The world in the 21st century is very different than that of centuries before. The availability, popularity, and dependence on new technologies creates a world that is smaller and at the mercy of human action more than ever before. Communication technologies like the Internet and live satellite links allow for commerce to occur on a global scale in the form of a global market. Large amounts of capital become fluid and mobile in that money can be transferred from a local market across the globe to another in a matter of mere minutes. Transportation technologies allow for production to occur anywhere in the world that has cheap labour, which is then exported to  countries to enjoy at little expense. Industry and resource extraction occurs on large scales that is detrimental not only to the local environment but to the global biosphere.

These are the effects of globalization.

What is the ethical significance of modern technology?

According to philosopher Hans Jonas, old ethical frameworks do not apply anymore because technology has radically changed the scope and effects of human action. Traditional ethics like virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and Kantian Ethics could be considered to be anthropocentric neighbour ethics where its scope governs proximal human/human interactions. Specialized knowledge is not needed in order to act ethically because humans are thought, under traditional ethical frameworks, to be rational animals that seek to act to maximize their pleasure and self-interest. Unfortunately, human action has changed radically, augmented by technologies that amplify the effects in ways that are not known even today.

One thing that is known is that our behaviour is radically altering the chances of survival of our species. Furthermore, the use of these new technologies that brings about globalization does not allow humans to act ethically on an individual scale because human action through consumption affects others, yet there is no means in which individuals can effectively take responsibility for these actions. This dilemma is perpetuated by free-market capitalism, deregulation, globalization, and western individualism.

Traditional ethical theories like virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and Kantian ethics were developed when humans had little power in creating irreversible damage to the environment and only had the resources to effect humans and animals on a small, personal scale. Animals do not fall under the umbrella of ethical considerations but are encouraged to be respected as an ethical side effect.

Under the Kantian framework, respect for oneself also includes one’s conduct with others and animals. These theories are proximal and anthropocentric because humans used to have a limited scope of action. Under virtue ethics, humans have the responsibility to follow one’s nature or telos by pursuing the mean. Options and guides are given in order to actualize this responsibility. The individual must cultivate a virtuous character by imitating other virtuous people. Over time acting virtuously becomes a habit and a part of their character.

The basic ethical principle in utilitarianism is to act in order to maximize the utility principle, which is to promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

Before globalization, states and individuals were preoccupied with their own well-being and communication and transportation around the globe was slow and impractical. Thus, actions were proximal and confined to a relatively small sphere. Acting to promote the greatest good for the greatest number was practical and actualizable in small scale because citizens usually lived in a similar culture with similar ethical guidelines and rules of conduct to follow. Individuals could promote the greatest good for the greatest number and take responsibility for these actions because they were confined to families, proximal strangers, and relatively small social groups. Without the far-reaching effects of modern technology, damage to the environment was largely reversible and had little effect on the whole of the biosphere.

Similarly, Kantian deontology focuses on the individual. In order to act ethically, the individual must treat people as ends and never solely as means. In addition, one must act in accordance to one’s obligation or duty and in such a way that the individual would will their actions to be a universal rule. Of course responsibility was limited to the individual and their interactions with others. Their responsibility was not universal or global, but proximal in both space and time. Responsibility could be taken over the intent of the action because the consequences were usually confined to a smaller sphere.

Globalization has changed all this.

Human action, augmented with modern technologies has allowed individual action to effect not only strangers across the world, but the chances of survival of the human species as well. Guidelines in traditional ethical theories are limited in their scope and cannot address these new issues effectively. As Hans Jonas states, “The old prescriptions of ‘neighbour’ ethics still hold in their intimate immediacy of the nearest day by day sphere of human interaction. But this sphere is overshadowed by the growing realm of collective action where doer, deed, and the effect are no longer the same as they were in the proximate sphere, and which by the enormity of its powers forces upon ethics a new dimension of responsibility never dreamt of before.”

Furthermore, free-market capitalism stemming from deregulation from the Reagan administration in the United States in the 1980s, adopts features from traditional theories to justify the rule of the market and to reinforce the notion of western individualism as desirable. What is adopted from utilitarianism is the tool of cost/benefit analysis where good and value is quantified and measured (ineffectively and problematically).

The notion that humans are pleasure maximizers that seek to promote their own self-interest is also a key argument for encouraging consumerism as a human good and freedom that all people should have (except those people in developing countries that get paid ridiculously low wages to produce products for individuals to consume).

Moreover, to justify the rule of the market over state interference in economics is the notion that humans are rational, which is adopted from Kant.

Indeed humans can be rational but they do not act rationally all the time. It is assumed that consumers have a choice in what and how they consume and do so with rational self-interest, which allows the market to efficiently weed out options that are not consistently chosen. This is why the market is seen to be a key to democracy but in my opinion it is amoral rather than good.

How do free-market capitalism, deregulation, globalization, and western individualism impede individuals from being ethical creatures? By examining the implications of the four, the answer emerges.

Humans embrace technological innovation because it relieves us of drudgery and toil and frees our time for leisure and to consume goods. The good life in western societies is one that allows for the satisfaction of material desires. Globalization and free-market capitalism allows for people in developed countries to consume goods cheaply and conveniently because costs of providing material goods are externalized. According to Milton Friedman an externality is, “The effect of a transaction on a third party who has not consented to or played any role in the carrying out of that transaction.”

Some examples of externalized costs are the exploitation of people in developing countries who are paid disproportionately low wages to make the goods, the exploitation of resources and their over extraction which damages the ecosystem’s ability to restore itself, and pollution from burning fossil fuels for production and transportation. Individual action in consuming material goods from abroad has large effects.

