Paul Formosa

Concerns about the toxicity of the internet and social media are widespread. Many reasons have been offered for why social media increases online toxicity, from bad algorithms to the rise of online trolling, but perhaps the most prominent explanation has been the negative effects of social media on empathy. In this paper, we offer a framework of digital empathy by first outlining a descriptive account of digital empathy, encompassing both affective and cognitive components. By “digital empathy”, we mean empathy mediated through digital environments. We also explore the normative impacts of platforms on digital empathy and offer four main categories of moral assessment: (1) morally problematic one-off failures of digital empathy; (2) aggregate harms of failures of digital empathy; (3) impacts of recommendation systems on digital empathy by amplifying, obscuring, framing, and rushing targets of empathy; and (4) moral deskilling of empathy due to widespread use of social media. We also critically explore harm-based justifications for moderating content to explicitly govern empathetic relationships between users of a platform. We demonstrate how discussions of digital empathy can inform and enhance broader debates about the ethics of online content moderation, thereby further illuminating the moral, social, and political implications of social media’s role in facilitating user interactions.

Recent advances in Generative AI (GenAI) are transforming creative industries, raising urgent ethical questions. This paper explores the impacts of GenAI on the meaningfulness of work for specialist, embedded, and support creatives. By integrating Amabile’s componential model of creativity with a holistic framework of meaningful work, we explore five dimensions of meaningfulness: task integrity, skill cultivation, task significance, autonomy, and belongingness. We emphasize the dual impacts of GenAI, highlighting positive potential for democratization and task consolidation in creative work, alongside negative threats of deskilling, autonomy erosion, and worker isolation. We outline structural implications of our analysis, including the shift of creative practice from creation to curation, the emergence of a penalty for AI use, and rising professional precarity. We conclude by arguing that accurate ethical assessment requires recognizing the complex interdependencies between these dimensions, as the various impacts of AI can cascade, reinforce, and compensate for one another.

As Artificial Intelligence is increasingly employed to mediate human interactions, there is uncertainty around how these technologies impact human behaviour and how such mediated interactions are perceived. One such case is the expanding use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) to create and disseminate content across a range of media contexts, known as AI-Mediated Communication (AI-MC). Such cases raise important questions about how those on the receiving end of such outputs respond to these new forms of interpersonal communications. Based on evaluating a piece of written text, this study explores how recipients' perceptions of the content creator's trustworthiness and authenticity, alongside their willingness to use the content (via knowledge uptake) are impacted by author type (human, AI-assisted, or fully AI) and media context (workplace email vs. social media post). We conducted a pre-registered experimental survey study with a 3 (author type) x 2 (media context) between-subjects factorial design (N = 547) where participants evaluated a piece of written text. Our findings demonstrate an “AI penalty”, with communication involving AI being perceived as less trustworthy, less authentic, and less useful for knowledge uptake. We also identify a “disclosure paradox”, as while participants believed it is important to disclose AI use, they also penalise the communication when such disclosure is made, which risks creating perverse incentives for non-disclosure of GenAI use for written communications.

Using artificial intelligence (AI) to make decisions in human resource management (HRM) raises questions of how fair employees perceive these decisions to be and whether they experience respectful treatment (i.e., interactional justice). In this experimental survey study with open-ended qualitative questions, we examine decision making in six HRM functions and manipulate the decision maker (AI or human) and decision valence (positive or negative) to determine their impact on individuals’ experiences of interactional justice, trust, dehumanization, and perceptions of decision-maker role appropriate- ness. In terms of decision makers, the use of human decision makers over AIs generally resulted in better perceptions of respectful treatment. In terms of decision valence, people experiencing positive over negative decisions generally resulted in better perceptions of respectful treatment. In instances where these cases conflict, on some indicators people preferred positive AI decisions over negative human decisions. Qualitative responses show how people identify justice concerns with both AI and human decision making. We outline implications for theory, practice, and future research.

