SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Düşünce ve Toplum Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1

Digital Ethics: A Value-Based Analysis Of Artificial Intelligence And Smart System Violations

Dijital Etik: Yapay Zekâ ve Akıllı Sistem İhlalleri Üzerine Değer Temelli Bir Analiz

Alaattin Aslan(MARMARA UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF COMMUNICATION)0000-0001-5053-9256
Pages
113–141
Publication Date
2026-06-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings revealed that the values of non-maleficence and justice were violated in all eight cases; that ethical crises largely stem from deficiencies in the design phase (five out of eight cases); and that existing legal mechanisms remain reactive and insufficient in preventing crises.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study presents an original "Value-Based Digital Ethics Model" to analyze the ethical crises caused by artificial intelligence and smart systems within the conceptual framework of digital ethics.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The model synthesizes Victor Turner's "Social Drama" theory with the AI ethics principles of Floridi and Cowls, and consists of five core digital values (beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, autonomy, explicability) and twenty-four sub-norms derived from three main sources in the literature: Hoven, IEEE's Ethically Aligned Design, and the systematic review by Ashok et al.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings revealed that the values of non-maleficence and justice were violated in all eight cases; that ethical crises largely stem from deficiencies in the design phase (five out of eight cases); and that existing legal mechanisms remain reactive and insufficient in preventing crises.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yapay Zekâ Etiği · Dijital Etik · Sosyal Drama

Abstract

This study presents an original "Value-Based Digital Ethics Model" to analyze the ethical crises caused by artificial intelligence and smart systems within the conceptual framework of digital ethics. The model synthesizes Victor Turner's "Social Drama" theory with the AI ethics principles of Floridi and Cowls, and consists of five core digital values (beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, autonomy, explicability) and twenty-four sub-norms derived from three main sources in the literature: Hoven, IEEE's Ethically Aligned Design, and the systematic review by Ashok et al. The model positions each digital value as a normative criterion within Turner's four stages of breach, crisis, redressive action, and reintegration, thereby proposing that algorithmic violations can be resolved by identifying which value has been breached at which stage and restructuring the system accordingly to achieve social reintegration. Using a qualitative case study method, eight global AI crises (algorithmic bias, deepfake manipulation, autonomous vehicle accident, data exploitation, autonomous weapons, etc.) selected within the framework of problem areas identified by the World Economic Forum were examined. The findings revealed that the values of non-maleficence and justice were violated in all eight cases; that ethical crises largely stem from deficiencies in the design phase (five out of eight cases); and that existing legal mechanisms remain reactive and insufficient in preventing crises. The study argues that a proactive ethical governance framework based on the five core digital values is an existential necessity for preserving the democratic integrity of digital society and human dignity.

Özet

Bu çalışma, yapay zekâ ve akıllı sistemlerin neden olduğu etik krizleri, dijital etiğin kavramsal çerçevesi içinde çözümlemek amacıyla özgün bir "Değer Temelli Dijital Etik Model" sunmaktadır. Model, Victor Turner'ın "Sosyal Drama" kuramı ile Floridi ve Cowls'ın yapay zekâ etiği ilkelerini sentezlemekte; literatürdeki üç temel kaynaktan (Hoven, IEEE Ethically Aligned Design ve Ashok ve ark. sistematik taraması) hareketle belirlenen beş ana dijital değer (faydalılık, zararsızlık, adalet, özerklik, açıklık) ve bu değerlere bağlı yirmi dört alt normdan oluşmaktadır. Model, her bir dijital değeri Turner'ın ihlal, kriz, düzeltici eylem ve yeniden bütünleşme aşamalarında normatif birer kriter olarak konumlandırmakta; böylece algoritmik ihlallerin hangi aşamada hangi değerin ihlal edildiğinin tespiti ve sistemin bu değere uygun biçimde yeniden yapılandırılması yoluyla toplumsal yeniden bütünleşmenin sağlanabileceğini öngörmektedir. Nitel vaka analizi yöntemiyle, Dünya Ekonomik Forumu'nun belirlediği sorun alanları ekseninde seçilen sekiz küresel yapay zekâ krizi (algoritmik önyargı, deepfake manipülasyonu, otonom araç kazası, veri sömürüsü, otonom silahlar vb.) incelenmiştir. Bulgular, zararsızlık ve adalet değerlerinin vakaların tamamında ihlal edildiğini; etik krizlerin büyük ölçüde tasarım aşamasındaki eksikliklerden kaynaklandığını (sekiz vakanın beşi) ve mevcut hukuki mekanizmaların reaktif kalarak krizleri önlemede yetersiz kaldığını ortaya koymuştur. Çalışma, beş temel dijital değere dayalı proaktif bir etik yönetişim çerçevesinin, dijital toplumun demokratik bütünlüğü ve insan onurunun korunması açısından varoluşsal bir zorunluluk olduğunu savunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aslan, A. (2026). Digital Ethics: A Value-Based Analysis Of Artificial Intelligence And Smart System Violations. Düşünce ve Toplum Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 113–141. https://doi.org/10.55796/dusuncevetoplum.1955088

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (46)

