This content originally appeared on HackerNoon and was authored by Philosophical
:::info Author:
(1) Angelica Sofia Valeriani, Ethics of Information Technology, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
:::
Table of Links
2 The new Empire of Surveillance Capitalism
4 Military technology and Politics
5.3 Direct comparison between Utilitarianism and Deontology
6 Conclusions, Acknowledgements, and References
5.2 Deontology Framework
In this Section, the analysis is performed under the light of Duty ethics principles. In the context of surveillance capitalism and targeted advertising, Kant’s ethical theories have important implications for individual privacy and autonomy. According to the classical Kantian framework, in particular, considering the second categorical imperative, the reciprocity principle, we can say that the lack of autonomy that is induced by Surveillance Capitalism is completely unjustified and morally wrong. Here, the core point is that there should be respect for people’s moral autonomy in making their own choices, and manipulation is totally against this principle. Furthermore, trying to manipulate people’s ideas and decision-making process is disrespectful to the moral autonomy of reasoning, treating them as pure means [16]. This approach brings society to a deep context of social inequality as the majority of people is a victims of this unfairness and commodification. From a Kantian perspective, the collection and use of personal data without explicit and informed consent violate the inherent dignity of individuals, as it treats them as mere means to an end. For Kant, ethical actions must be grounded in respect for individual autonomy and dignity, and the use of personal data for targeted advertising undermines this respect. This is because it treats individuals as mere objects to be manipulated for commercial gain, rather than as autonomous and rational beings capable of making their own choices.
\ First of all, at the beginning people were unaware of this intrinsic mechanism. Nowadays, the perception of this phenomenon is more widely spread, and the awareness of the real implications is not completely known by the majority [17]. Besides the intention of manipulation, also the lack of information of people goes in contrast with the reciprocity principle and the right of moral autonomy of people. On the other side, from the opposite point of view of analysis, there is the justification and original reason for which Surveillance Capitalism was born and developed in this direction, talking about social order and State Security [14]. Under this perspective, we could consider that the universal law could be read as “Allowing people to secretly participate in criminal organizations performing attacks of an economic or terrorist or military nature is acceptable”. If this were to be a universal law, then people would be afraid of every aspect of society and this would lead to anarchy. No government would sustain a policy like this, because it would never be voted. This kind of maxim cannot be universalized, so it is clear that a form of control is always needed, desirable, and accepted by people, to keep and support social order and welfare. The issue in this delicate topic is borderline, meaning that, if we accept that control is allowed, then who deserves to be controlled, and what are the criteria for which a person can be selected to be controlled remain only some of the open questions of society.
\ In this scenario, the Kantian framework would lead into contradiction, since, from one side it would justify the need for control because universally speaking it is true that attacks of any type that hurt people must be prevented, on the other side it would not accept the lack of autonomy of people, the manipulation and disrespect of moral reasoning. In practice, the fault in this line of reasoning is that strict and rigid adherence to moral rules can bring blindness and disruptive effects [15]. The key idea is that it is essential to inform people, and this is connected to the importance of human rights. The action of controlling, perhaps, is not morally incorrect in itself, but in the moment in which people that are the object of control are not aware of it.
\ Moreover, Kant was concerned with the principle of universalizability, which holds that ethical principles should be applicable to all individuals in all circumstances. In the case of surveillance capitalism and targeted advertising, this means that companies should not collect or use personal data in ways that they would not want to be treated themselves. Kant argued that ethical actions must be guided by moral duties, such as the duty to respect the inherent worth and dignity of every individual. In response to these concerns, Kant would likely argue for the development of laws and regulations that protect individual privacy and autonomy, while still allowing for the benefits of data-driven advertising and marketing. He would also emphasize the importance of informed and explicit consent in the collection and use of personal data, as well as the principle of transparency in corporate practices.
\
:::info This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license.
:::
\
This content originally appeared on HackerNoon and was authored by Philosophical
Philosophical | Sciencx (2025-02-05T09:54:58+00:00) How Surveillance Capitalism Hijacks Your Autonomy – A Shocking Kantian Critique. Retrieved from https://www.scien.cx/2025/02/05/how-surveillance-capitalism-hijacks-your-autonomy-a-shocking-kantian-critique/
Please log in to upload a file.
There are no updates yet.
Click the Upload button above to add an update.