Dale H West Menu

What is the Internet? Technically speaking, most people could define the Internet. What is a Portal? What is the USENET? What is e-mail? In true Socratic form, the more we ask and attempt to answer, the more questions we have. As Plato discovered over two millennium’s ago, in answering these questions, it becomes apparent the definition varies widely between individuals and the more we answer the more we define what the Internet is not. Yet, to build a concept of morality for the Internet, we must first start with some philosophical definition of the Internet.

An historical sense of irony permeates the comparison of the dawn of Philosophy with the infancy of the Internet. Plato described the state of humanity as one in which most people were in a cave, and to leave the cave, one had to seek out truth through knowledge and discourse. Those then who were enlightened through their knowledge were perceived to be out of the cave. In contrast, the Internet was born of the consummation of researchers, educators, and government scientists distributing information among only the enlightened. They then brought this Pandora’s Box to the people in the cave – the general public, and watched it fall into the depths of human character. Specifically, the World Wide Web was created by Tim Berners-Lee, a particle physicist in 1991, and launched on the Internet to allow himself and other physicists to exchange research data. The Internet itself was essentially created in 1965 by the United States Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). It wasn’t until 1993 that AT&T, Network Solutions and CERF/net built the InterNIC which allowed for commercial domains on the World Wide Web, even though commercial dial-up access became available in 1990 (Zakon).

Not since the invention of the printing press has the world experienced such an opportunity to distribute information. As with books and pamphlets, both then and now, access still keeps the contents of the Internet from most people in the world. The unqualified distribution of the Internet to even the most remote members of our society – both geographically and educationally – is occurring at an unprecedented and unexpected rate. Because of its multimedia (graphical and audio) nature and the awareness of its better publishers, literacy, language and other physical handicaps are less of an obstruction to access the Internet than they are to any other form of communication known to our civilization. Technology advancements are also enabling the geographic penetration and expansion of the Internet at mind-boggling rates.

This author would propose, due to the nature of this beast known as the Internet, it brings with it the opportunity to philosophically approach Plato’s World of Being. Moralistically it presents us with a modern day Garden of Eden. It has the power to both create and destroy, and it lies in the hands of all people – with and without ethical reason in creation – with and without the cognizant tools to decimate.

If Aristotle were alive today, he might mathematically reason the Internet bears the potential to allow us to discover perfect Forms. It is through the geometric definition of parallel lines applied to the "Third Man" argument, which allows us, as a humanity connected via the Internet, to approach the discovery of perfect Forms. The geometric definition of parallel lines is two lines in the same plane which meet at infinity. Parallel lines do converge, and so must the perfect forms of our world. Aristotle argued we could look at two men and decide what they had in common which made them participate with the perfect form of a man. However, we cannot examine more men to come closer to understanding that perfect form. Aristotle did not have the privilege of time and the distribution of the Internet to collect an infinite number of examples before applying his theory. Logically, there would be two ways to experience a perfect form; the first by consciously entering the Transcendental world and the second by gathering and studying an infinite number of participants. The Internet will not be the last step in human distribution of knowledge and collection of examples, but is a significant advancement towards the collection of all human knowledge and understanding.. Therefore, while it is of our reality, it also moves us closer to the perfect intelligence of our humanity – the author’s definition of a transcendent world - through our combined intellect. That which can move us toward this greater understanding cannot be fully of this world.

Both developers and users of this medium have a responsibility to determine if all this advancement is good. If we can publish unlimited information, does that necessarily mean we should? If we can distribute scent, audio and images, how pure should we be to the manner in which we distribute information to the senses? Currently the Internet moves digitally, yet our senses perceive in an analog manner. Do we represent and believe as truth, that which is shared digitally?

There are those that propose the authority of information presented on the Internet should be held in a critical light more so than published material. This author would support that just because an author and his editor have purported the contents of a published book to be true, does not make that information any more true than that which is published on the Internet by an individual and possibly his web designer. Each element is a mere perspective of an individual or group. The Internet should cause its users to understand everything we receive in knowledge should be subject to equal scrutiny. Essentially, encouragement of Skepticism of this medium is a valid approach, and yet it may be a valid approach for any material presented as fact. The Internet is not real. It is only humanity’s largest collection of perceptions and ideas. It exists as no one man’s reality, and yet it is a collection of "every" man’s reality. With no beginning and no end, with no core and with no one entity holding responsibility for it, all people which participate in its creation and dynamic are responsible to hold some type of moral code for interaction with it. With no foundation, its access from diverse cultures and the huge intelligence range of users, proposing an appropriate morality for approaching the Internet may present humanity with its greatest dilemma to date. It is the same dilemma presented in the Garden of Eden. When we choose to eat the forbidden fruit of knowledge, we must receive all the knowledge and the responsibilities with which it comes – regardless of how much we agree with or like the information we receive.

