1.6: The Ethics of our Digital Selves (Noah Levin)

6 The Ethics of our Digital Selves
Noah Levin¹⁶

The more we move ourselves online, the more complicated things get. People often long for the “simpler” days of old, and in the case of social media and “always-on” connections to the digital world, we are, indeed, becoming increasingly more complex. We can extend and diversify aspects of ourselves in ways that people a century ago could never have envisioned, but we also still retain all the options they had. Derek Parfit has provided convincing arguments over the years that there is some truth in the old adage, “I put a little bit of myself in that.” To paraphrase some his arguments (mostly from his 1984 work, Reasons and Persons), he maintains that our identities in the strict and traditional sense (that we are the “same” person from one day to the next) is not as important as it appears at first. What really matters is that the important parts of ourselves (however we understand such things) continue on. Identity is the easy way to understand and track this (who shares your hopes and dreams more than your own self?), but identity is not what matters. People do, in a very real and valuable sense, extend their identities into whatever object, person, or idea they create or mix with. Part of them becomes an element of those things, and part of those things become a part of that person. In the past, people perhaps simply put themselves in things like pies (only metaphorically, I hope), a book, a house, a painting, their children, etc. All of these options are still available to us, but so is Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Snapchat, texts, Instagram, and anything we can #hashtag. These are not merely tools we use or ways we can express ourselves, but can be genuine extensions of ourselves. They don’t have to be, but if one were deny that there was any reason for the suicide of a cyberbullied teenager due to the endless taunting and personal violations they experienced online, then we fail to appreciate the intimate connections our digital selves have to our real selves.

I want to argue that we should accept that our digital selves are becoming an increasingly important part of our real selves and that we ought to modify our understandings, actions, and policies to account for this shift. The boundaries between what has generally been called “real life” (often abbreviated RL when discussed online) and our “digital selves” is getting fuzzier every day for many people, particularly for younger people that are growing up at a time when social media is ubiquitous (everywhere and in all aspects of our lives). We should not reject this fact of existence for many (nor, do I think, embrace it) but we should accept it and understand that the implications of doing this are not drastic nor unique, but merely require us to consider our digital lives alongside every other aspect of ourselves. In other words, all we have to do is understand the digital extensions of ourselves in the same ways we have traditionally understood the complexities of our existences and lives. This relationship requires special consideration because our digital selves work in ways that can be very intimately tied to our real selves.

I would like to offer a description or definition of what constitutes our digital selves, but it’s hard to capture it succinctly or accurately, and no matter how much I might include, I would inevitably miss aspects that some people find important. The general idea is rather simple: there are available to us many methods through electronic devices that allow us to communicate with others and share elements of our personal lives. These electronic disseminations, at the very least, are made up items we present to the outside world. For example, sharing photos on any one of the numerous sites that allows such a thing constitutes this. Having conversations, liking, commenting on posts, writing in a blog, posting videos, etc., all fall under these activities. Making a meme, forwarding a meme, participating in an online event (like multiplayer gaming events) all also contribute to this. Creating and playing a character or becoming an active part of an online community all influence, and ideally enhance, our lives. There is no limit to how we interact online, and with increases in virtual reality, they will only become more intimate and involved.

I would like to examine the common law concept of spousal privilege as a way to better understand the intimate nature of our digital selves. Spousal privilege means that spouses have special legal obligations and protections to each other. While there is a complicated history behind it, its origins, and its implications, it is important right now for how it is applied: the legal fiction (a legal assumption that something is true even though in reality it is not, like how corporations are considered people) utilized when applying spousal privileges is the view that the married couple is a single person. This is important because, for example, you cannot be called to testify against yourself. If your spouse is a part of yourself, then your spouse cannot be called to testify against you. This legal fiction, despite its entry into the law through the sexist viewpoint that a wife became, in a sense, the “property” of the husband and was no longer a separate legal entity, is based on the idea that two separate people can come together in a “union” whereby the prior individuals are no longer the distinct, separate persons they once were. They are clearly not one person (a divorce is not a literal separation of a person into two pieces), but there is some extension of one spouse into the other in a very real way. It’s not a conceptual game or merely a fiction. It is not unique to marriages, but the concept of spousal privilege gives a solid and clear legal mechanism that underlies the idea at the heart of my arguments: we can extend ourselves into things outside of ourselves in real and meaningful ways, which carry with them the implication that we can be impacted in a (literally) personal way when those extensions of ourselves are benefitted or harmed. Likewise, others can also extend themselves into us. The internet and all of its tools allows us to share and extend ourselves in increasingly intimate and expansive ways.

