Does a Person Have a Right to Attention? Depends on What She is Doing

Author:

Kärki KaisaORCID,Kurki VisaORCID

Abstract

AbstractIt has been debated whether the so-called attention economy, in which the attention of agents is measured and sold, jeopardizes something of value. One strand of this discussion has focused on so-called attention rights, asking: should attention be legally protected, either by introducing novel rights or by extending the scope of pre-existing rights? In this paper, however, in order to further this discussion, we ask: How is attention already protected legally? In what situations does a person have the right to attention under current law?Unlike (Chomanski, Neuroethics 16:1–11, 2023), who discusses an overall right to attention, or (Puri, Rutgers Law Record 48:206–221, 2021), who discusses an overall right to attentional privacy, in this paper we focus on two types of situations in which a person’s attention is already protected by legal regulation. Sustained attention-requiring tasks can be jeopardized by distractions whereas attentiveness to certain kind of stimuli can be jeopardized by immersive stimuli. That is why distractions are regulated in situations where an agent has what we call a concentration right and immersive stimuli are regulated in situations where an agent has what we call a duty to be attentive. The further analysis of these situations provides an understanding of the legal means by which attention is already regulated, which can be helpful when thinking about how it should be regulated in the future.

Funder

Koneen Säätiö

Emil Aaltosen Säätiö

University of Helsinki

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

History and Philosophy of Science,Philosophy

Reference35 articles.

1. An Act Relating to Informed Consent to an Abortion, H.B. 15, 82nd. Leg. Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2011)

2. Bowen, J. (2022). The interest theory of rights at the margins: Posthumous rights. In M. McBride & V. A. J. Kurki (Eds.), Without Trimmings: The Legal, Moral, and Political Philosophy of Matthew Kramer (pp. 51–72). Oxford University Press.

3. Chomanski, B. (2023). Mental integrity in the attention economy: In search of the right to attention. Neuroethics, 16(8), 1–11.

4. Criminal Code (rikoslaki, Finland 39/1889)

5. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive Functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Digital Distraction, Attention Regulation, and Inequality;Philosophy & Technology;2024-01-12

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3