E-coaching systems and social justice: ethical concerns about inequality, coercion, and stigmatization

B. A. Kamphorst, J. H. Anderson
{"title":"E-coaching systems and social justice: ethical concerns about inequality, coercion, and stigmatization","authors":"B. A. Kamphorst,&nbsp;J. H. Anderson","doi":"10.1007/s43681-024-00424-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Poor self-regulation has been linked to various behaviors that contribute to pressing societal issues, including rising household debt, inefficient use of sustainable resources, and increasing healthcare demands. In light of this observation, the prospect of individuals receiving automated, tailored support by “e-coaching systems” to scaffold and improve their self-regulation is thought to hold promise for making society-wide progress in addressing such issues. Though there may be legitimate reasons for promoting the use of such systems, and individuals might welcome the support, our aim in the present article is to contribute to the ethics of e-coaching by showing how societal pressures towards the widespread adoption of automated e-coaching systems raise concerns in relation to three distinct aspects of social justice. We argue that societal inequalities may be introduced or exacerbated by (1) unequal access to the technologies, (2) unequally distributed restrictions to liberty and subjection to coercion, and (3) the potentially disparate impact of the use of e-coaching technologies on (self-)stigmatizing perceptions of competence. The article offers a research agenda for studying and addressing these concerns.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72137,"journal":{"name":"AI and ethics","volume":"5 2","pages":"911 - 920"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s43681-024-00424-7.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI and ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-024-00424-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Poor self-regulation has been linked to various behaviors that contribute to pressing societal issues, including rising household debt, inefficient use of sustainable resources, and increasing healthcare demands. In light of this observation, the prospect of individuals receiving automated, tailored support by “e-coaching systems” to scaffold and improve their self-regulation is thought to hold promise for making society-wide progress in addressing such issues. Though there may be legitimate reasons for promoting the use of such systems, and individuals might welcome the support, our aim in the present article is to contribute to the ethics of e-coaching by showing how societal pressures towards the widespread adoption of automated e-coaching systems raise concerns in relation to three distinct aspects of social justice. We argue that societal inequalities may be introduced or exacerbated by (1) unequal access to the technologies, (2) unequally distributed restrictions to liberty and subjection to coercion, and (3) the potentially disparate impact of the use of e-coaching technologies on (self-)stigmatizing perceptions of competence. The article offers a research agenda for studying and addressing these concerns.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
电子教练系统与社会正义:对不平等、胁迫和污名化的伦理关注
自我监管不力与各种行为有关,这些行为导致了紧迫的社会问题,包括家庭债务增加、可持续资源的低效使用以及医疗需求的增加。鉴于这一观察结果,人们认为,通过“电子辅导系统”为个人提供自动化、量身定制的支持,以支持和提高他们的自我监管,有望在解决此类问题方面取得全社会的进展。虽然推广使用这种系统可能有合理的理由,而且个人可能会欢迎这种支持,但我们在本文中的目的是通过展示广泛采用自动电子教练系统的社会压力如何引起与社会正义的三个不同方面有关的关注,从而为电子教练的道德做出贡献。我们认为,社会不平等可能由以下因素引入或加剧:(1)对技术的不平等获取;(2)对自由和服从强制的不平等限制;(3)使用电子教练技术对(自我)污名化的能力认知的潜在差异影响。本文为研究和解决这些问题提供了一个研究议程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Principle-based AI ethics: challenges and prospects Correction: AIgemony: power dynamics, dominant narratives, and colonisation AI and research, are we (un)consciously guilty? Detecting doctrinal flattening in AI generated responses AI ethics in creative domains: a systematic review of detection, recognition, interpretation, generation, and moral implications in the arts (2000–2025)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1