Cited by 201Philosophical Ethics and TheoryEthics and Social Impacts of AIEthics in Business and Education

Distributed Morality in an Information Society

Open access
Floridi, Luciano·2013·Science and Engineering Ethics

Abstract

The phenomenon of distributed knowledge is well-known in epistemic logic. In this paper, a similar phenomenon in ethics, somewhat neglected so far, is investigated, namely distributed morality. The article explains the nature of distributed morality, as a feature of moral agency, and explores the implications of its occurrence in advanced information societies. In the course of the analysis, the concept of infraethics is introduced, in order to refer to the ensemble of moral enablers, which, although morally neutral per se, can significantly facilitate or hinder both positive and negative moral behaviours.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11948-012-9413-4

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI-driven decisions may be amalgamated from factors that are not of obvious ethical importance, and yet collectively constitute unfairly biased decision-making.

    “Moreover, AI-driven decisions may be amalgamated from factors that are not of obvious ethical importance, and yet collectively constitute unfairly biased decision-making (Pedreshi et al. 2008; Floridi 2012).”

    From How to Design AI for Social Good: Seven Essential Factors (2020) · cites this paper as Floridi 2012

  • Even for non-learning algorithms, traditional, linear conceptions of responsibility prove to offer limited guidance in contemporary sociotechnical contexts.

    “Even for non-learning algorithms, traditional, linear conceptions of responsibility prove to offer limited guidance in contemporary sociotechnical contexts.”

    From The ethics of algorithms: key problems and solutions (2022) · cites this paper as Floridi 2012

  • Wider sociotechnical structures make it difficult to trace back responsibility for actions performed by distributed, hybrid systems of human and artificial agents.

    “Wider sociotechnical structures make it difficult to trace back responsibility for actions performed by distributed, hybrid systems of human and artificial agents (Floridi 2012;Crain 2018).”

    From The ethics of algorithms: key problems and solutions (2022) · cites this paper as Floridi 2012

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Floridi, L. (forthcoming), Information Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248.
  3. Koops, B. J., Hildebrandt, M., & Jaquet-Chiffelle, D. O. (2010). Bridging the accountability gap: Rights for new entities in the information society? Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 11(2), 497-561.
  4. Kroes, P. & Verbeek, P. -P. (forthcoming). Moral agency and technical artefacts. Springer.
  5. Simon, J. (2012). Epistemic responsibility in entangled socio-technical systems. In Proceedings of AISB/ IACAP World Congress 2012. Birmingham, UK: AISB.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Floridi, L.
Affiliations
University of Hertfordshire (GB)
Corresponding author
Floridi, Luciano
Venue
Science and Engineering Ethics
Published
2012-11-30
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
727-743
ISSN
  • 1353-3452 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-5546
OpenAlex
W1991112424
Cited by
201
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
56.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science and Engineering Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
Keywords
distributed knowledge, moral agency, information society, moral behavior, ethics of technology
MeSH terms
Group Processes, Humans, Morals, Moral Obligations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review