Much of the philosophical discussion of video game ethics is dominated by the literature on the Gamer's Dilemma, which forces us to focus on the ethics of certain forms of extreme virtual content in video games, such as virtual murder or molestation. While a focus on the ethics of video game content is important, we argue that scrutinizing the ethics of video game systems is needed to properly capture the full range of ethical concerns raised by video games. Drawing on a distinction between intravirtual and extravirtual effects, we identify ethical issues with video game content and, by linking to the dark patterns literature, video game systems. To illustrate our view, we give examples of how a game can appear to have morally objectionable content without the game being, at least clearly, morally objectionable, and how a game can appear to be morally unobjectionable despite having morally objectionable systems.

The rapid adoption of commercial Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) products raises important questions around the impact this technology will have on our communicative interactions. This paper provides an analysis of some of the potential implications that Artificial Intelligence-Mediated Communication (AI-MC) may have on epistemic trust in online communications, specifically on social media. We argue that AI-MC poses a risk to epistemic trust being diminished in online communications on both normative and descriptive grounds. Descriptively, AI-MC seems to (roughly) lower levels of epistemic trust. Normatively, we argue that this brings about the following dilemma. On the one hand, there are at least some instances where we should epistemically trust AI-MC less, and therefore the reduction in epistemic trust is justified in these instances. On the other hand, there are also instances where we epistemically trust AI-MC less, but this reduction in epistemic trust is not justified, resulting in discrimination and epistemic injustice in these instances. The difficulty in knowing which of these two groups any instance of AI-MC belongs to brings about the AI-MC dilemma: We must choose between maintaining normal levels of epistemic trust and risking epistemic gullibility when reduced trust is justified, or adopting generally reduced epistemic trust and risking epistemic injustice when such reduced trust is unjustified. Navigating this choice between problematic alternatives creates a significant challenge for social media as an epistemic environment.

Concerns around Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in higher education have so far largely centred on assessment integrity, resulting in fundamental questions about students’ broader engagement with these tools remaining underexplored. This paper reports on the findings of a survey that forms part of a wider study, comprising the first empirical investigation of GenAI use by university students as a method of engaging with their academic readings. Our survey of 101 students shows that over half of all students surveyed used GenAI to some degree as a method of engaging with their unit readings. Our findings suggest that students turn to these tools in response to time constraints and conceptual difficulties, while maintaining complex attitudes toward their use: most welcome their availability, yet few report trusting or relying on GenAI-generated interpretations or summaries of texts. Importantly, our data reveals substantial demographic variations in usage patterns, with international students and those taking subjects as electives showing significantly higher rates of AI use to assist with reading. This suggests GenAI tools may be serving as important mediators for attempting to overcome epistemic barriers to learning, particularly for students who face additional linguistic or disciplinary challenges.

This paper provides a philosophically informed and robust account of the global justice implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI). We first discuss some of the key theories of global justice, before justifying our focus on the Capabilities Approach as a useful framework for understanding the context-specific impacts of AI on low- to middle-income countries. We then highlight some of the harms and burdens facing low- to middle-income countries within the context of both AI use and the AI supply chain, by analyzing the extraction of _materials_, which includes mineral extraction and the environmental harms associated with it, and the extraction of _labor_, which includes unethical labor practices, low wages, and the trauma experienced by some AI workers. We then outline some of the potential harms and benefits that AI poses, how these are distributed, and what global justice implications this has for low- to middle-income countries. Finally, we articulate the global justice significance of AI by utilizing the Capabilities Approach. We argue that AI must be considered from a global justice perspective given that, globally, AI puts significant downward pressure on several elements of well-being thereby making it harder for people to achieve threshold levels of the central human capabilities needed for a life of dignity.

