Virtue ethics is an approach to ethics that treats the concept of moral virtue as central. Virtue ethics is usually contrasted with two other major approaches in ethics, consequentialism and deontology, which make the goodness of outcomes of an action (consequentialism) and the concept of moral duty or rule (deontology) as central. Virtue ethics focuses on the character of the agent rather than their actions or their adherence to rules. It holds that an individual’s ethical behavior should be measured by their trait-based characteristics such as honesty, courage, and wisdom, rather than by the consequences of their actions or the particular duties they are obliged to obey. Virtue ethics is based on the idea that we acquire virtue through practice and habituation. By practicing being honest, brave, just, generous, and so on, a person develops an honorable and moral character. Virtue ethics also emphasizes the role of practical wisdom or phronesis, which is the ability to discern the right course of action in a given situation. Practical wisdom involves both intellectual and emotional capacities and requires a sensitivity to context and circumstances. Virtue ethics traces its origins to ancient Greek philosophy, especially to Plato and Aristotle, who identified various virtues and vices and discussed how they relate to human flourishing or eudaimonia.

Virtue Signaling

Virtue signaling is a term that is often used pejoratively to describe the public expression of opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one’s good character or social conscience or the moral correctness of one’s position on a particular issue. Virtue signaling is often used to imply that the person expressing such opinions or sentiments is doing so insincerely or hypocritically, without actually being committed to the cause or issue they claim to support. Virtue signaling is also seen as a form of self-glorification or self-righteousness, rather than a genuine expression of moral concern or conviction. Virtue signaling is often associated with social media platforms, where people can easily share their views on various topics and receive validation or criticism from others. Some examples of virtue signaling are: expressing outrage over a social injustice without taking any concrete action to address it; posting a picture of oneself with a marginalized group or a charitable cause without having any meaningful involvement with them; displaying symbols or slogans that indicate one’s alignment with a certain political or ideological movement without understanding its implications or consequences.

The main difference between virtue ethics and virtue signaling is that virtue ethics is a normative ethical theory that aims to provide guidance for how to live a good life and cultivate moral character, while virtue signaling is a descriptive term that criticizes the superficial or self-serving display of moral attitudes or opinions. Virtue ethics is concerned with the internal qualities of the agent, such as their motives, intentions, emotions, and reasoning, while virtue signaling is concerned with the external appearance of the agent, such as their words, actions, and symbols. Virtue ethics requires consistent practice and habituation of virtues, while virtue signaling does not require any effort or sacrifice on the part of the agent. Virtue ethics values practical wisdom and contextual sensitivity, while virtue signaling disregards the complexity and diversity of moral situations. In short, virtue ethics is about being virtuous, while virtue signaling is about appearing virtuous.

Greenwashing is a form of advertising or marketing spin in which green PR and green marketing are deceptively used to persuade the public that an organization’s products, aims and policies are environmentally friendly or have a greater positive environmental impact than they actually do. Greenwashing involves making an unsubstantiated claim to deceive consumers into believing that a company’s products are environmentally friendly or have a greater positive environmental impact than they actually do. Greenwashing may also occur when a company attempts to emphasize sustainable aspects of a product to overshadow the company’s involvement in environmentally damaging practices. Greenwashing is a play on the term “whitewashing,” which means using false information (misinformation) to intentionally hide wrongdoing, error, or an unpleasant situation in an attempt to make it seem less bad than it is.

Greenwashing is an example of virtue signalling, which is the public expression of opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one’s good character or social conscience or the moral correctness of one’s position on a particular issue. Virtue signalling is often used to imply that the person expressing such opinions or sentiments is doing so insincerely or hypocritically, without actually being committed to the cause or issue they claim to support. Virtue signalling is also seen as a form of self-glorification or self-righteousness, rather than a genuine expression of moral concern or conviction.

Greenwashing can be used by individuals, companies and governments to appear more virtuous than they actually are, and to gain favour with consumers, investors, voters or other stakeholders who are concerned about environmental issues. However, greenwashing can be seen as a dishonest and manipulative practice that undermines the credibility and trustworthiness of the entity and its products, services or policies. Greenwashing can also have negative consequences for the environment and society, as it may mislead people into buying products that are harmful or wasteful, investing in companies that are polluting or exploiting, supporting policies that are ineffective or detrimental, or discouraging them from taking more effective actions to reduce their environmental impact. Greenwashing can also create confusion and skepticism among people about the genuine environmental claims and initiatives of other entities. Some examples of greenwashing by individuals, companies and governments are:

Individuals: Some people may engage in greenwashing by buying products that have green labels or packaging, but are not actually eco-friendly. They may also post pictures or messages on social media that show their support for environmental causes, but do not reflect their actual lifestyle choices or actions.

