Blockchain technology presents society with fundamental ethical dilemmas that require careful consideration. Before we can make informed policy decisions, we need to understand the strongest arguments on all sides of these debates. This is where ethical positions come into play.
Through our collaborative process, we aim to develop, refine, and strengthen different ethical stances—not to determine which is "correct," but to ensure that all perspectives are thoroughly explored and articulated. This comprehensive approach will provide policymakers and practitioners with the nuanced understanding they need to navigate blockchain's complex moral landscape.
What is an Ethical Position?
An ethical position is a coherent stance on what is morally right or wrong in a particular situation. In our blockchain ethics initiative, these positions serve as structured arguments about how blockchain technology should be developed, implemented, and regulated.
Characteristics of Ethical Positions:
- Value-based: Grounded in moral principles such as fairness, liberty, harm prevention, justice, or autonomy
- Reasoned: Supported by logical arguments and evidence, not merely personal opinions or preferences
- Actionable: Lead to specific recommendations about policies, practices, or technical choices
- Contestable: People with different moral frameworks and priorities can legitimately disagree
Our Starting Point: Four Key Tensions
We begin our exploration with four fundamental ethical tensions in blockchain technology. These represent areas where competing values create genuine dilemmas with no easy answers. Through our collaborative process, these positions may evolve, expand, or be reorganized as we deepen our understanding.
1. Transparency vs. Privacy
- Pro-transparency position: Public ledgers enable accountability, reduce corruption, and allow anyone to verify transactions and smart contract execution. Transparency is essential for trust and democratic oversight.
- Pro-privacy position: Individuals deserve financial privacy, protection from surveillance, and the ability to transact without creating permanent public records that can be exploited.
2. Decentralization vs. Governance
- Pro-decentralization position: No single entity should control the network; distributed power prevents censorship, manipulation, and preserves the democratic ideals of blockchain technology.
- Pro-governance position: Networks need coordinated decision-making, dispute resolution mechanisms, and the ability to reverse malicious transactions or fix critical bugs when necessary.
3. Innovation vs. Consumer Protection
- Pro-innovation position: Minimal regulation preserves blockchain's disruptive potential, allows experimentation with new economic models, and prevents stifling of beneficial technological development.
- Pro-protection position: Strong oversight is needed to prevent fraud, market manipulation, and protect inexperienced users from losing funds or being exploited.
4. Immutability vs. Right to Correction
- Pro-immutability position: Permanent records ensure data integrity, prevent tampering, and create trust without intermediaries. The inability to change records is a feature, not a bug.
- Pro-correction position: People should be able to fix errors, remove outdated information, and exercise their right to be forgotten as recognized in privacy laws and human dignity principles.
A Living Framework
These four tensions represent our starting point, not our final destination. As our discussions progress, we expect this framework to evolve. New tensions may emerge, existing positions may be refined or restructured, and the relationships between different ethical stances may become clearer.
The goal is not to resolve these tensions definitively, but to develop the most sophisticated and compelling version of each position. This will create a comprehensive resource that honors the complexity of blockchain ethics and supports more informed decision-making in our digital society.