The human factor in information systems is a large vulnerability when implementing cybersecurity, and many approaches, including technical and policy driven solutions, seek to mitigate this vulnerability. Decisions to apply technical or policy solutions must consider how an individual’s values and moral stance influence their responses to these implementations. Our research aims to evaluate how individuals prioritise different ethical principles when making cybersecurity sensitive decisions and how much perceived choice they have when doing so. Further, we sought to use participants’ responses to cybersecurity scenarios to create profiles that describe their values and individual factors including personality. Participants (n = 193) in our study responded to five different ethically sensitive cybersecurity scenarios in random order, selecting their action in that scenario and rating and ranking of the ethical principles (i.e., Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Justice, Autonomy, Explicability) behind that action. Using participants’ demographics, personality, values, and cyber hygiene practices, we created profiles using machine learning to predict participants’ choices and the principle of most importance to them across scenarios. Further, we found that, generalising, for our participants Autonomy was the most important ethical principle in our scenarios, followed by Justice. Our study also suggests that participants felt they had some agency in their decision making and they were able to weigh up different ethical principles.

Generative AI technologies have the potential to be socially and politically transformative. In this paper, we focus on exploring the potential impacts that Generative AI could have on the functioning of our democracies and the nature of citizenship. We do so by drawing on accounts of deliberative democracy and the deliberative virtues associated with it, as well as the reciprocal impacts that social media and Generative AI will have on each other and the broader information landscape. Drawing on this background theory, we outline some of the key positive and negative impacts that Generative AI is likely to have on democratic citizenship. The political significance of these impacts suggests the need for further regulation.

This paper provides a philosophically informed and robust account of the global justice implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI). We first discuss some of the key theories of global justice, before justifying our focus on the Capabilities Approach as a useful framework for understanding the context-specific impacts of AI on lowto middle-income countries. We then highlight some of the harms and burdens facing low- to middle-income countries within the context of both AI use and the AI supply chain, by analyzing the extraction of materials, which includes mineral extraction and the environmental harms associated with it, and the extraction of labor, which includes unethical labor practices, low wages, and the trauma experienced by some AI workers. We then outline some of the potential harms and benefits that AI poses, how these are distributed, and what global justice implications this has for low- to middle-income countries. Finally, we articulate the global justice significance of AI by utilizing the Capabilities Approach. We argue that AI must be considered from a global justice perspective given that, globally, AI puts significant downward pressure on several elements of well-being thereby making it harder for people to achieve threshold levels of the central human capabilities needed for a life of dignity.

The increasing use of Generative AI raises many ethical, philosophical, and legal issues. A key issue here is uncertainties about how different degrees of Generative AI assistance in the production of text impacts assessments of the human authorship of that text. To explore this issue, we developed an experimental mixed methods survey study (N = 602) asking participants to reflect on a scenario of a human author receiving assistance to write a short novel as part of a 3 (high, medium, or low degrees of assistance) X 2 (human or AI assistant) factorial design. We found that, for a human author, the degree of assistance they receive matters for our assessments of their level of authorship, creatorship, and responsibility, but not what or who rendered that assistance, although it was more important to disclose human rather than AI assistance. However, in our assessments of the assisting agent, human assistants were viewed as warranting higher rates of authorship, creatorship, and responsibility, compared to AI assistants rendering the same level of support. These results help us to better understand emerging norms around collaborative human-AI generated text, with implications for other types of collaborative content creation.

The Gamer’s Dilemma is based on the intuitions that in single-player video games fictional acts of murder are seen as morally acceptable whereas fictional acts of sexual assault are seen as morally unacceptable. Recently, it has been suggested that these intuitions may apply across different forms of media as part of a broader Paradox of Fictionally Going Too Far. This study aims to empirically explore this issue by determining whether fictional murder is seen as more morally acceptable than fictional sexual assault across different media types, and whether audio-visuality and the degree of agency afforded by the medium influences these judgments. An experimental survey study was developed where participants responded to imaginary fictional scenarios as part of a 2 (engages with fictional murder or fictional sexual assault) X 2 (in a high or low agency) X 2 (audio-visual or non-audio-visual medium) factorial design. It was found that fictional murder was seen to be more morally acceptable than fictional sexual assault across all media types, providing empirical support for the Paradox of Fictionally Going Too Far. It was also found that the audio-visuality and degree of agency influenced judgments of moral acceptability.

