A Response to Some Philosophical Questions About Privacy
Dissertation, Stanford University (1989)
Abstract |
Privacy is a puzzling concept. It is often sought in the realm of law and everyday life. Yet certain philosophers and jurists contend that the concept should be abandoned. The philosophers argue that privacy is neither conceptually nor morally distinct from other interests; the jurists point to the apparently disparate interests involved in privacy law. In my dissertation, I present an intimacy and control-based account of privacy which escapes these criticisms. ;This dissertation contains both a critical and constructive section. In the critical section, I survey the chaos of privacy in the legal and philosophical literature. I draw out three questions from the literature: is privacy a conceptually and morally distinct concept? How should privacy be defined? What value should be accorded to privacy? The constructive chapters of my dissertation answer these questions. I start by arguing that skepticism about privacy fails: the meaning and value of privacy cannot be reduced to the meaning and value of non-privacy interests. I then argue that privacy provides the agent with control over intimate decisions, including an agent's decisions about intimate access to herself, the dissemination of intimate information, and her own intimate actions. This account of privacy gives rise to the need to explain intimacy. I argue that intimacy is a product of the agent's motivation. To claim that something is intimate is to claim that it draws its meaning and value for the agent from her love, liking and/or care. This account of intimacy is incorporated into my definition of privacy: privacy is the state of possessing control over decisions concerning matters which draw their meaning and value from one's love, liking and care. Finally, I discuss privacy's value. I argue that the source of privacy's positive value is neither its promotion of relationships, nor respect for persons as rational choosers. Rather, privacy embodies our respect for persons as emotional beings. To respect others in this fashion, we must acknowledge their autonomous capacity for love, liking and care. In short, we must accord them privacy.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Philosophical Theories of Privacy: Implications for an Adequate Online Privacy Policy.Herman T. Tavani - 2007 - Metaphilosophy 38 (1):1–22.
Annabelle Lever: On Privacy: Routledge, 2011. Ix and 100 Pp. $22.95 ISBN: 0415395704, $110.00 ISBN: 0415395690.D. Mokrosinska - 2015 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (3):665-666.
Considering Privacy as a Public Good and Its Policy Ramifications for Business Organizations.Dheeraj Sharma Shaheen Borna - 2011 - Business and Society Review 116 (3):331-353.
Moral Justifications for Privacy and Intimacy.Samuel P. Winch - 1996 - Journal of Mass Media Ethics 11 (4):197 – 209.
Floridi’s Ontological Theory of Informational Privacy: Some Implications and Challenges. [REVIEW]Herman T. Tavani - 2008 - Ethics and Information Technology 10 (2-3):155-166.
Epistemological Dimensions of Informational Privacy.Klemens Kappel - 2013 - Episteme 10 (2):179-192.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2015-02-06
Total views
0
Recent downloads (6 months)
0
2015-02-06
Total views
0
Recent downloads (6 months)
0
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.