In an era of breakneck technological advancement, “ethics” has become the ultimate buzzword—wielded by corporations, policymakers, and institutions as a shield against criticism. But as Ben Wagner astutely observes in his chapter from Being Profiled, ethics is increasingly deployed not as genuine moral commitment, but as a convenient substitute for binding regulation. Welcome to the age of ethics-washing and ethics-shopping.
The Seductive Appeal of Self-Regulation
The pitch is undeniably attractive: instead of waiting for sluggish regulatory processes or facing the stern hand of law enforcement, why not seize the moral high ground through voluntary ethical commitments? After all, who could oppose organizations striving to “do the right thing”?
But Wagner exposes the sleight of hand at work. Take Google DeepMind’s attempt to present itself as ethically minded while deflecting responsibility for mishandling medical data from 1.6 million patients. Here, ethical positioning becomes a smokescreen—a way to preempt criticism without fundamentally changing problematic practices.
When Institutions Choose Ethics Over Enforceable Rights
This rhetorical substitution extends far beyond corporate boardrooms. Even institutions bound by legal frameworks, like the European Commission operating under the Charter of Fundamental Rights, increasingly lean on ethics as a more flexible alternative. They develop AI ethics guidelines that invoke rights-based language without the inconvenience of legal enforceability. Wagner calls these “potential fundamental rights”—aspirational concepts that remain essentially toothless unless violations become so egregious they finally trigger regulatory action. Meanwhile, genuine regulatory efforts get diluted through multi-stakeholder initiatives that systematically sideline state authority in favor of industry self-governance.
The Cultural Complexity of Ethical Values
A 2018 study published in Frontiers in Psychology adds another layer to this problem. Researchers examining value systems across Brazil, India, and the UK discovered something crucial: while people universally endorse core values like equality and helpfulness, the concrete behaviors that embody these values vary dramatically across cultures. This research reveals two critical insights:
Shared Ideals, Divergent Actions: Students across different nations ranked core values similarly, but what constitutes “helpful” behavior in one culture may look entirely different in another.
Recognition Without Ownership: Participants could identify value-behavior matches from other cultures, yet spontaneously illustrated values using culturally familiar examples. This cultural variability makes ethics-shopping even more problematic. If fundamental values can be abstractly accepted while being concretely enacted in countless ways, ethical frameworks without legal backing become dangerously malleable. Organizations can claim ethical adherence while interpreting behaviors however suits their interests.
The Dangers of a Choose-Your-Own-Ethics Marketplace
Without standardized enforcement mechanisms, ethics devolves into a marketplace where organizations can shop for frameworks that best serve their purposes. This isn’t just ineffective—it’s actively deceptive, allowing entities to wrap themselves in moral authority while avoiding meaningful accountability. To combat this trend, Wagner proposes six criteria for what he calls “thick” ethical approaches:
External participation in decision-making processes Independent oversight beyond internal audits Transparency in how decisions are reached Justifiable standards for ethical choices Clear distinction between ethics and human rights Well-defined relationship with law, especially regarding conflicts
Without these foundational elements, ethics becomes merely ornamental—meaningless at best, deliberately misleading at worst.
A Path Forward: Integration, Not Substitution
Wagner’s analysis isn’t a wholesale rejection of ethical frameworks, but rather a call for clarity and genuine accountability. Ethics can and should complement legal regulation—but it must never replace it. The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) demonstrates how this integration can work. Robust, rights-based regulation coexists with design philosophies like Privacy by Design and Value-Sensitive Design, creating a framework where ethical principles gain teeth through legal enforceability.
Beyond the Buzzwords
If we genuinely want technologies that respect human dignity and promote societal wellbeing, we must move beyond ethical sloganeering. True ethical practice requires:
Legally binding definitions and standards External oversight mechanisms Transparent accountability processes Clear consequences for violations
Ethics should not provide an escape route from regulation—it should be embedded within law, governance, and technological design to create systems that are both principled and enforceable.
Further Reading
Wagner, Ben. “Ethics as an Escape from Regulation: From ‘Ethics-Washing’ to Ethics-Shopping?” in Being Profiled: Cogitas Ergo Sum, edited by Emre Bayamlıoğlu et al., Amsterdam University Press, 2018.
Hanel, P. H. P., et al. “Cross-Cultural Differences and Similarities in Human Value Instantiation.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 9, 2018.