The Gamer’s Dilemma challenges us to justify the moral difference between enacting virtual murder and virtual child molestation in video games. The Dilemma relies for its argumentative force on the claim that there is an intuitive moral difference between these acts, with the former intuited as morally acceptable and the latter as morally unacceptable. However, there has been no empirical investigation of these claims. To explore these issues, we developed an experimental survey study in which participants were asked to reflect on imaginary video game scenarios as part of a 2 (undertake virtual murder or molestation) X 2 (against an adult or child) X 2 (in a high or low realism virtual environment) factorial design. We found that there was a significant difference between people’s views about virtual murder and virtual molestation. Whether the virtual act was performed against an adult or child was non-significant in most conditions, whereas whether it was performed in a high or low realism virtual environment was significant in most conditions. Gender did not impact these results, whereas perceived gaming experience, hours of video game play per week, and integrity did. These results provide an empirical grounding for future discussions of the Gamer's Dilemma.

The negative impacts of social media have given rise to philosophical questions around whether social media companies have the authority to regulate user-generated content on their platforms. The most popular justification for that authority is to appeal to private ownership rights. Social media companies own their platforms, and their ownership comes with various rights that ground their authority to moderate user-generated content on their platforms. However, we argue that ownership rights can be limited when their exercise results in significant harms to others or the perpetration of injustices. We outline some of the substantive harms that social media platforms inflict through their practices of content moderation and some of the procedural injustices that arise through their arbitrary application of community guidelines. This provides a normative basis for calls to better regulate user-generated content on social media platforms. We conclude by considering some of the political and legal implications of our argument.

The Gamer’s Dilemma refers to the philosophical challenge of justifying the intuitive difference people seem to see between the moral permissibility of enacting virtual murder and the moral impermissibility of enacting virtual child molestation in video games (Luck Ethics and Information Technology, 1:31, 2009). Recently, Luck in Philosophia, 50:1287–1308, 2022 has argued that the Gamer’s Dilemma is actually an instance of a more general “paradox”, which he calls the “paradox of treating wrongdoing lightly”, and he proposes a graveness resolution to this paradox. In response, we argue for four key claims. First, we accept Luck’s expansion of the Gamer’s Dilemma to be applicable to a wider set of media, but give a novel recasting of this in terms of the Paradox of Fictionally Going Too Far. Second, we develop a novel criticism of Luck in Philosophia, 50:1287–1308, 2022 graveness resolution to this broader paradox. Third, we argue that the Paradox of Fictionally Going Too Far helps to expose an implicit moralism in the Gamer’s Dilemma literature when compared to relevant nearby literatures about other forms of media. Fourth, we consider a range of non-moral, cultural and media conventions that plausibly help to dissolve the intuitive moral gap between non-sexual and sexual violence that is central to this paradox.

The increasing workplace use of artificially intelligent (AI) technologies has implications for the experience of meaningful human work. Meaningful work refers to the perception that one’s work has worth, significance, or a higher purpose. The development and organisational deployment of AI is accelerating, but the ways in which this will support or diminish opportunities for meaningful work and the ethical implications of these changes remain under-explored. This conceptual paper is positioned at the intersection of the meaningful work and ethical AI literatures and offers a detailed assessment of the ways in which the deployment of AI can enhance or diminish employees’ experiences of meaningful work. We first outline the nature of meaningful work and draw on philosophical and business ethics accounts to establish its ethical importance. We then explore the impacts of three paths of AI deployment (replacing some tasks, ‘tending the machine’, and amplifying human skills) across five dimensions constituting a holistic account of meaningful work, and finally assess the ethical implications. In doing so we help to contextualise the meaningful work literature for the era of AI, extend the ethical AI literature into the workplace, and conclude with a range of practical implications and future research directions.

