Abstract
AbstractIn Algorithms & Autonomy, Rubel, Castro, and Pham (hereafter RCP), argue that the concept of autonomy is especially central to understanding important moral problems about algorithms. In particular, autonomy plays a role in analyzing the version of social contract theory that they endorse. I argue that although RCP are largely correct in their diagnosis of what is wrong with the algorithms they consider, those diagnoses can be appropriated by moral theories RCP see as in competition with their autonomy based theory. Most notably, proponents of consequentialism and virtue ethics can appropriate RCPs insights. This is good news because RCP’s social contract theory is vulnerable to a well known class of counterexamples. The most significant contribution of RCP, if I am right, is in their identification, presentation, and evaluation of concrete cases involving algorithms and not in the more controversial claims about theoretical ethics that RCP themselves see as central to what they are doing.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference8 articles.
1. Brandt, R.: Some merits of one form of rule-utilitarianism. In: University of Colorado Studies in Philosophy, pp. 1–22. University of Colorado (1967)
2. Brennan, J.: The Best Moral Theory Ever: The Merits and Methodology of Moral Theorizing. Dissertation. University of Arizona (2007)
3. Lyons, D.: Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1965)
4. Parfit, D.: On what Matters, vol. 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)
5. Podgorski, A.: Wouldn’t it be Nice? Moral rules and distant worlds. Nous. 52(2), 279–294 (2018)