Professionals, it is said, have no use for simple lists of virtues and vices. The complexities and constraints of professional roles create peculiar moral demands on the people who occupy them, and traits that are vices in ordinary life are praised as virtues in the context of professional roles. Should this disturb us, or is it naive to presume that things should be otherwise? Taking medical and legal practice as key examples, Justin Oakley and Dean Cocking develop a rigorous articulation (...) and defence of virtue ethics, contrasting it with other types of character-based ethical theories and showing that it offers a promising new approach to the ethics of professional roles. They provide insights into the central notions of professional detachment, professional integrity, and moral character in professional life, and demonstrate how a virtue-based approach can help us better understand what ethical professional-client relationships would be like. (shrink)

We argue that companion friendship is not importantly marked by self-disclosure as understood in either of these two ways. One's close friends need not be markedly similar to oneself, as is claimed by the mirror account, nor is the role of private information in establishing and maintaining intimacy important in the way claimed by the secrets view. Our claim will be that the mirror and secrets views not only fail to identify features that are in part constitutive of close or (...) companion friendship, but that they miss the mark quite broadly and fail to capture anything significant and distinctive about the ways in which friendship has an impact on the self. The article will proceed as follows. In the first section we outline our account of the self in friendship. In the next two sections we examine the mirror and secrets views and develop our own view in counterpoint to these. In the final section we defend our own account by showing how it provides the governing conditions which do distinguish friendship from other kinds of relations between persons. (shrink)

We focus here on some familiar kinds of cases of conflict between friendship and morality, and, on the basis of our account of the nature of friendship, argue for the following two claims: first, that in some cases where we are led morally astray by virtue of a relationship that makes its own demands on us, the relationship in question is properly called a friendship; second, that relationships of this kind are valuable in their own right.

"I am delighted to offer my highest praise to Dean Cocking and Jeroen van den Hoven's brilliant new book, Evil Online. The confrontation between good and evil occupies a central place in the challenges facing our human nature, and this creative investigation into the spread of evil by means of all-powerful new technologies raises fundamental questions about our morality and values. Cocking and Van den Hoven's account of the moral fog of evil forces us to face both the demons within (...) each of us as well as the demons all around us. In the end, we are all enriched by their perceptive analyses." —Phil Zimbardo, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Stanford University Principal Investigator, Stanford Prison Experiment "The internet offers new and deeply concerning opportunities for immorality, much of it shocking and extreme. This volume explains with great insight and clarity the corrupting nature of the internet and the moral confusion it has produced. It will play a vital role in the growing debate about how to balance the benefits of the internet against the risks it poses to all of us. Evil Online is an excellent book." —Roger Crisp, Professor of Moral Philosophy, University of Oxford We now live in an era defined by the ubiquity of the internet. From our everyday engagement with social media to trolls on forums and the emergence of the dark web, the internet is a space characterized by unreality, isolation, anonymity, objectification, and rampant self-obsession—the perfect breeding ground for new, unprecedented manifestations of evil. Evil Online is the first comprehensive analysis of evil and moral character in relation to our increasingly online lives. Chapters consider traditional ideas around the phenomenon of evil in moral philosophy and explore how the dawn of the internet has presented unprecedented challenges to older theoretical approaches. Cocking and Van den Hoven propose that a growing sense of moral confusion—moral fog—pushes otherwise ordinary, normal people toward evildoing, and that values basic to moral life such as autonomy, intimacy, trust, and privacy are put at risk by online platforms and new technologies. This new theory of evildoing offers fresh insight into the moral character of the individual, and opens the way for a burgeoning new area of social thought. A comprehensive analysis of an emerging and disturbing social phenomenon, Evil Online examines the morally troubling aspects of the internet in our society. Written not only for academics in the fields of philosophy, psychology, information science, and social science, Evil Online is accessible and compelling reading for anyone interested in understanding the emergence of evil in our digitally-dominated world. (shrink)

