Even as the methods of communicating are drastically changing with the evolution of the internet, email, text messaging, and especially and social networking sites, so also it the nature, or quality, of communication. Conversations are staggered and shortened, frequently interrupted by updates or other messages or tweets. In my experience, when carried on digitally, conversations are, by nature, abrupt, and compete for attention. In fact, even face-to-face conversations are interrupted by the constant pings, dings, and chirps of rival conversations with non-persons reposting the most trivial of non-information. My least favorite word this past year is “meme”. If you’ve got something to say to me, please say it. Please do not share someone else’s “less-than-a-thought” with me because you can’t think of your own words to say.

Perhaps all of that is a little harsh. I’m sure it’s age and attention-span related. I’m on the older end of technology users. I come from an era where words have meanings and are used to communicate real thought and feelings.

I find myself retreating farther and farther away from social media as the years pass. After examining my position through the lenses of utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics, I find that there are elements of each of the three frameworks in my stance. I find more negative experiences on social media sites than positive, so, as a utilitarian, I limit time spent checking on my profiles and those of my friends and family. I value my right to privacy, rarely sharing anything publicly, never clicking on ads, seldom reposting anything—ever, and avoiding clicking on anything that I don’t want the data-collectors to associate with me as a person, my identity, my self. From a deonlologist standpoint, social media is not prudent. But most importantly, from a virtue ethics standpoint, social networking sites are not the venue for cultivating real relationships, that is, relationships that lead to eudaimonia for all parties. Shannon Vallor’s gaze, the gaze of Sartre,

The gaze of the morally significant other, which holds me respectfully in place and solicits my ongoing patience, is a critical element in my moral development; though I might for all that ignore it, it creates an important situational gradient in the virtuous direction. (2009:166) (Ess 130)

Simply put, how can real relationships develop without the intimacy of human connection?

To begin to determine a universal set of ethical guides for the use of digital technology, one must begin by examining ethical perspectives from around the globe. These frameworks are defined and unique according to the view of self. How does one fit into the world and relate to it. Throughout time and place, cultures have developed distinct ways of defining self. The culture a person is raised in is a primary determining factor for which ethical framework “works”. Ess describes utilitarianism as a consequentialist way of solving ethical issues. What will happen if one choice is made rather than another. In this framework, consequences to an ethical choice are assessed and the decision is made based on the greatest pleasure, or the avoidance of pain. One weakness with this method is that the measurement of the consequences changes over time. The pleasure/pain ratio might weigh one way immediately, but the farther out the possible consequences are projected, the pleasure/pain ratio could change significantly. Another weakness with this method is placing value on the possible outcomes for all interested parties.

The following five ethical frameworks are also described in detail:

• deontology—issues are decided based on what is right,
• virtue ethics—issues are decided based on what is good (eudaimonia & phronesis),
• feminist ethics (or the ethics of care)—places importance on emotional considerations,
• Confucianism—focuses on becoming a more complete human being in relation to family and community, and
• African ethics (or ubuntu)—evaluates the self through relationships within family and the larger community.

In addition to the six frameworks of ethical thought, Ess also describes three processes for the application (or evaluation) of the previously mentioned ethical frameworks. Ethical monism is polarizing; when a position is taken, it is taken absolutely, and all other positions must be false. Ethical relativism allows for more flexibility in the application of a particular framework but fails to make a cohesive argument about an ethical norm that could, and should, apply universally to all humans regardless of culture, gender, age, etc.  A third possible method for the application or understanding of the ethical frameworks is ethical pluralism. This thought process allows flexibility in how an ethical standard is applied.