Companies: Some companies may engage in greenwashing by renaming, rebranding or repackaging their products to make them seem more natural, organic or sustainable. They may also launch PR campaigns or commercials that portray them as eco-friendly or socially responsible, but do not match their actual practices or performance.

Governments: Some governments may engage in greenwashing by announcing policies or initiatives that claim to address environmental issues, but are either insufficient, ineffective or counterproductive, such as HSBC’s climate ads or Ikea’s illegal logging. They may also use green rhetoric or symbols to appeal to voters or other countries, but do not follow through with concrete actions or commitments.

Greenwashing involves making false or exaggerated claims about the environmental friendliness or impact of an entity or its products, services or policies. It is a deceptive and unethical practice that can harm both the environment and the people who are misled by it.

Are you a technical, business or legal professional who works with technology adoption? Do you want to learn how to apply ethical frameworks and principles to your technology work and decision-making, understand the legal implications and challenges of new technologies and old laws, and navigate the complex and dynamic environment of technology innovation and regulation? If so, you need to check out this new book: Ethics, Law and Technology: Navigating Technology Adoption Challenges. This book is a practical guide for professionals who want to learn from the experts and stay updated in this fast-changing and exciting field.

Technology adoption carries with it a number of ethical risks. A society under the rule of law often creates legal regulations to constrain technology adoption. Regulations may be developed for a variety of policy purposes, but from an ethical perspective regulations can be categorized in terms of the ethical harms they seek to avoid and the ethical virtues that they seek to encourage.

Regulation of Technology

The regulation of new technology seeks to provide a number of ethical virtues. One of the main virtues is that regulations can help to ensure that new technologies are developed and used in ways that are safe and beneficial to individuals and society as a whole. For example, regulations can help to ensure that new technologies do not pose a risk to public health or safety.Another ethical virtue associated with the regulation of new technology is the potential for regulations to promote social justice and equality. For example, regulations can help to ensure that new technologies are developed in ways that are inclusive and that benefit everyone. Finally, regulation can help to promote environmental sustainability by ensuring that new technologies are developed in ways that do not harm the environment. By promoting sustainable development, regulations can help to ensure that future generations are able to enjoy a healthy and prosperous planet.

The regulation of new technology seeks to avoid a number of ethical harms. One of the main concerns is that new technologies may be developed and used in ways that are harmful to individuals or society as a whole. For example, new technologies may be used to invade people’s privacy or to discriminate against certain groups.

Another ethical harm that regulation seeks to avoid is the potential for new technologies to exacerbate existing social inequalities. For example, new technologies may create new opportunities for some people while leaving others behind1. It is important to ensure that new technologies are developed in ways that are inclusive and that benefit everyone.

Finally, regulation seeks to avoid the potential for new technologies to be used in ways that are harmful to the environment. For example, new technologies may be developed that contribute to climate change or that pollute the environment. It is important to ensure that new technologies are developed in ways that are sustainable and that do not harm the environment.

Overall, the regulation of new technology is an important issue that requires careful consideration of many different factors. By taking an ethical approach to regulation, we can ensure that new technologies are developed in ways that are beneficial to society as a whole.

Are you a technical, business or legal professional who works with technology adoption? Do you want to learn how to apply ethical frameworks and principles to your technology work and decision-making, understand the legal implications and challenges of new technologies and old laws, and navigate the complex and dynamic environment of technology innovation and regulation? If so, you need to check out this new book: Ethics, Law and Technology: Navigating Technology Adoption Challenges. This book is a practical guide for professionals who want to learn from the experts and stay updated in this fast-changing and exciting field.

Machine learning (ML) is a branch of artificial intelligence technology that enables computers to learn from data and make predictions or decisions. However, ML  technology can also raise ethical issues and challenges that affect individuals and society. ML can raise more ethical issues than other forms of AI because:

– ML is more pervasive and ubiquitous: ML can be applied to a wide range of domains and contexts, such as health care, education, finance, justice, security, entertainment, and social media. This means that ML can affect more aspects of human life and society than other forms of AI that are more specialized or limited in scope.