It has become quite common for people to develop `personal'' relationships nowadays, exclusively via extensive correspondence across the Net. Friendships, even romantic love relationships, are apparently, flourishing. But what kind of relations really are possible in this way? In this paper, we focus on the case of close friendship. There are various important markers that identify a relationship as one of close friendship. One will have, for instance, strong affection for the other, a disposition to act for their well-being and (...) a desire for shared experiences. Now obviously, while all these features of friendship can gain some expression through extensive correspondence on the Net, such expression is necessarily limited –you cannot, e.g., physically embrace the other, or go on a picnic together. The issue we want to address here however, is whether there might be distinctive and important influences on the structure of interaction undertaken on the Net, that affect the kind of identity ``Net-friends'''' can develop in relation to one another. In the normal case, one develops a close friendship, and in doing so, one''s identity, in part, is shaped by the friendship. To some extent, through extensive shared experience, one comes to see aspects of the world (and of oneself) through the eyes of one''s friend and so, in part, one''s identity develops in an importantly relational way, i.e., as the product of one''s relation with the close friend. In our view, however, on account of the limits of, and/or the kind of, shared contact and experience one can have with another via correspondence on the Net, there are significant structural barriers to developing the sort of relational identity that is a feature of close friendship. In arguing our case here, and by using the case of Net ``friendship'''' as our foil, we aim to shed light on the nature and importance of certain sorts of self-expression and relational interaction found in close friendship. (shrink)

In this article we argue that the worries about whether a consequentialist agent will be alienated from those who are special to her go deeper than has so far been appreciated. Rather than pointing to a problem with the consequentialist agent's motives or purposes, we argue that the problem facing a consequentialist agent in the case of friendship concerns the nature of the psychological disposition which such an agent would have and how this kind of disposition sits with those which (...) are commonly thought proper to relations of friendship. To the extent that we are right, then, the rejoinders which indirect consequentialists have offered to the problem of alienation are ill directed and so do not succeed in meeting the real problem. In articulating what we see as the source of the alienation problem which friendship poses for consequentialism, we also hope to clarify the general distinction between dispositions and motives and to show how certain kinds of guiding internalized normative dispositions help us to define and therefore distinguish between various types of relationships. Undertaking this task may also help to identify some of the crucial issues for an adequate moral psychology of friendship and its place in any plausible ethical theory. (shrink)

Traditional social worlds enable plural modes of self‐expression and communication across both public and private realms. Our identity involves a variety of aspects of self. Moreover, plural and conflicting aspects of self are often presented within the context of one relationship, role, or encounter. The presentation of less chosen aspects of our selves often also provides the object for the expression of certain relational aspects of respect for one another's privacy. Self‐presentation and shared activity in many online social worlds can (...) also enable autonomy and privacy. The online revolutions in access to information and to one another have provided unprecedented opportunities to expand our knowledge, to pursue our social and working lives, and to carry on all sorts of interests and activities. One specific example of how some of our fears about online evils have been claimed to be exaggerated and misguided concerns fears of risks to our children from online sexual predators. (shrink)

In many recent discussions of the morality of actions where both good and bad consequences foreseeably ensue, the moral significance of the distinction between intended and foreseen consequences is rejected. This distinction is thought to bear on the moral status of actions by those who support the Doctrine of Double Effect. According to this doctrine, roughly speaking, to perform an action intending to bring about a particular bad effect as a means to some commensurate good end is impermissible, while performing (...) an action where one intends only this good end and merely foresees the bad as an unintended sideeffect may be permissible. Consequentialists argue that this is a distinction which makes no moral difference to the evaluation of the initial act in the two cases, given that the overall consequences are the same in each case. In this paper we aim to show that a standard consequentialist line of argument against the moral relevance of the intention/foresight distinction fails. Consequentialists commonly reject the moral relevance of this distinction on the grounds that there is no asymmetry in moral responsibility between intending and foreseeing evil. We argue that even if this claim about moral responsibility is correct, it does not entail, as many Consequentialists believe, that there is no moral asymmetry between acts of intended and foreseen evil. We go on to argue that those consequentialists who do concede the moral relevance of the intention/foresight distinction at the level of agent evaluations cannot consistently make such a concession, and that such a position is in any case untenable, because it entails a complete severance of important conceptual connections between act and agent evaluations. (shrink)

The standard problem with many slippery slope arguments is that they fail to provide us with the necessary evidence to warrant our believing that the significantly morally worse circumstances they predict will in fact come about. As such these arguments have widely been criticised as ‘scare-mongering’. Consequentialists have traditionally been at the forefront of such criticisms, demanding that we get serious about guiding our prescriptions for right action by a comprehensive appreciation of the empirical facts. This is not surprising, since (...) consequentialism has traditionally been committed to the idea that right action be driven by empirical realities, and this hard-headed approach has been an especially notable feature of Australian consequentialism. But this apparent empirical hard-headedness is very selective. While consequentialists have understood their moral outlook and commitments as guided by a partnership with empirical science – most explicitly in their replies to the arguments of their detractors – some consequentialists have been remarkably complacent about providing empirical support for their own prescriptions. Our key example here is the consequentialist claim that our current practises of partiality in fact maximise the good, impartially conceived. This claim has invariably been made without compelling support for the large empirical claims upon which it rests, and so, like the speculative empirical hand-waving of weak slippery slope arguments, it seems similarly to be undermined. While these arguments have presented us with ‘wishful thinking’ rather than ‘scare-mongering’, we argue in this paper that their complacency in meeting the relevant empirical justificatory burden remains much the same. (shrink)