While autonomous vehicles (AVs) are not designed to harm people, harming people is an inevitable by-product of their operation. How are AVs to deal ethically with situations where harming people is inevitable? Rather than focus on the much-discussed question of what choices AVs should make, we can also ask the much less discussed question of who gets to decide what AVs should do in such cases. Here there are two key options: AVs with a personal ethics setting (PES) or an “ethical knob” that end users can control or AVs with a mandatory ethics setting (MES) that end users cannot control. Which option, a PES or an MES, is best and why? This chapter argues, by drawing on the choice architecture literature, in favor of a hybrid view that requires mandated default choice settings while allowing for limited end user control.

Morality meters are a commonly used mechanic in many ethically notable video games. However, there have been several theoretical critiques of such meters, including that people can find them alienating, they can instrumentalise morality, and they reduce morality to a binary of good and evil with no room for complexity. While there has been much theoretical discussion of these issues, there has been far less empirical investigation. We address this gap through a qualitative study that involved participants playing a custom-built visual novel game (The Great Fire) with different intuitive and counter-intuitive morality meter settings. Overall, we found that players’ attitudes towards the morality meter in this game was complex, context sensitive and variable throughout gameplay and that the intuitiveness of the meter encouraged participants to treat the meter more ‘as a moral guide’ that prompts reflection and less ‘as a score’ to be engaged with reactively.

Artificial Social Agents (ASAs), which are AI software driven entities programmed with rules and preferences to act autonomously and socially with humans, are increasingly playing roles in society. As their sophistication grows, humans will share greater amounts of personal information, thoughts, and feelings with ASAs, which has significant ethical implications. We conducted a study to investigate what ethical principles are of relative importance when people engage with ASAs and whether there is a relationship between people’s values and the ethical principles they prioritise. The study uses scenarios, embedded with the five AI4People ethical principles (Beneficence, Non-maleficence, Autonomy, Justice, and Explicability), involving ASAs taking on roles traditionally played by humans to understand whether these roles and behaviours (including dialogues) are seen as acceptable or unacceptable. Results from 268 participants reveal the greatest sensitivity to ASA behaviours that relate to Autonomy, Justice, Explicability, and the privacy of their personal data. Models were created using Schwartz’s Refined Values as a possible indicator of how stakeholders discern and prioritise the different AI4People ethical principles when interacting with ASAs. Our findings raise issues around the ethical acceptability of ASAs for nudging and changing behaviour due to participants’ desire for autonomy and their concerns over deceptive ASA behaviours such as pretending to have memories and emotions.

The ethical issues raised by cybersecurity practices and technologies are of critical importance. However, there is disagreement about what is the best ethical framework for understanding those issues. In this paper we seek to address this shortcoming through the introduction of a principlist ethical framework for cybersecurity that builds on existing work in adjacent fields of applied ethics, bioethics, and AI ethics. By redeploying the AI4People framework, we develop a domain-relevant specification of five ethical principles in cybersecurity: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, and explicability. We then illustrate the advantages of this principlist framework by examining the ethical issues raised by four common cybersecurity contexts: penetration testing, distributed denial of service attacks (DDoS), ransomware, and system administration. These case analyses demonstrate the utility of this principlist framework as a basis for understanding cybersecurity ethics and for cultivating the ethical expertise and ethical sensitivity of cybersecurity professionals and other stakeholders.

In his paper, ‘What moral work can Nussbaum’s account of human dignity do in the context of dementia care?’, Soofi seeks to modify Nussbaum’s conception of dignity to deal with four key objections that arise when appeals to dignity are made in the context of dementia care. We will not discuss the first of these, the redundancy of dignity talk, since this issue has already been much discussed in the literature. Instead, we will focus on the remaining three issues raised, that of the exclusion of persons with advanced dementia from having dignity, unjustified speciesism as a ground of human dignity, and the unclear practical implications that follow from having dignity.

