Abstract
The issue of this article is whether it is possible to regulate users' behavior without referring to ethics, and solely based on the architecture of virtual space? In this regard, three approaches are examined: 1- Adequacy of cyberspace architecture without the need for ethics 2- Compliance of the code with the principles of ethics 3- Necessity of hard ethics (before cyberspace architecture) and soft ethics (after architecture). In this context, the views of Lawrence Lessig (first approach), Richard Spinello (second approach) and Luciano Floridi (third approach) are discussed. In order to evaluate the aforementioned approaches, two criteria of "theoretical acceptability" (the requirement that the preferred view must be defensible based on the moral theories) and "technological acceptability" (the requirement that preferred view must be executable from the engineering point of view). Therefore a combinatory view is defended, which is operationally based on the architecture (code) of cyberspace, but from the theoretical aspect, it also depends on Ethical principles (hard ethics) and rely on case-by-case ethical judgments of experts (soft ethics).
 
Keywords: Cyberspace Architecture, Digital Ethics, Lessig, Spinello, Floridi.
 

Introduction

John Caiazza (2005), emphasizing the role of technology in secularization, coined the term "technosecularism." He argues that technosecularism implicitly includes an ethical theory according to which "what technology can provide" should be utilized without regard to ethical rules. It seems that Lawrence Lessig's approach (1997, 1998a, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2006) to cyberspace can be interpreted as a technosecularist perspective. In Lessig’s view "code is law" and there is no role for ethics in regulating behavior. The issue addressed in this article is whether it is possible to regulate user behavior solely based on the architecture of cyberspace (code), without referring to ethics. In this article, in addition to Lessig's approach, alternative views from Spinello and Floridi are also presented and examined. By defining two criteria, "theoretical acceptability" and "technological feasibility," it is shown that none of the aforementioned perspectives are adequate, and therefore, a combined viewpoint is ultimately defended.
 

Materials and Methods

This article is a theoretical and philosophical research that is based on a qualitative research, which involves examining and analyzing different concepts and perspectives in the reliable sources of the literature.
 

Discussion and Results

Lawrence Lessig (1998b) analyzes four regulators that influence an individual's behavior in society through his "pathetic dot theory": law, norms, market, and architecture, which control behavior through punishment, stigma, price, and physical burdens, respectively. Lessig correspondingly discusses four regulators of individual behavior in cyberspace that correspond to these regulators, with the main focus being the latter, the architecture of cyberspace. He believes that the hardware, software, and protocols that constitute cyberspace regulate it, and this architecture of cyberspace (code) is the law of cyberspace. Although Lessig speaks of "norms," he does not introduce "ethics" in the sense of universal norms or values. This merit is evident in the approaches of Richard Spinello and Luciano Floridi (at two different levels).
Spinello (2001, 2002, 2011, 2014, 2021), regarding the regulation and ethics of cyberspace, considers Lessig's model of the four regulators to be inspiring but insufficient. He argues that ethical principles should be viewed governing the four regulators Lessig considers, rather than at their level. For instance, the architecture of cyberspace (code) should also be based on ethical principles and written under their guidance. What Spinello (2021) emphasizes are the "ideals and ethical principles" that are universal and constant, rather than relative and variable "cultural norms".
Nevertheless, Spinello believes that since the internet lacks a "physical center," it also has no "moral center" that can be held accountable for the flow of information in the network. A more far-reaching perspective on the relationship between the cyberspace and ethics should be sought in Floridi's approach.
Floridi (2018a, 2018b) considers ethics to be essential both before and after the formulation of the regulating laws. He refers to the ethical principles used in regulating and structuring the digital space as "hard ethics." Hard ethics essentially consists of the rules we consider as right and wrong or moral imperatives when discussing values, rights, duties, responsibilities, and so on. However, since general laws and regulations cannot cover all details, in cases of failure or ambiguity of general rules in specific judgments, individuals or organizations must rely on "soft ethics" to decide what role they should play in what Floridi calls the "infosphere." Floridi (2006) defines the term infosphere (in correspondence with biosphere) as "the entire informational environment created by all informational entities," which includes the informational entities themselves, their characteristics, their interactions, and so forth, and also encompasses "offline and analog information spaces." Therefore, Floridi's approach represents a kind of interweaving of ethics (both hard and soft) and the architecture of cyberspace (code), as he believes that ethical principles are not outside the legal system but are implicitly embedded as integral components of the law. In fact, law is shaped and constrained by the conduit of ethics rather than being solely dictated by it.
 

Conclusion

In response to the question of whether it is possible to regulate user behavior solely based on the architecture of cyberspace and without reference to ethics, the views of Lawrence Lessig, Richard Spinello, and Luciano Floridi represent a spectrum of approaches. To compare these perspectives, we define two independent criteria: "theoretical acceptability" (in the philosophy of ethics) and "technological feasibility" (in engineering):
- Theoretical acceptability refers to the requirement that the chosen perspective must be defensible under the philosophy of ethics based on ethical theories.
- Technological feasibility refers to the requirement that the chosen perspective must be realizable under engineering in terms of operational and practical implementation.
The harmony between Lessig's and Spinello's approaches is that both are focused on the architecture of cyberspace (code) for implementation and operation. Therefore, these two approaches have greater clarity regarding the technical-engineering language and the potential for operationalization, meeting the criterion of "technological feasibility," compared to Floridi's approach. On the other hand, Floridi's approach surpasses over the other two approaches in terms of "theoretical acceptability" because it emphasizes both "ethical principles" and "case-based judgments," which are core elements of normative ethics and applied ethics. For Floridi's approach to be operationalized in the engineering phase, it requires attention to the other two approaches and a focus on the architecture of cyberspace (code). The implementation of Floridi's perspective regarding the details of case-based ethical judgments (soft ethics) in regulating cyberspace depends on the involvement of an ethicist in the field of cyberspace science and engineering.