ABSTRACT The influence of authority has long been regarded to induce obedience and conformity, and to be the enemy of clear thinking and our becoming good. In contrast, I argue that the influence of authority is foundational to our being educible. We need authoritative influence to enable appropriate development of our beliefs, desires, and capacities to form reasons and so pursue value. In so doing, authority must, at once, help us navigate and transcend a range of widely shared limitations in (...) knowledge, inclination, and governance. One central kind of obstacle I discuss are human anxieties generated by self-consciousness of our limits. Aristotle tells us that since the capacities of individuals for moral understanding and self-governance are limited, we must look beyond the individual to complete the story of how we can pursue a good life. He says we will need laws (even to keep the virtuous on track) and, of course, we will need a broader regulatory and supportive framework, involving also economic, social, and political institutions and actors. An important part of this framework will be to support and shape our inclinations, including our personal attachments. I aim to contribute to this issue on partiality by describing how the influence of authority plays a crucial, necessary role across this framework—a foundational role that enables and maintains good character and shapes the nature of our personal lives and the personal attachments that we might pursue. (shrink)

The moral fog is used in spiritual and religious contexts to describe the normative incompetence of our more widely shared and everyday lives. It describes features or circumstances of our worlds that render the nature and consequences of our conduct opaque, and so undermine our capacities for moral understanding and decision‐making. Better understanding the features that enable the problems of moral fog, helps explain much of the explosion in various types of evil that flourish online. Worlds that have brought problems (...) of moral fog, where normalizing and legitimizing influences enable evil to flourish, in ways never seen and otherwise hardly imagined. The milieu and pressures of working or professional lives are a rich source of examples where a moral fog of positive and relatively neutral self‐understandings operates to blind us or screen off other undesirable realities of our lives. (shrink)

Evil online is an increasingly disturbing phenomenon across a wide range of fronts, and, as is invariably the case with revolutionary technology. This chapter discusses various kinds of moral fog, from both online and traditional worlds. It then illustrates how thinking of evil doing in this way provides broader and deeper explanations of the territory of so‐called “banal evil”, and takes our understanding of evildoing a long way beyond banality. A notable online trend in which disturbing, even plainly appalling, conduct (...) is often given a light touch and made to look innocent, is the proliferation of so‐called prank videos. Online shaming is now a widely recognized online trend. Online shaming is global and everlasting for the victim; it is also easily open for the rest of us to join in. One of the most broad and transformational impacts of the Internet has been upon the social lives and psychological development of young people. (shrink)

This chapter discusses the following three fundamental features of our online environment: epistemic success, connectivity, and coordination. The Internet connects people and makes communication, interaction, and transactions between them easy and cheap. Two‐sided markets and platforms, like Uber, Airbnb and eBay, allow buyers and sellers, demand and supply, to find each other, and to coordinate their behavior and engage in interactions, transactions, and collaboration. In addition to these features, a number of other features of our online environments shed light on (...) how evil online gets traction. Many of these features – notably, selectivity, anonymity, positionality, domestication, isolation, conflation of public/ private contrasts, high voluntariness, jurisdiction, virtuality, and interpretive flexibility – have enabled the doing and consumption of evil in a particular way. They have created and magnified moral fog in the minds of users. (shrink)

Good moral character has commonly been understood in terms of its independence from, its contrast to, and its resilience against, the claims of self‐interest. And it has also been commonly understood in terms of its effectiveness in being able to issue in good conduct quite independently of the need of support from others and surrounds. Decisions that impact upon how we pursue our lives in all sorts of ways. Evil is characterized not only by contrast to what is good or (...) right, but also by contrast to what is merely bad or wrong. Appeal to liberal values in our traditional worlds trumps the concerns that we have, as reflected in our laws, rules, social conventions and settled moral judgments, about widespread, undiscriminating, easy availability and access to pornography, guns, or alcohol. It is hard to see why we should imagine that an appeal to liberal values should win the day in virtual worlds provided online. (shrink)