– ML is more autonomous and adaptive: ML can learn from data and feedback without explicit human guidance or intervention. This autonomy means that ML can evolve and change over time, potentially in unpredictable or unintended ways. This also means that ML can have more agency and influence over human actions and outcomes than other forms of AI that are more controlled or fixed.

– ML is more complex and opaque: ML can produce complex and opaque models and systems that are difficult to apply, understand and interpret, even by experts. This means that ML can have more uncertainty and ambiguity about its processes and outcomes than other forms of AI that are more simple or transparent.

– ML is more data-driven and data-dependent: ML depends on the quality and quantity of the data it is trained on and uses for prediction or decision making. This means that ML can inherit or amplify biases and errors that exist in the data, algorithms, or human judgments that influence its development and deployment. This also means that ML can create or raise new ethical issues related to data collection, processing, analysis, and use.

Ethical issues with ML

Here are some of the top 10 ethical issues with the use of ML technology:

– Privacy and surveillance: ML can collect, process, and analyze large amounts of personal and sensitive data, such as biometric, health, financial, or behavioral data. This can pose risks to the privacy and security of individuals and groups, especially if the data is used without their consent or knowledge, or if it is accessed or misused by unauthorized or malicious parties. Moreover, ML can enable mass surveillance and tracking of individuals and populations, potentially infringing on their civil liberties and human rights.

– Transparency and explainability: ML can produce complex and opaque models and systems that are difficult to understand and interpret, even by experts. This can limit the transparency and accountability of ML processes and outcomes, especially if they are used for high-stakes or sensitive decisions that affect people’s lives, such as health care, education, employment, or justice. Moreover, ML can lack explainability and justification for its predictions or recommendations, making it hard to verify its validity, reliability, and fairness.

– Bias and discrimination: ML can inherit or amplify biases and prejudices that exist in the data, algorithms, or human judgments that influence its development and deployment. This can result in unfair or discriminatory outcomes that disadvantage certain groups or individuals based on their characteristics, such as race, gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation. Moreover, ML can create or reinforce stereotypes and social norms that may harm the diversity and inclusion of individuals and society.

– Autonomy and agency: ML can influence or interfere with the autonomy and agency of individuals and groups, especially if it is used to manipulate, persuade, coerce, or control their behavior, preferences, opinions, or emotions. Moreover, ML can affect the identity and dignity of individuals and groups, especially if it is used to replace, augment, or enhance their cognitive or physical abilities.

– Responsibility and liability: ML can raise questions and challenges about the responsibility and liability for the actions and consequences of ML models and systems. This can involve multiple actors and stakeholders, such as developers, users, providers, regulators, researchers, educators, beneficiaries, victims, or critics. Moreover, ML can create moral dilemmas and trade-offs that may conflict with ethical values and principles.

– Trust and acceptance: ML can affect the trust and acceptance of individuals and society towards ML models and systems. This can depend on factors such as the quality, accuracy, reliability, fairness, transparency, explainability, usability, security, privacy of ML models and systems. Moreover, trust and acceptance can depend on factors such as the awareness, education, communication, participation, representation, and empowerment of individuals and society regarding ML models and systems.

– Beneficence and non-maleficence: ML can have positive or negative impacts on the well being and welfare of individuals and society. This can involve aspects such as health, safety, education, employment, justice, environment, culture, or democracy. Moreover, ML can have intended or unintended consequences that may be beneficial or harmful to individuals and society, both in the short-term and in the long-term.

– Justice and fairness: ML can affect the justice and fairness of individuals and society. This can involve aspects such as equality, equity, diversity, inclusion, accessibility, accountability, redress, or participation. Moreover, ML can create or exacerbate inequalities or injustices that may affect certain groups or individuals more than others, such as minorities, vulnerable, or marginalized populations.

– Human dignity and human rights: ML can affect the human dignity and human rights of individuals and society. This can involve aspects such as respect, recognition, autonomy, agency, identity, privacy, Security, freedom, or democracy. Moreover, ML can violate or undermine human dignity and human rights if it is used for malicious or unethical purposes, such as exploitation, discrimination, manipulation, coercion, control, or oppression.

