to "regulate" in the interests of the
commercial sector or an external bureaucracy, but to establish a
global knowledge and political system which would protect its own
freedoms and promote a better world.
References
[Habermas 1989] Habermas, J. "The structural Transformation of the
Public Sphere. An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society,"
Translated by Thomas Burger with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence
, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1989.
[Sowell 1987] Sowell, T. "A Conflict of Visions. Ideological Origins
of Political Struggles", William Morrow and Company, Inc. New York,
1987.
[Nelson 1987] Nelson, T. "Computer Lib / Dream Machines". Tempus
Books, Microsoft Press, Washington, revised edition 1987.
[Elmer-Dewitt 1994] Elmer-Dewitt, P. "Battle For The Soul Of The
Internet", Time International Magazine, July 25, 1994, No. 30, Time
Inc. New York p. 32.
Page 856
[Shearer 1996] Shearer, J. "Mediation In The Internet". WebNet 96 -
World Conference of the Web Society Proceedings, AACE (Association for
the Advancement of Computing in Education) USA, 1996.
[Shearer & Gutmann 1996] Shearer, J. Gutmann, P. "Government,
Cryptography, and the Right To Privacy." Journal of Universal
Computer Science, 2 (3) 113-137, 1996.
[Shearer & Vermeer 1995] Shearer, J. Vermeer, A. "Software Patents and
the Internet: Lessons from the Compuserve/Unisys Graphics Interchange
Format Case Study." Journal of Universal Computer Science, 1 (5), 308-
315, 1995.
[Coles 1992] Coles, R. "Self/Power/Other. Political Theory and
Dialogical Ethics." Cornell University Press, 1992.
[Nozick 1993] Nozick, R. "The Nature of Rationality", Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1993.
[Flynn 1973] Flynn, James R. "Humanism and Ideology. An Aristotelian
View", Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973.
[Haraway 1991] Haraway, J. "Simians, Cyborgs, & Women. The Reinvention
of Nature." Routledge New York, 1991.
[Flynn 1976] Flynn, James R. "The Realm Of The Moral", American
Philosophical Quarterly Volume 13, Number 4, October 1976 pp. 273-
286..
[Smith 1976] Smith, A. "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of Nations" Oxford University Press , 1976
[Machan 1989] Machan, T. "The Moral Case for the Free Market Economy",
The Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, New York, 1989
[Pullar 1994] Pullar, N.S. "A Moral Case for the Free Market Economy?
The Libertarian Philosophy of Tibor R Machan". University of Auckland,
M.A. Thesis, 1994.
[Maurer 1996] Maurer, H. Personal Communication, 1995 - 1996.
Page 857
|