An ethical assessment of “crypto” paints a bleak picture. The negatives overwhelm the positives. Claims for moral benefits of the technology do not hold up under scrutiny. If there is a reason for cryptocurrency to exist, it must derive from other considerations (e.g., economic advantages). This column focuses on the first category: the questions that engage ethicists (who claim to be in some sense like scientists, neutral and objective, interested in “theory”) and moralizers (who don’t, and aren’t). Ethical or moralistic analyses divide between those who see crypto as a positive good – and those who see it as no-good. This sets up a highly polarized debate about the essential (unavoidable) versus the incidental (avoidable) consequences implied by the spread of this new technology; about whether blockchain is merely a tool, an instrument, or something more, a shaper of moral behavior; and whether we should regulate the technology directly – as we do with most pharmaceuticals, for example – or only regulate and police its users based on what they choose to do with it.
Full opinion “The Ethics Of Crypto: Sorting Out Good Intentions And Bad Actors.