– Human values and ethics: ML can reflect or challenge human values and ethics of individuals and society. This can involve aspects such as morality, integrity, honesty, compassion, empathy, solidarity or altruism. Moreover, ML can create or raise new or emerging values and ethics that may not be well-defined or well-understood, such as trustworthiness, explainability, responsibility, or sustainability.

Are you a technical, business or legal professional who works with technology adoption? Do you want to learn how to apply ethical frameworks and principles to your technology work and decision-making, understand the legal implications and challenges of new technologies and old laws, and navigate the complex and dynamic environment of technology innovation and regulation? If so, you need to check out this new book: Ethics, Law and Technology: Navigating Technology Adoption Challenges. This book is a practical guide for professionals who want to learn from the experts and stay updated in this fast-changing and exciting field.

Technology is the application of scientific knowledge and skills to produce goods and services that meet human needs and wants. Technology adoption or utilization decisions create uncertainties that require consideration from an ethical perspective because they involve complex and dynamic interactions between human values and interests, technological capabilities and limitations, and social and environmental contexts and consequences. Technology adoption or utilization decisions are not merely technical or economic choices, but also moral choices that reflect and affect our individual and collective well-being, rights and responsibilities. Ethics is relevant to the adoption of new technology at the individual, organizational and societal levels because it helps us evaluate the impacts and implications of technology on human values and interests. Technology adoption is not a neutral process, but rather a complex and dynamic one that involves multiple stakeholders, trade-offs, risks and benefits

The Ethics of Technology Adoption

On the other hand, technology can challenge and change our ethical understanding and reasoning by introducing new possibilities, dilemmas, and consequences that were not previously considered. For example, technology can raise questions about the moral status of non-human entities, such as animals, plants, robots, and digital agents, the responsibility and accountability of human and machine agents, and the impact of technology on human dignity, autonomy, and well-being.

The Ethics of Technology Adoption at an individual level

At the individual level, technology adoption or utilization decisions create uncertainties about how to use technology in ways that are consistent with our personal values and goals, and that do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. For example, we may face challenges and need to adopt best practices in the light of  uncertainties about how to balance our privacy and security with our convenience and connectivity, how to manage our digital identity and reputation, and how to cope with the psychological and emotional effects of technology use. At the individual level, ethics can help us make informed and responsible choices about how to use technology in our personal and professional lives.

The Ethics of Technology Adoption at an organizational level

At the organizational level, technology adoption or utilization decisions create uncertainties about how to design and implement technology in ways that are aligned with our organizational mission, vision and values, and that do not harm or exploit our stakeholders or society at large. When preplanning the scaling of a new technology,  it should be considered that what may be ethically acceptable at an individual scale may become problematic at a larger social scale. For example, we may face uncertainties about how to ensure the accessibility, inclusivity, fairness and transparency of our technology, how to protect the data and information of our customers, employees and partners, and how to mitigate the risks and liabilities of our technology.This is an issue for all companies facing technology adoption decisions, not just those developing new technologies.

The Ethics of Technology Adoption at a societal level

At the societal level, technology adoption or utilization decisions create uncertainties about how to address the broader social and environmental challenges and opportunities that technology creates. For example, we may face uncertainties about how to promote the common good, foster social justice and human rights, and protect the planet and its resources. At the societal level, ethics can help us address the broader social and environmental challenges and opportunities that technology creates.

Conclusion

Technology adoption or utilization decisions require consideration from an ethical perspective because they have significant moral implications for ourselves, others and future generations. By applying ethical principles and values to our technology decisions, we can reduce uncertainties, resolve dilemmas, and enhance trust and innovation. Ethics and technology are not separate domains, but rather intertwined aspects of human life that require constant reflection, dialogue, and evaluation. By applying ethical thinking to the practical concerns of technology, we can ensure that our technological systems and practices are aligned with our moral values and goals.

Are you a technical, business or legal professional who works with technology adoption? Do you want to learn how to apply ethical frameworks and principles to your technology work and decision-making, understand the legal implications and challenges of new technologies and old laws, and navigate the complex and dynamic environment of technology innovation and regulation? If so, you need to check out this new book: Ethics, Law and Technology: Navigating Technology Adoption Challenges. This book is a practical guide for professionals who want to learn from the experts and stay updated in this fast-changing and exciting field.