Intuitively, many people seem to hold that engaging in acts of virtual murder in videogames is morally permissible, whereas engaging in acts of virtual child molestation is morally impermissible. The Gamer’s Dilemma (Luck in Ethics Inf Technol 11:31–36, 2009) challenges these intuitions by arguing that it is unclear whether there is a morally relevant difference between these two types of virtual actions. There are two main responses in the literature to this dilemma. First, attempts to resolve the dilemma by defending an account of the relevant moral differences between virtual murder and virtual child molestation. Second, attempts to dissolve the dilemma by undermining the intuitions that ground it. In this paper, we argue that a narrow version of the Gamer’s Dilemma seems to survive attempts to resolve or dissolve it away entirely, since neither approach seems to be able to solve the dilemma for all cases. We thus provide a contextually sensitive version of the dilemma that more accurately tracks onto the intuitions of gamers. However, we also argue that the intuitions that ground the narrow version of the Dilemma may not have a moral foundation, and we put forward alternative non-moral normative foundations that seem to better account for the remaining intuitive difference between the two types of virtual actions. We also respond to proposed solutions to the Gamer’s Dilemma in novel ways and set out areas for future empirical work in this area.

How social media impacts the autonomy of its users is a topic of increasing focus. However, much of the literature that explores these impacts fails to engage in depth with the philosophical literature on autonomy. This has resulted in a failure to consider the full range of impacts that social media might have on autonomy. A deeper consideration of these impacts is thus needed, given the importance of both autonomy as a moral concept and social media as a feature of contemporary life. By drawing on this philosophical literature, we argue that autonomy is broadly a matter of developing autonomy competencies, having authentic ends and control over key aspects of your own life, and not being manipulated, coerced, and controlled by others. We show how the autonomy of users of social media can be disrespected and harmed through the control that social media can have over its users’ data, attention, and behaviour. We conclude by discussing various recommendations to better regulate social media.

Forms of Artificial Intelligence (AI) are already being deployed into clinical settings and research into its future healthcare uses is accelerating. Despite this trajectory, more research is needed regarding the impacts on patients of increasing AI decision making. In particular, the impersonal nature of AI means that its deployment in highly sensitive contexts-of-use, such as in healthcare, raises issues associated with patients’ perceptions of (un) dignified treatment. We explore this issue through an experimental vignette study comparing individuals’ perceptions of being treated in a dignified and respectful way in various healthcare decision contexts. Participants were subject to a 2 (human or AI decision maker) x 2 (positive or negative decision outcome) x 2 (diagnostic or resource allocation healthcare scenario) factorial design. We found evidence of a “human bias” (i.e., a preference for human over AI decision makers) and an “outcome bias” (i.e., a preference for positive over negative outcomes). However, we found that for perceptions of respectful and dignified interpersonal treatment, it matters more who makes the decisions in diagnostic cases and it matters more what the outcomes are for resource allocation cases. We also found that humans were consistently viewed as appropriate decision makers and AI was viewed as dehumanizing, and that participants perceived they were treated better when subject to diagnostic as opposed to resource allocation decisions. Thematic coding of open-ended text responses supported these results. We also outline the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

Rawls’s contractualist approach to justice is well known for its adoption of ideal theory. This approach starts by setting out the political goal or ideal and leaves it to non-ideal or partial compliance theory to map out how to get there. However, Rawls’s use of ideal theory has been criticized by Sen from the right and by Mouffe from the left. We critically address these concerns in the context of developing a Rawlsian approach to climate justice. While the importance of non-ideal theory for climate justice is increasingly being understood, its strategic and institutional importance for a Rawlsian approach needs further elaboration. We focus on the role of the Kantian conception of the reasonable and rational powers of persons in Rawls’s work and show how this helps us to develop a partial compliance theory that focuses on the importance of institutions and strategic political action for achieving climate justice.