  1. Anderson, M., & Anderson, S. L. (2007). Machine ethics: Creating an ethical intelligent agent. AI Magazine, 28(4), 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v28i4.2065
  2. Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016, 23 Mayıs). Machine bias. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
  3. Ashok, M., Madan, R., Joha, A., & Sivarajah, U. (2021). Ethical framework for artificial intelligence and digital technologies. International Journal of Information Management, 62, 102433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102433
  4. Barker, K., & Ferguson, M. (2022). Introduction to digital ethics. Routledge.
  5. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7. Baskı). Oxford University Press.
  6. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Polity Press.
  7. Cabinet Office, Government of Japan. (2016). The 5th Science and Technology Basic Plan. https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/basic/5thbasicplan.pdf
  8. Capurro, R. (2009). Digital ethics. The International Review of Information Ethics, 11, 2-5.
  9. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2. Baskı). Blackwell Publishers.
  10. Cath, C., Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the 'good society': The US, EU, and UK approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 505-528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9901-7
  11. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.
  12. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3. Baskı). Sage Publications.
  13. Danaher, J. (2016). The threat of algocracy: Reality, resistance and accommodation. Philosophy & Technology, 29(3), 245-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-015-0211-1
  14. Deguchi, A., Hirai, C., Matsuoka, H., Nakano, T., Oshima, K., Tai, M., & Tani, S. (2020). What is Society 5.0?. Society 5.0: A people-centric super-smart society içinde (s. 1-23). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2989-4_1
  15. Dignum, V. (2019). Responsible artificial intelligence: How to develop and use AI in a responsible way. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30371-6
  16. Eggers, W. D., & Hickin, R. (2020). Global Technology Governance Report 2021: Harnessing Fourth Industrial Revolution Technologies in a COVID-19 World. World Economic Forum.
  17. European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj
  18. Federal Trade Commission. (2019). FTC imposes $5 billion penalty and sweeping new privacy restrictions on Facebook. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/07/ftc-imposes-5-billion-penalty-sweeping-new-privacy-restrictions-facebook
  19. Floridi, L. (2021). The European legislation on AI: A brief analysis of its philosophical approach. Philosophy & Technology, 34(2), 215-222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00460-9
  20. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1
  21. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689-707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
  22. Gal, U., Jensen, T. B., & Stein, M. K. (2020). Breaking the vicious cycle of algorithmic management: A virtue ethics approach to people analytics. Information and Organization, 30(2), 100301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2020.100301
  23. Hagendorff, T. (2020). The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines, 30(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8
  24. Harayama, Y. (2017). Society 5.0: Aiming for a new human-centered society. Japan Spotlight, 36(4), 8-13.
  25. Hill, K. (2020, 24 Haziran). Wrongfully accused by an algorithm. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/technology/facial-recognition-arrest.html
  26. Hoven, J. v. (2015). Ethics for the digital age: Where are the moral spaces. H. Werthner & F. Harmelen (Ed.), Informatics in the future içinde (s. 65-77). SpringerOpen.
  27. Human Rights Watch. (2021). Stopping killer robots: Country positions on banning fully autonomous weapons and retaining human control. https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/08/10/stopping-killer-robots/country-positions-banning-fully-autonomous-weapons-and
  28. IEEE. (2019). Ethically aligned design: A vision for prioritizing human well-being with autonomous and intelligent systems (1. Baskı). IEEE Standards Association. https://ethicsinaction.ieee.org
  29. Mackert, M. (2020). Digital ethics orientation, values and attitudes for a digital world.
  30. Marchant, G. E., Allenby, B. R., & Herkert, J. R. (Ed.). (2011). The growing gap between emerging technologies and legal-ethical oversight: The pacing problem. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7
  31. Marghalani, A., & AlQahtani, M. (2019). Digital ethics: Definition and scope. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 10(7), 1-6.
  32. Masuda, Y. (1980). The information society as post-industrial society. World Future Society.
  33. McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. The MIT Press.
  34. Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
  35. Moor, J. H. (1998). Reason, relativity, and responsibility in computer ethics. Computers and Society, 28(1), 14-21.
  36. Moor, J. H. (2006). The nature, importance, and difficulty of machine ethics. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 18-21. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2006.80
  37. National Transportation Safety Board. (2019). Collision between vehicle controlled by developmental automated driving system and pedestrian, Tempe, Arizona, March 18, 2018 (Yayın no. NTSB/HAR-19/03). https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1903.pdf
  38. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press. Norwegian Safety Investigation Authority. (2024). Report on the investigation of the Viking Sky incident. https://nsia.no/Marine/Published-reports/2024-05
  39. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
  40. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4. Baskı). Sage Publications. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2018). Will robots really steal our jobs? An international analysis of the potential long term impact of automation. https://www.pwc.co.uk/economic-services/assets/international-impact-of-automation-feb-2018.pdf
  41. Turner, V. (1974). Dramas, fields, and metaphors: Symbolic action in human society. Cornell University Press.
  42. UN Security Council. (2021). Letter dated 8 March 2021 from the Panel of Experts on Libya established pursuant to resolution 1973 (2011) addressed to the President of the Security Council (Yayın no. S/2021/229). https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3905159?v=pdf
  43. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
  44. Wallach, W., & Allen, C. (2009). Moral machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford University Press. Yeung, K. (2018). Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation. Regulation & Governance, 12(4), 505-523. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12158
  45. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6. Baskı). Sage Publications.
  46. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.