I speak of “digital selves” and “real selves” as if they are different. For some, they might actually be, as in cases where individuals create entirely separate persons for themselves to be used online or have no online presence at all. But here’s the interesting part: some people that live a lot of their lives online do so because they feel their digital representation is a more accurate portrayal of their “genuine” self. In Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One (book, 2011; movie directed by Steven Spielberg, 2018) most people in the year 2044 spend their time in the Oasis, a virtual world that has taken over most interactions that would normally occur in the real world, like schooling, sports, games, and customer service. The avatars (digital characters) that everyone uses are personally chosen to properly represent how they view themselves or want others to view them. While a handful of people use avatars that closely resemble their real-world selves, most choose ones that are what they want to be (such as an idealized version of themselves without any perceived flaws) or how they truly feel about themselves (like a giant orc). For a number of characters, their digital versions gradually overtake their real selves and physical bodies become burdensome biological machines that simply have to be dealt with from time to time. Current technology isn’t there yet, but we should easily be able to understand how this can happen, and this is important: it shows that our appreciation of our digital elements is evolving to include a robust incorporation of our digital elements. Indeed, most of our lives might be lived in virtual environments in the near future, where “virtual reality” simply becomes “reality.”

But there is still reasoned resistance to this idea. The relationship with the digital elements of ourselves can be varied, and this might be a significant factor in a predisposition to disregard the impact of the digital world on real selves. It is hard for us to get into someone else’s head and truly understand their innermost feelings and motivations, and the more disconnected we are from the elements that make them up, the harder it is. While I can hear the words and understand what’s being said when, for example, a reality star says, “they totally screwed up my eyebrows and it like, totally, ruined my night,” it’s difficult for me to empathize since I (1) don’t really care about having perfect eyebrows and (2) my eyebrows are always perfect (I passed up an eyebrow modeling gig to pursue my career in Philosophy). All kidding aside, I can understand and believe the impact something like this has on that reality star, even though I don’t empathize with the problem in the same way I would with someone’s sadness at the loss of a beloved pet (but others might not be able to empathize with this loss in the ways I can). The difficulty with the digital elements of our lives is that people with no connection to the digital world interact regularly and closely with those who exist mostly inside of it, so while they will connect in many ways, they might not be able to fully understand how impactful the digital world (or the lack of it) is on each other’s lives. I don’t think that people value things any differently; I think there is a difference in the degree to which people will value certain things (and expect others to value them similarly). For example, a toddler can break down when they lose their favorite toy, while an adult might simply say, “It’s just a stupid toy, it doesn’t matter.” Similarly, someone might say, “Just ignore those Instagram trolls,” an action much easier said than done for those that live a good chunk of their lives on the social media platform.

What’s to be said against changing our conception of the individual to better incorporate our digital aspects? I actually cannot find any reason other than ignorance in a literal sense. The simple idea that some people don’t know or understand how integral digital elements have become in some people’s lives is not enough to ignore the role they play for many people. In the same way it’s more of a crime to kill someone’s pet than a stray cat and particularly cruel to burn a child’s favorite blanket than a random sheet, we can appreciate that different people value different things differently. It’s nothing new or novel, but the digital world allows us to do so in so many extensive ways we need to be more conscious of if we are to be properly just and compassionate people.

Finally, what does this changing conception of ourselves mean for policies? In short, since it means that harms to digital selves can, and should, be understood to constitute harms to our real selves, and policies should change to reflect this. Things that we do not permit in real life should also not be permitted online. There was a famous incidence in 1993 often referred to as “A Rape in Cyberspace” after the title of the article penned by the victim. The rape happened in one of the earliest multi-user games, LambdaMOO, that was mostly a complicated chat room where users could interact and create their own rules. One user was able to “take over” another’s avatar and made her perform many unwanted sexual actions on others. The real-life person felt violated in an intimate fashion, which shocked her, as she had never realized how integral her digital self had become to her real self. Some laughed it off as a ridiculous (literally) unreal occurrence. I would hope we have evolved to see that this was more than just simulating sex acts with stuffed animals and a real harm was committed. Violations like this will only become more intimate and common, and we are under a moral obligation to appreciate this. Most importantly, there should no longer be any difficulties in understanding “cyberbullying” simply as “bullying” and “social media harassment” simply as “harassment.” To qualify these types of harms is to ignore their real force.

There are also the positive aspects of moving ourselves more online. We are no longer restricted to our geographic locations when looking for friendship, love, or simply acceptance. Our neighbors expand from those that are just a few steps away to those that are just a few clicks away. If living online were all bad, no one would do it. It’s because of its benefits and enrichment that we are constantly extending ourselves online. It is important that we appreciate all of the complexities technology adds to our lives if we are to live in a future where they properly enhance, instead of degrade, our existences.

For Review and Discussion

1. What is your relationship to the digital aspects of yourself? Do you live mostly online? Do you avoid social media? Why do you approach it the way you do?

2. What experiences do you have with online abuse, like trolling, harassment, or bullying? How does this compare to those things in real life?

3. Is there generally a difference in how people behave online when compared to real life? Does this matter in a moral sense?