
The invention of the World Wide Web in 1989 by Tim Berners Lee, was a significant milestone in human history. It ushered in the Information Age and paved the way for social networking sites to connect people on a scale never seen before. Justice Kennedy of the US Supreme Court recently wrote in a judgement,
“These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard,” and referred to social media sites as a “modern public square.”
With more than a billion users accessing these sites everyday, the world’s conversation today has become inclusive and comprehensive. These sites would not have such widespread reach and influence if not for their inherent ability to facilitate creation and sharing of information and ideas via virtual communities. They have evolved to become the repository of collective human experience and the fulcrum around which social consciousness revolves. Different forms of expression like pictures, memes, GIFs, videos, texts, audio etc., are being used as tools for communication on social media sites. This social media explosion not influences individuals and groups but also, is influenced by it. It’s a symptomatic relationship.
On the flip side, the internet, and in particular, the social media sites have artificially inflated our range of choices leading to increased anxiety and confusion. They have achieved this through the combination of algorithms and information overload. Thus, in our pursuit of happiness or meaning in life, we sometimes end up making sub-optimal choices like giving preference to short-term gains over long term goals.

Whenever choices are involved, no matter how trivial the issue is, morality comes into play. It helps us in distinguishing between proper and improper decisions. Moral principles provide the necessary rational consistency to resolve conflict and lead a fulfilling life.
“I read somewhere that everybody on this planet is separated by only six other people. Six degrees of separation. Between us and everybody else on this planet. The president of the United States. A gondolier in Venice. Fill in the names. . . . How every person is a new door, opening up into other worlds. Six degrees of separation between me and everyone else on this planet. But to find the right six people . . .” — John Guare, Six Degrees of Separation (1990).
However John Guare said this in 1990, before Mark Zuckerberg even had the chance to create Facebook. Fast Forward to the 21st century and the world has gotten smaller. A lot smaller. In 2016, Facebook Research crunched the numbers and found that, each person in the world (at least among the 1.59 billion people active on Facebook) is connected to every other person only by an average of three and a half other people. From six to three and a half in a span of only 26 years.
This only goes onto show how our actions on the internet have more impact on the lives of others than any period since the dawn of civilization. Each like, comment, tweet, post etc., carry immense moral weight. Every social media user should be as morally vigilant on these sites as he on the streets. With people from all age groups spending increasing amounts of time on social media sites, it has become necessary to evaluate their moral conduct.
Since no new moral structures have been invented by philosophers to deal with social media, we need to fall back on the systems of yoke. Out of the various moral theories proposed over the centuries, three stand out in terms of influence and popular acceptance: Utilitarianism, Kant’ Categorical Imperative and Aristotelian Virtue Ethics.
In the following paragraphs, I’ll give a brief introduction to each of the three theories and then proceed to evaluate certain social media actions using the principles behind these theories.
Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham’s famous moral maxim, ‘The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation’ forms the cornerstone of Utilitarianism. In simple terms, it relies on cost-benefit analysis to make moral decisions. An action will then be said to be “right” as long as it satisfactorily causes good consequences compared to alternative actions, and it will be “wrong” if it doesn’t.

Let’s take the example of an upper-middle class girl in college. She posts a photo of her recent vacation to Cannes on Instagram and the picture gets quite a few likes. Now, is this action of posting the picture online ‘right’ according to the utilitarian thought? It should be considered a ‘right’ thing to do because it has good consequences for both her and her friends. She gets to show all the beautiful places she’s been to and her friends can share in her happiness. The ‘happiness quotient’ would be less if she did not share the photo and alone enjoyed the sight alone.
However, this post might also have unintended negative impact. A majority of the viewers of the post, (including some of her friends) who either cannot afford such vacations or are constrained by other factors, will either be indifferent or be resentful of her happiness. Though they might ‘like’ the photo, most of them will be envious of her. Studies have show how social media had negative impact on mental health in young people, between the age group of 14–24. Also due to economics, it’s the same minority of people who account for most of the picture-perfect vacations on social media and the same majority of people who are left behind. On the whole, this action does not result in the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
Similarly, is it ‘wrong’ if a user on Reddit upvotes an article that talks about global warming, without even reading it? On the surface, the action should be considered ‘right’ because most scientists agree that, global warming is harmful to humanity. Thus, the ‘not reading’ part can be excused. It also does not make sense to the user to waste his time on something so obvious. However, according to utilitarians, this action would be wrong because one has to make decisions only after utilizing all the information available. Not reading the article increased uncertainty and the overall risk of misinformation. It would have been far better if the user had neither upvoted nor downvoted the article.
While Bentham’s utilitarianism focuses on the ends or consequences of actions, Kant takes the opposite position.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative

According to Immanuel Kant’s moral axiom, one should ‘act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.’ In other words, it asks us to behave in a rational way that would be rational for anyone. If it is right for me to steal, then it should be right for everyone to steal. But if everyone stole, there would be nothing left to steal. So stealing is not right.
In the Instagram picture example, is posting the vacation picture, the right thing to do? Can it can be made an universal law such that, anyone who has the right device to post vacation pictures, should post them? Yes, Kant would not have any issues with this. There would not be any adverse reactions if everyone started posting vacation pictures online. However, the problem arises when filters are used to manipulate the picture to improve its aesthetics. According to Categorical Imperative, this would be a wrong thing to do. If everyone started distorting their original pictures, then it would become impossible for anyone to decide on a good place to visit. They would always end up being disappointed when they finally reach the place. Kant would also be critical of the use of filters in selfies.
Even in the second example, it would be wrong for anyone to upvote an article on any platform without reading. If everyone did that, Reddit would lose all credibility and fact and fiction would be indistinguishable.
With Kant focusing on the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of choices to make moral decisions, without considering the goodness or the badness of their consequences, he contradicts utilitarians. Perhaps the wise old sage, Aristotle could resolve this conflict.
Aristotelian Virtue Ethics

Aristotle’s theory of ethics has two parts: He argues that our personal happiness (or “flourishing”) is the ultimate goal that we should promote in life. Second, he argues that we should learn to have habits and behave in ways that lead to our personal happiness. He believed that, becoming the best person that we can be by developing and refining our unique abilities was the best way to be happy.
Again going back to the Instagram example, most would not deny that posting perfect vacation pictures and being instantly validated likes and comments would make the poster happy. So, is it ethical then according to Aristotle? But the following question arises, if posting those pictures help us in our personal development? This is when we enter the grey area. Unlike Kant and the utilitarians, Aristotle would refrain from passing on a quick and pre-decided judgement. He would leave it up to you to decide, if you want to post the picture or not. This great philosopher wants you to develop practical wisdom to make such decisions. This kind of wisdom should be developed in a manner that is consistent with your self and your beliefs. But you may ask, what is this practical wisdom? It is to avoid extremes and find the Golden Mean. Aristotle is neither in favour of cutting oneself off from the social media nor make it the prime focus of life. This is in line with what the Buddha also said: Find the middle ground. In Virtue Ethics, there are no elaborate rules to determine your actions. Good decisions will automatically flow from a virtuous man without a second thought. Thus, one should try to be his best self by developing four cardinal virtues: Prudence, Courage, Temperance & Justice.
Also, it would be wrong to upvote an article without reading because it is neither an virtuous act nor is it a wise thing to do.

Thus, though these three moral systems take a different stance on the method appropriate to arrive at the right decision, they are not all useless. They each have strengths relative to each other. Depending on one’s natural temperament, one may choose either of the theories to conduct himself in social media sites. Also it’s also not uncommon that practitioner of utilitarianism will reach the same conclusions as Kantians or Aristotelians.
However, more often than not, our actions on the social media sites are taken instantly, without much thought. Thus, it is not possible to scrutinize everything that we do on social media for moral consistency. What is the way out then? To internalize whichever moral system appeals to you in everyday life, be it offline or online, in all your actions. Eventually, being morally consistent will be effortless too.
