pp 1–7 | Cite as

Enculturating Algorithms

  • Rafael Capurro
Invited Contribution


The paper deals with the difference between who and what we are in order to take an ethical perspective on algorithms and their regulation. The present casting of ourselves as homo digitalis implies the possibility of projecting who we are as social beings sharing a world, into the digital medium, thereby engendering what can be called digital whoness, or a digital reification of ourselves. A main ethical challenge for the evolving digital age consists in unveiling this ethical difference, particularly when dealing with algorithms and their regulation in the context of human relationships. The paper addresses by way of example some issues raised by autonomous cars.


Algorithms Culture Ethics Autonomous cars 



  1. 1.
    Ziegenbalg J (1996) Algorithmen: von Hammurapi bis Gödel. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Introna LD, Hayes N (2011) On sociomaterial imbrications: what plagiarism detection systems reveal and why it matters. Inf Organ 21(2):107–122Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seyfert R, Roberge J (eds) (2016) Algorithmic cultures: essays on meaning, performance and new technologies. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Introna L (2016) The algorithmic choreography of the impressionable subject. In: Seyfert R, Roberge J (eds) Algorithmic cultures: essays on meaning, performance and new technologies. Routledge, London, pp 26–51Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mittelstadt BD, Allo P, Taddeo M, Wachter S, Floridi L (2016) The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society 3(2). Accessed 3 June 2019
  6. 6.
    Capurro R (2017a) Homo Digitalis. Beiträge zur Ontologie, Anthropologie und Ethik der digitalen Technik. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arendt H (1998) The human condition, 2nd edn. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Capurro R, Eldred M, Nagel D (2013) Digital whoness. Identity, privacy and freedom in the cyberworld. de Gruyter, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elberfeld R (2017) Philosophieren in einer globalisierten Welt. In: Wege zu einer transformativen Phänomenologie. Alber, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hume D (2015) A treatise of human nature. Being an attempt to introduce the experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects. eBooks@Adelaide, University of Adelaide. Accessed 3 June 2019
  11. 11.
    Ostermeier T (2017) Hamlet in der Mausefalle. Lettre International 118:96–101Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eldred M (2013) Phenomenology of whoness: identity, privacy, trust and freedom. In: Capurro R, Eldred M, Nagel D (eds) Digital whoness: identity, privacy and freedom in the cyberworld. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 19–59Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Capurro R (2005) Between trust and anxiety. On the moods of information society. In: Keeble R (ed) Communication ethics today. Troubadour Publishing Ltd., Leicester, pp 187–196. Accessed 3 June 2019
  14. 14.
    Sloterdijk P (2009) Du musst dein Leben ändern. Über Anthropotechnik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Algorithm Watch (2017) Accessed 3 June 2019
  16. 16.
    Lanchester J (2017) You are the product. In: London Review of Books, vol 39 No. 16, pp 3–10. Accessed 3 June 2019
  17. 17.
    Brunton F, Nissenbaum H (2015) Obfuscation. A user’s guide for privacy and protest. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nissenbaum H (2010) Privacy in context. Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Knuth D (1968/69) The art of computer programming. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stalder F (2016) Kultur der Digitalität. Suhrkamp Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dobusch L (2013) Tag archive: algorithm regulation #4: algorithm as a practice. January 14. In: Dobusch L, Mader P, Quack S (eds) Governance across borders. Transnational fields and transversal themes. A blogbook. Accessed 3 June 2019
  22. 22.
    Jullien F (2005) Nourrir sa vie. À l'écart du bonheur. Seuil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Capurro R (2010) The Dao of the information society in China and the task of intercultural information ethics. Accessed 3 June 2019
  24. 24.
    AD (2025) The automated driving community. Accessed 3 June 2019
  25. 25.
    Leonhardt D (2017) Driverless cars made me nervous. Then I tried one. In: The New York Times International Weekly, October 22. Accessed 3 June 2019
  26. 26.
    Capurro R (2017b) Autonomous zombies are not an option. In: 2015 AD. The Automated Driving Community, June 28. Accessed 3 June 2019
  27. 27.
    Floridi L, Sanders JW (2004) On the morality of artificial agents. Mind Mach 14(3):349–379Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Johnson DG, Miller KW (2008) Un-making artificial moral agents. Ethics Inf Technol 10:123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Capurro R (2015) Toward a comparative theory of agents. In: Gutmann M, Decker M, Knifka J (eds) Evolutionary robotics, organic computing and adaptive ambience. LIT, Vienna, pp 81–96. Accessed 3 June 2019
  30. 30.
    Raulff U (2015) Das letzte Jahrhundert der Pferde. Geschichte einer Trennung. Beck, MünchenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Winograd T, Flores F (1986) Understanding computers and cognition. A new foundation for design. Ablex, NorwoodGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hegel GWF (2010) The science of logic (English translation; edited by di Giovanni G). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marx K (1969) Thesen über Feuerbach. In: Marx-Engels Werke, vol 3. Dietz Verlag, Berlin. Accessed 3 June 2019

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafael Capurro
    • 1
  1. 1.KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations