Shaping Ethical Horizons in the Digital Age:
Reflections from Evelyne A. Tauchnitz’s presentation ‘Ethics ofDigital Transformation in Times of Peace and War’
Eco HAMERSMA1,21PhD Candidate, Contemporary Asian Studies, Graduate School of Global Studies, Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan.
2Global Resource Management, Institute for Advanced Research and Education, Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan.

On the 29th of September 2023, the Graduate School of Global Studies at Doshisha University
was happy to receive a lecture from the visiting researcher Evelyne A. Tauchnitz, senior fellow
at the Institute of Social Ethics at the University of Lucerne, Switzerland. The primaryobjective of the conference, the 69th instance of the Global Justice Conference, centered on
exploring how digital technologies can be harnessed to construct new avenues for thedevelopment and maintenance of peace. As Tauchnitz stated at the beginning of her
presentation, the key take-away she wanted to give to participants was to provide a positive
message as a counter point to the seemingly omnipresent warnings of technology run amok. In
this paper we will be providing an overview as well as some of our own views on the ongoingwork of Tauchnitz based on our understanding and the fruitful ensuing discussion which
followed her visit to Kyoto.
The concept of peace exhibits remarkable adaptability, assuming diverse interpretations acrossvarying communities, societies, and historical epochs, its nuances intricately entwined with thepolitical and historical contexts specific to each case. At all times, technology emerges as aformidable force of amplification, affording us the capacity to extend our influence on theworld and our fellow inhabitants, irrespective of whether our aims lean toward peaceful or
conflict-oriented objectives. The considerable disruptive potential of technology underscores
its role in reshaping our societal impact. Yet, discerning between the benevolent andmalevolent applications of technology remains a complex task, deeply rooted in our individual
conceptions of peace and the fundamental values we hold as indispensable cornerstones for its
establishment, values such as freedom and human dignity. In this context, human dignity
formed the cornerstone of Tauchnitz’s presentation, outlining it as the key component in howtechnological development should move forward.

1During the discussion, critics of this view highlighted
the reality of technological development within thecontext of the arms industry. Ultimately it was Nazi
Germany’s V2 ballistic missile, a weapon of terror
used on the innocent inhabitants of various European
cities, which gave humanity its first photograph ofour home world taken from space. In this sense,
peacefulandconflict-oriented

technologicaldevelopment can be difficult to separate, as

Figure 1, Among the first photos taken from space
via a camera on a V2 ballistic rocket. (Wikimedia
Commons 2015. Public Domain.)

exemplified in the career of noted rocket scientist
Wernher von Braun and the role of the Space Race in US-Soviet relations.
Furthermore, we should consider the inherently radical nature of the notion of technology itself.
Taking the current issues in digitization as part of the ever-evolving landscape ofcommunications technology, the advent of the internet has been the one of the greatest upsets
to established power structures. This new mode of communication as created fresh channels tofoster inclusivity and provide a platform for a multitude of voices which otherwise would beexcluded due to a wide range of factors, from structural factors ranging from socio-economic
and cultural factors to simple geographic factors limiting their interaction with the wider world.
In this sense, the digital transformation has liberated large swaths of the world’s populationfrom oppressive isolation. However, the destruction of established power structures remains in
as much as the word implies a destructive process, where the pendulum of social progress canmove in either direction. For instance, a warehouse worker might be more able to organize
collective action through social media tools, but at the same time automatization can make theworker obsolete.
Tauchnitz (2023) is aware of some of these risks, highlighting several examples. Increased
efficiency in communication not only paves the way for novel forms of protests but also lays
the groundwork for political repressive measures against such demonstrations, with examples
including the pervasive use of surveillance and systems of political control, notably social
scoring mechanisms (With the latter being something the author would also like to underscoreas it is the focus of his own research). Looking at communication abstractly, this dichotomy isunderstandable as emergence of new avenues of violent mobilization and associated threats,
exemplified for instance by the proliferation of hate speech, are an abstraction of the physical2

world. Recent events in the Israel-Palestine conflict of 2023 showcase this, with a significant
uptake in both antisemitic and Islamophobic rhetoric across the internet. On the whole, thedestruction established power structures does not mean that what replaces it will necessarily bemore equal, peaceful, or humanistic. Technology may merely allow for the manifestation ofnew forms of oppression.
Role of Ethics

According to Tauchnitz (2023) this is where ethics come into play, by proactively searching
for ways in which potential technologies can be used to promote peace while also mitigating
the dangers and controlling the advancement and utilization of technologies for harmful
purposes. Specifically, by using the three types of ethical philosophy, namely virtue,deontology, and consequentialism, as a structured way to apply ethics to technological progress.
Within Virtue Ethics, the significance of technological development and its applications lies in
the underlying intentions and objectives. It is crucial to emphasize the importance of raisingawareness and providing education to deter the misuse of technology for violent purposes.
Equally important is the practice of critical self-reflection regarding one's own motivations andobjectives when engaged in tech-related endeavors. Within this context the aforementioned
example of technology developed ostensibly for military purposes, such as the V2 rocket, canbe considered unvirtuous.

