The Epistemology and Ethics of Internet Information



Abstract Beginning with the initial premise that as the Internet has a global character, the paper will argue that the normative evaluation of digital information on the Internet necessitates an evaluative model that is itself universal and global in character [1]. The paper will show that information has a dual normative structure that commits all disseminators of information to both epistemological and ethical norms. Based on the dual normative characterization of information the paper will seek to demonstrate: (1) that information and internet information (interformation) specifically, has an inherent normative structure that commits its producers, disseminators, communicators and users, everyone in fact that deals with information, to certain mandatory epistemological and ethical commitments; and (2) that the negligent or purposeful abuse of information in violation of the epistemological and ethical commitments to which it gives rise is also a violation of universal rights to freedom and wellbeing to which all agents are entitled by virtue of being agents, and in particular informational agents.


Normative Structure Engineer Ethic Digital Information Ethical Norm Internet Information 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gorniak-Kocikowska, K. (1996). The Computer Revolution and the Problem of Global Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 2:177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eco, Umberto (1989) The Open Work, translated by Anna Cancogni. Cambridge, MA., Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Floridi, Luciano (2005). Is Semantic Information Meaningful Data? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LXX(2):351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dretske, Fred (1999) Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Stanford, CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gewirth, A. (1998) The Community of Rights. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spence, E. (2006) Ethics Within Reason: A Neo-Gewirthian Approach. Lanham, Lexington Books (a division of Rowman and Littlefield).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beyleveld, Deryck (1991) The Dialectical Necessity of Morality: An Analysis and Defence of Alan Gewirth’s Argument to the Principle of Generic Consistency. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gewirth, A. (1978) Reason and Morality. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simmons, P. and Spence, E. (2006) The Practice and Ethics of Media Release Journalism. Australian Journalism Review, volume 28(1), July 2006, pp.67–181.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quinn, A. and Spence, E. (2007) Two Dimensions of Photo Manipulation: Correction and Corruption. Melbourne: Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spence, E. (2005) Corruption in the Media. In Jeanette Kennett (Ed.), Contemporary Issues in Governance: Proceedings of the GovNet Annual Conference, Melbourne, Monash University, ISBN 0-7326-2287-5.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miller, S., Roberts, P., & Spence, E. (2005) Corruption and Anti-corruption: An Applied Philosophical Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spence, E. & Van Heekeren, B. (2005) Advertising Ethics. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spence, E. (2008) Media Corruption, International Journal of Applied Philosophy, Volume 22:2, Fall 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TwenteEnschedeNetherlands

Personalised recommendations