We look in the same spot, but we see different things. Where some see something lacking, others see something of value. Where some see prejudice, others see objectivity. We live in continual oscillation between subjectivity and our claim to objectivity, and this comes from being part of a social context, as every reality, no matter how small, establishes an implantation of rules, customs, and values.
We are thus perpetually oscillating between subjectivity and objectivity, in the difficult task of finding a balance point – assuming it exists and is stable – between each of us being an individual but, at the same time, part of an organizational reality that, while hopefully accepting individuality, must nevertheless create, in order to operate, a common system in which meaning, values, and principles are harmonized.
The search for balance, of course, also applies to ethics, but is it possible to ever arrive at an absolute definition of ethics, to answer, for example, whether or not an AI model demonstrates ethical behavior? I believe that this is not possible, objectively, but that it is possible to answer – and only possible – within a specific system of meaning, values, and principles.
Data and the Subjective-Objective Oscillation
If we accept this point of view, then, in this digital age, in which data is the means by which many of us view the world, we must ask ourselves, can data be of any help in this subjective-objective oscillation, so that everything that comes to life from data remains, while respecting the individuality of users, consistent with the system that represents what the user’s organization is and does?
To answer this question, I need to highlight the difference between listing and deciding, because if data can help us by listing alternatives, it cannot help us to decide on the best alternative, not without additional elements, which often pertain to organizational, ethical, social, and cultural considerations, which belong to the implicit knowledge that forms our worldviews.
Data and Ethics
While recognizing and accepting this limitation, we must evaluate data in terms of how well it can help users and also how easily users can convey their ideas with it, while at the same time screening out all of the underlying technological complexity. This is because every element of friction between the meaning of the data and the potential consequences, positive or negative, deriving from its use, represents an obstacle to a conscious, informed decision. If we were to continually face such obstacles, we would naturally stay within the confines of the data we know best, but this would restrict our ethics (derived from this data), to within a substantially subjective conceptual enclosure, preventing us from attaining that subjective-objective balance that would, in turn, enable us to gain an “objective-ethics-with-respect-to.”
In conclusion, I believe that an objective ethics in an absolute sense, in a world so diverse in terms of cultures, political and religious orientations, social customs, and ways of being and thinking, is unrealistic. Even if it were possible, it would still be transient, perhaps ephemeral, in that it would have to continuously adapt to a fluid, interconnected world. However, data, when handled to reduce friction for users, has the potential to aid us in finding an ethical balance, within the dynamic nature of the diverse social contexts in which we operate, or, in other words, the laudable “objective-ethics-with-respect-to.”
He is passionate about philosophy, which he considers an indispensable discipline for those wishing to deal with Artificial Intelligence. He also deals with non-verbal communication, offering specialized seminars and advice (https://www.decorporisvoce.com/) and, in his spare time, is a Food Blogger (https://www.trapignatteesgommarelli.com/).
- Ethics, Data, People, and Looking-and-Seeing - March 5, 2025
- Data Integration: It’s not a Technological Challenge, but a Semantic Adventure - February 15, 2024
- Data Ecology - December 22, 2022