Deontological Ethics emphasize the significance of duty, norms, and rules, underscoring theimportance of ensuring that technology is created and employed in alignment with ethicalstandards and obligations aimed at preserving peace and the welfare of humanity. This includes
adherence to principles such as international humanitarian and human rights law,encompassing the protection of fundamental rights such as the right to privacy. While theEthics of Consequentialism prioritizes the outcomes arising from the development andutilization of technology, emphasizing the need to maximize the advantages of technology forpeaceful purposes while simultaneously minimizing the potential for its misuse in violent
contexts. Additionally, it underscores the importance of proactively preventing risks for which
no one can be held accountable. An example of vague accountability which is becoming anincreasing issue within modern society can be seen surrounding self-driving cars. With whom
does the ultimate responsibility rest in case of an accident? The driver or the softwaredeveloper?
3

A significant portion of the presentation was spent providing further details on the type of peace
which technology should be stiving for. Here Tauchnitz used the work of Johan Galtung (1969),
arguing that the absence of overt conflict does not inherently guarantee peace. Galtung's notionof peace incorporates not only the resolution of visible conflicts, also called Negative Peaceand encompassing the notion of physical violence, but also the eradication of structural
violence and underlying inequalities, which he referred to as Positive Peace. In short, Galtung
believes that genuine peace can only be achieved when societies address the root causes ofviolence and work towards social, economic, and political structures that promote harmony
and well-being for all, making it a more comprehensive and sustainable approach to peace.
Applied to the development of technology, it is important that its development meets thesestandards. Again, recent developments of for instance generative AI models which have been
trained on biased data and therefore perpetuate biased standards provide a prime example
where Galtung’s Positive Peace has not been considered.

Policy Recommendations
Based on the above model Tauchnitz (2023) proposes that technology should be “grounded on
freedom and human dignity”. To ensure this she proposes several governance strategies:
Advance the use of technologies for peaceful purposes while prohibiting the use oftechnologies for military purposes, while overseeing the equivocal or uncertain applications oftechnology through various methods. This is to be achieved through industry self-regulation,
the implementation of best practices and social responsibility standards, as well as economic
and financial incentives like subsidies and taxes. Additionally, she proposes employing
nudging techniques, which involve modifying the environment to encourage a specific choiceor result, in order to help guide technology use in the desired direction. And lastly, exploring
the establishment of legally binding standards, whether through the creation of new norms or
the application of existing ones. Fierce criticism was leveled on this position by several
attendees from states where their government is not necessarily acting in good faith, such as
for instance the adoption of digital technologies by the Taliban regime of Afghanistan.

In conclusion, Tauchnitz (2023) states that efforts to foster peace should be rooted in afoundation of human rights ethics, recognizing that while human rights are essential, they may
not alone guarantee peace. When pressed on the problem of a lack of universal agreement as4

to the nature of human rights, again using the example of Afghanistan, Tauchnitz argued thateven the Taliban would understand the immorality of a particular legislation if it would beapplied universally. In essence Tauchnitz appealed to the Kantian categorical imperative. This
Kantian approach is deontological, as per the above grouping, and therefore does not consider
religious or divine ethics, in the way a theocratic government such as the Taliban would.
Because for such a government divine ethics supersedes all worldly concerns, appeals touniversality cannot trump faith in divine law.

However, considering governments acting in good faith and according to universal maxims,
policy should address concerns related to social equity, the equitable allocation of political andsocial authority, and the elimination of discrimination. The advent of digital technologies has
introduced fresh possibilities and potential threats to human rights, it is imperative that
fundamental human rights are upheld universally and without exception, involving all
stakeholders, including civil society, technology companies, and governments. This
necessitates the implementation of efficient governance mechanisms.
References
Tauchnitz, E.A., (29 September 2023). Ethics of Digital Transformation in Times of Peaceand War. 69th Global Justice Conference, Doshisha University, Kyoto Japan
Galtung, J. (September 1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace
Research, Vol.6, Iss.3, pp.167–191.
WikiMedia Commons, (2015). First photo from space. [Online] Available at:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:First_photo_from_space.jpg (Accessed on 24
October 2023)

5