Subjectivity and information ethics

1 In " A brief history of information ethics " , Thomas Froehlich (2004) quickly surveys under several broad categories some of the many issues that constitute information ethics: under and violence in the press; and under intercultural information ethics: digital divide, and the ethical role of the Internet for social, political, cultural and economic development. Many of the debates in information ethics, on these and other issues, have to do with specific kinds of relationships between subjects. The most important subject and a familiar figure in information ethics is the ethical subject engaged in moral deliberation, whether appearing as the bearer of moral rights and obligations to other subjects, or as an agent whose actions are judged, whether by others or by oneself, according to the standards of various moral codes and ethical principles. Many debates in information ethics revolve around conflicts between those acting according to principles of unfettered access to information and those finding some information offensive or harmful. Subjectivity is at the heart of information ethics. But how is subjectivity understood? Can it be understood in ways that broaden ethical reflection to include problems that remain invisible when subjectivity is taken for granted and when how it is created remains unquestioned? This paper proposes some answers by investigating the meaning and role of subjectivity in information ethics. The moral subject was certainly at the center of Froehlich's 1992 ARIST review of ethical issues for information professionals (1992). He proposed a triangular model of self, organization, and context (or environment), intending it as a framework sufficiently robust to capture the " three facets of most ethical situations " (p. 294). This is a very general statement, one expressed even more forcefully later in the paper: " The proposed model acknowledges that there are always three definite elements present in an ethical situation: self, organization, and environment " (p. 297; my emphasis). For my purposes, the important feature of Froehlich's triangular model is its multiplication of selves and agents. Froehlich explains that " the self is the unique and autonomous moral agent, typically the actor facing the moral problem…the subject and/or object of moral choice " (1992, p. 295). In his model, the self splits into three: the self-as-person, the self-as-employee, and the self-as-professional. Although this tripartite self is a moral agent, it is not the only agent. The other two points of the triangle, organization and environment, …