There is a demand for cheap goods so these cheap goods will be supplied as long as governments and corporations can continue to externalize costs. Individual action in consumption instigates this demand yet there are no effective options available for the individual to take responsibility for these actions and internalize the costs that arise due to the incompatible ideologies of deregulation, the rule of the market, and individualism. In the United States in the 1970s there were high rates of inflation and unemployment and the fix was seen to stem from deregulation, privatization, and allowing the market to redistribute money efficiently.

According to the economics of Adam Smith, The “invisible hand” would guide money to its most efficient place. Humans are now players in the economic world who must compete to obtain their conception of the good life because the state no longer allows individuals to be dependent on “handouts.”

This spawned the new ethics of radical individual responsibility and accountability. This is ironic because these forces have actually allowed individuals to be passive consumers rather than ethical agents who take responsibility for the effects and costs of their actions.

Defenders of deregulation and the rule of the free-market state that the private sector can ease social injustice and provide public services more efficiently and for less money than the state by the rule of the market. It is said that as long as ideas, information, and speech is free, consumers can take action and target offending companies by organizing protests and boycotts.

This may be true but how effective is action by the middle and lower class majority if it is done within the free-market framework? By playing by the rules of opting out of consumption, an individual who spends little money in the first place cannot instigate change.

If a movement were organized, such as the Nike boycotts in the 1990s, the majority of consumers could opt out from consuming offensive products, the corporation’s business would suffer, and the offending corporation would then have to bend to public demands. Unfortunately, due to individualism and the passive and isolating effects of consumption, this is more difficult to instantiate.

People feel that their struggle to create a good life is rewarded by having a surplus of money, which is then spent on goods because happiness is equated with the consumption and possession of material goods. It is an individual struggle, an individual achievement, and the business of the individual in how one’s private property should be enjoyed.The world is centered on the individual, which spawns apathy for anything that does not directly concern him/her. Perhaps we could band people together to instigate change but this does not solve the dilemma of individual responsibility.

Defenders of the market say that it is a cornerstone of democracy because people are free to choose what to consume and “vote” every time they consume. This is really misleading because unlike a democracy, where one vote equals one person, the market accepts one vote per dollar. Individuals, governments, and corporations who have tremendous amounts of money have the majority of votes and thus, the majority of power.

The middle and lower class majority act in isolation in their buying habits so that their votes are fewer than the elite. Some individuals in this segment can try to take responsibility for their actions and costs by refusing to buy certain products, while others with limited money can only afford the cheapest, most externally costly products. There is no organization and thus no power to create change by demanding that the state and market supply effective options. Deregulation allows the markets to dictate trends and to get rid of options that are not in high demand in the name of efficiency.

With few alternative options, there is no other outlet to take ethical responsibility for actions other than buying or refusing to buy certain products. This is a depressing domain for change because the elite hold the majority of power for change, while the middle and lower class majorities do not. Perhaps a few examples may illustrate my point more clearly.

Many of us living in western societies must work in order to make money to buy life-sustaining goods like food, water, and shelter. We must participate in the market whether we want to or not. The market is not good. It is an amoral tool that allows humans to interact to fulfill their needs and ends.

Deregulation of the market allows for certain options and choices to be weeded out in the name of efficiency.

For example, a large corporate grocery store moves into a neighbourhood. This creates no demand for neighbourhood fruit and vegetable markets because large corporate grocery stores have cheaper products due to externalized costs. The local produce markets loose business, do not receive subsidies from the government because the government does not want individuals to be dependent on “hand-outs”, and thus go out of business because they cannot compete.

Individuals who want to take responsibility for their far reaching actions do not have the option to buy locally anymore. They must choose to either boycott the grocery store that externalizes costs or rationalize to themselves that they are only one person who cannot make an impact on the world by buying externally expensive goods.

If there are no other options for buying food, individuals are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The individual has no means to take responsibility for their externally expensive options because all the other options have been weeded out in the name of efficiency.

Another example is one of suburbanization. Urban planning seeks to create residential areas separate from business areas because individuals want a house and a yard on a quiet street. It is outside of the city’s budget to provide adequate public transportation to serve these suburbs so the majority of homeowners must own a car in order to get around. It could be countered that these individuals could live closer to their place of work but city life and rent may be undesirable or too expensive for many people. If it is too expensive, it is not an effective, actualizable option. Thus, the market has weeded out yet another alternative.

In addition, there is no effective alternative other than a car for transportation if public transportation does not adequately serve certain suburban areas. The only option provided by the market is to own a car or to carpool and externalize the costs in the form of air pollution in order to get to work. Thus, the market weeds out many effective alternatives and outlets for individuals to reclaim responsibility for actions.

Regulation is crucial to ensure the survival of options so that the marketplace is not homogenized in such a way that the only option for human survival depends on actions that are far-reaching and detrimental to others. What we are left with without regulation are actions that are not acknowledged, owned, and attributed to any individual. Actions and consequences are separated and thought of as a fact of life rather than something that could be claimed and changed by the individual.

Individualization has created apathy and a hostile, competitive society that frowns upon regulation, subsidies, and well-fare for its citizens because if, “No one helped me to accomplish my goals why should anyone else get an unfair advantage?” This prevents people from banding together to create effective boycotts to try to gain responsibility by pressuring the elite to instigate change in policies.

Finally, all this talk of responsibility of actions and externalized costs are mostly the product of globalization. Humans can still act morally and ethically in their interpersonal interactions with each other. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to take responsibility and act ethically to the people and the environment that is treated as means to ends when costs are externalized in order to provide material goods. Thus, western societies need to stop encouraging unbridled consumption and action without including arenas for internalizing costs and taking responsibility for actions. These arenas must be effective for all segments of society rather than just the elite who have the power and money to internalize costs but choose not to.