Virtue ethics is a normative ethical theory that focuses on the character of the moral agent rather than the rightness or wrongness of an action. It is one of the three major approaches in ethics, along with consequentialism and deontology. Virtue ethics is based on the idea that we should aim to cultivate virtuous habits that will help us act in accordance with moral values. The origin of virtue ethics can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy, especially the works of Plato and Aristotle. They argued that the goal of human life is to achieve eudaimonia, which is often translated as happiness or well-being, but also implies a sense of fulfillment and flourishing. To attain eudaimonia, one must develop and exercise the virtues, which are excellences of character that enable us to function well as rational and social beings. Some examples of virtues are courage, justice, wisdom, honesty, generosity, and loyalty. These are not fixed rules or principles, but rather flexible and context-dependent dispositions that guide our actions, thoughts, and feelings in various situations. Virtues are acquired through practice and habituation, not through following commands or calculating consequences. As Aristotle famously said, “We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts” .

Virtue Ethics

One of the distinctive features of virtue ethics is that it emphasizes the role of practical wisdom (phronesis) in moral decision-making. Practical wisdom is the ability to discern the best course of action in a given circumstance, taking into account the relevant facts, the moral values at stake, and the particular situation of the agent. It is not a scientific or theoretical knowledge, but rather a skill that is learned through experience and education. Practical wisdom enables us to apply the general ideals of virtue to concrete cases and to balance different and sometimes conflicting values.  Virtue ethics has several advantages over other ethical theories. First, it provides a more realistic and holistic account of human nature and morality, recognizing that we are not only rational but also emotional, social, and embodied beings. Second, it offers a more positive and aspirational vision of ethics, encouraging us to develop our moral character and to seek excellence rather than merely avoid wrongdoing. Third, it respects the diversity and complexity of moral situations, allowing for flexibility and nuance rather than imposing rigid and universal rules.

However, virtue ethics also faces some challenges and criticisms. One is that it may be too vague or subjective to provide clear and consistent guidance for moral action. How do we define and measure the virtues? How do we resolve conflicts between different virtues or different interpretations of the same virtue? How do we deal with moral dilemmas where no option seems virtuous? Another challenge is that virtue ethics may be too demanding or elitist to be applicable to ordinary people. How can we attain the virtues in a world full of temptations, pressures, and obstacles? How can we ensure that we have the proper education and environment to foster our moral development? How can we avoid being influenced by corrupting factors such as self-interest, bias, or prejudice?

Despite these difficulties, virtue ethics remains a rich and influential tradition that has inspired many thinkers and practitioners across different fields and cultures. Some of the major variants in virtue ethics include:

Eudaimonist Virtue Ethics: This framework is based on the ancient Greek concept of eudaimonia, which means happiness or well-being. It holds that the ultimate goal of human life is to achieve eudaimonia, which is possible only by developing and exercising the virtues. The virtues are excellences of character that enable us to function well as rational and social beings. The most influential version of this framework was proposed by Aristotle, who identified a list of moral and intellectual virtues and argued that they are acquired through habituation and education.

Agent-Based and Exemplarist Virtue Ethics: This framework is based on the idea that we can identify the virtues by looking at the traits and actions of moral exemplars, such as saints, heroes, or role models. It holds that the virtues are not defined by rules or principles, but by common-sense intuitions that we as observers have about admirable people. The most influential version of this framework was proposed by Michael Slote (see e.g. [Slote 2020]), who argued that the virtues are based on empathic caring and respect for others.

Target-Centered Virtue Ethics: This framework is based on the idea that we can identify the virtues by looking at the ends or goals that they aim at. It holds that the virtues are not defined by human nature or moral ideals, but by the specific context and situation in which they are exercised. The most influential version of this framework was proposed by Christine Swanton ( see e.g., [Swanton 2003]), who argued that the virtues are based on promoting the well-being of oneself and others in a pluralistic and complex world.

Ethics of Care: This framework is based on the idea that we can identify the virtues by looking at the relationships and responsibilities that we have with others. It holds that the virtues are not defined by abstract or universal values, but by concrete and particular needs and emotions. The most influential version of this framework was proposed by Carol Gilligan ( See e.g. [Gilligan 1982]), who argued that the virtues are based on caring and nurturing, especially for those who are vulnerable or dependent.

[Gilligan 1982].  Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

[Slote 2020]        Slote, M. (2020). Agent-based virtue ethics. Handbuch Tugend und Tugendethik, 1-10. Springer

[Swanton 2003] Swanton, C. (2003). Virtue ethics: A pluralistic view. Clarendon Press.