Confusion and the Role of Intuitions in the Debate on the Conception of the Right to Privacy

Res Publica - Tập 27 - Trang 669-674 - 2021
Björn Lundgren1,2,3
1Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
2Institute for Futures Studies, Stockholm, Sweden
3Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Tóm tắt

Recently, Jakob Thraine Mainz and Rasmus Uhrenfeldt defended a control-based conception of a moral right to privacy (Mainz and Uhrenfeldt, Res Publica, 2020)—focusing on conceptualizing necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for a privacy right violation. This reply comments on a number of mistakes they make, which have long reverberated through the debate on the conceptions of privacy and the right to privacy and therefore deserve to be corrected. Moreover, the reply provides a sketch of a general response for defending the limited access conception of the right to privacy against control-based intuitions.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Hansson, S.O. 2003. Ethical Criteria of Risk Acceptance. Erkenntnis 59 (3): 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026005915919.

Kagan, S. 1989. The Limits of Morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Lundgren, B. 2020a. A Dilemma for Privacy as Control. Journal of Ethics 24: 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-019-09316-z.

Lundgren, B. 2020b. Against AI-improved Personal Memory. In Aging Between Participation and Simulation: Ethical Dimensions of Socially Assistive Technologies in Elderly Care, ed. J. Haltaufderheide, J. Hovemann and J. Vollmann, 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110677485-014.

Lundgren, B. Forthcoming. How we can make sense of control-based intuitions for limited access-conceptions of the right to privacy. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy.

Macnish, K. 2018. Government Surveillance and Why Defining Privacy Matters in a Post-Snowden World. Journal of Applied Philosophy 35 (2): 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12219.

Mainz, J.T., and R. Uhrenfeldt. 2020. Too Much Info: Data Surveillance and Reasons to Favor the Control Account of the Right to Privacy. Res Publica. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-020-09473-1.

Moore, A.D. 2008. Defining Privacy. Journal of Social Philosophy 39 (3): 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2008.00433.x.

Parent, W.A. 1983. Privacy, Morality, and the Law. Philosophy & Public Affairs 12 (4): 269–288. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265374.

Thomson, J.J. 1975. The Right to Privacy. Philosophy & Public Affairs 4 (4): 295–314. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265075.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Res Publica

Tập 27

669-674

Thông tin tác giả