While the Internet was still in the realm of educators, researchers and governments, protocols were established and published. Many guidelines were intuitive to the people who created such a beast. While the first virus affecting the Internet occurred in 1980 (by accident), protocol typically kept the system and its users safe and secure. Today’s widely distributed viruses would be prevented if commercial users followed the same strict protocols of the original Internet architects. This in itself presents an ethical question – Is the elimination or reduction of viruses on our Internet a worthwhile endeavor? Certainly, the knowledge is out there to protect users and their systems from becoming "infected" by bad mistakes, and primarily pranksters. To criminally penalize those who can effectively take advantage of the system may jeopardize our ability to build a stronger and better system. It is only those who can break a system who can really teach us how to build it better and stronger. This author proposes a more altruistic approach where we might consider ALL the consequences of an action, including the subsequent creation or remedies.

Outside of the institution and enforcement of strict protocols, the second greatest effort users and builders alike can perform to ensure the viability of the Internet system, is to keep it cross-platform and diverse. A lack of diversity in technological systems mimics that of a biologic system in that it becomes more vulnerable to outside parasites and other destruction. By keeping the system truly diverse those individuals, organizations and physical things which could attack this distributed system have less power to affect the whole system, therefor reinforcing its dynamic nature.

The virtue theory of enforcing strict protocols would ultimately result in the loss of cross-cultural and cross-intelligence participation in the Internet. Since this loss would reduce the power of the Internet to provide its users with insight into the greater realm of human thought and belief, we must avoid the egoistic approach and push towards a more social hedonistic view of the greater good. To do that, we must hold great value on the diversity of programs as well as content through which we participate in our global Internet.

Many egoists would argue the restriction of content on the Internet. By the nature of the fact the Internet, unregulated, is a reflection of humanity as a whole, most egoists are not happy with the image they see. Cybersex, Hate Groups, violence and other evils of society find this realm fertile breeding ground. And yet, to eliminate any one, would be to attempt to erase the reflection of a part of our collective thought and spirit. There is no other reason sex, and the business surrounding sex, creates the majority of traffic, and ultimately revenue on the Internet than it is one of humanity’s primary interests. As an altruist, it is logical to support the absolute democracy of the Internet and to fight against any and all imposed government regulation of the same. Regardless of whether violence is perpetrated, initiated, consummated or otherwise is enabled by the Internet, it must be allowed to exist. What is violent to one person, may not be to another, and we must accept this component as we accept all other cultures in our compendium. Egoists must remember, they have free will in use of the Internet. They have free will in obtaining products which will shelter them from exposure to elements which would otherwise be objectionable. They must accept this responsibility, and in doing so may retain their greatest amount of pleasure without imposing on others.

The best solution for sustaining program and participatory diversity is for the architects, authors and builders of this medium to take a social utilitarian approach. They must support and defend the work of others, no matter how objectionable, in order to retain support for their own work. They must understand the inability of our elected leaders to comprehend the diversity and complexity of the system. Habitually, law and regulation is based on generalizations. Due to its extremely diverse and distributed nature, the Internet cannot be generalized. This rests a great deal of self-policing on the backs of designers, programmers and engineers. These individuals are often reluctant to impose restrictions on others. They are so reluctant because it is in their very nature as mathematicians and inventors to at least consider all possible points of view and possibilities. It is in the nature of an engineer to allow something to break so he may then study how it broke, and to build it better the next time. It is in the nature of government to protect society through regulation and statutes.

Designers and programmers do not necessarily excel in human communication. However, if they are to grow this reflection of humanity, they must take an active role in educating the public which uses the Internet system to distribute knowledge. They must make a priority of promoting diversity, cooperation and understanding of the physical system in order to support and maintain the human system it breathes life into. As a programmer for the Internet, I take an active role in educating my customers. In my daily life I preach the goodness of this living system, with a background of tolerance for people and ideas which are objectionable or different. This is essential for my growth as a human, as well as a participant in the world of the Internet. The egoist in me wants access to the "darker side" so that I may more clearly see the good in the world and its inhabitants, and yet I have faith if this is good for me, it must be good for all.

Works Reflected On/Cited

Dean, Katie. "Who Should Fight Cybercrime?" Wired News. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,365566,00.html. Online. June 1, 2000.

Fieser, James. "Ethics." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm. Online.1998.

Honderich, Ted (editor). The Philosophers.Oxford. Oxford University Press. 1999.

Zakon, Robert. "Hobbes’ Internet Timeline v5.0." http://www.info.isoc.org/guest/zakon/Internet/History/HIT.html. Online. 1999.

NOTICE: Plaguerism is not only cheating, it keeps the perpetrator ignorant. Please feel free to cite this work in non-commercial publications, but provide appropriate documentation. You can cite this work like this:

West, Dale H. "Internet Philosophy: A Morality for the New Millenium." http://www.eloign.com. Online. June 2000.

Create your own thought. Read. Study. Learn. Feel free to e-mail me with comments, questions, arguments and criticisms.