The ethics of cryptocurrencies: between financial freedom and social responsibility
Abstract
This article provides an interdisciplinary ethical analysis of cryptocurrencies, positioning them as a complex socio-cultural and technological phenomenon that transcends traditional finance. By bridging the gap between moral philosophy, economics, law, and social theology, the study explores the fundamental tension between the promise of financial freedom and the necessity of social responsibility. The analysis evaluates three research hypotheses focusing on the emergence of moral risks, the role of institutions in mitigating inequality, and the potential of cryptocurrencies to serve the common good. Using the philosophical frameworks of Aristotle, Kant, and Rawls, the text examines critical issues such as transaction anonymity, the environmental impact of proof-of-work mechanisms, and the paradox of centralized power within decentralized systems. Furthermore, it addresses the regulatory landscape, specifically the EU's MiCA regulation, and contrasts the use of crypto-assets in developed versus developing economies. The study concludes that while cryptocurrencies offer significant potential for financial inclusion and individual autonomy, they can only be ethically integrated into the global system if governed by a new paradigm of transparency, solidarity, and environmental care. Ultimately, the article argues for a shift from a purely economic profit logic to an ethical framework rooted in justice and the common good.
References
- Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30, 681–694.
- Geiger, C. (2021). The missing goal-scorers in the artificial intelligence team: Of big data, the fundamental right to research and the failed text and data mining limitations in the CDSM Directive. In Intellectual property and sports: Essays in honor of P. Bernt Hugenholtz (pp. 383–394). Kluwer Law International.
- Geiger, C., & Iaia, V. (2024). The forgotten creator: Towards a statutory remuneration right for machine learning of generative AI. Computer Law & Security Review, 52, 1–9.
- Geiger, C., Frosio, G., & Bulayenko, O. (2018a). Crafting a text and data mining exception for machine learning and big data. In Intellectual property and digital trade (pp. 95–112).
- Geiger, C., Frosio, G., & Bulayenko, O. (2018b). Text and data mining in the proposed copyright reform. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 49, 814–844.
- Hugenholtz, P. B. (2012). The story of the tape recorder and the history of copyright levies. In Copyright and the challenge of the new. Wolters Kluwer.
- Lemley, M. (2024). How generative AI turns copyright upside down. Columbia Science & Technology Law Review, 25(2), 190–212.
- Lucchi, N. (2023). ChatGPT: A case study on copyright challenges for generative AI systems. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 15(3), 602–624.
- Margoni, T., & Kretschmer, M. (2022). A deeper look into EU TDM exceptions. GRUR International, 71, 685–701.
- Netanel, N. (2003). Impose a noncommercial use levy to allow free peer-to-peer sharing. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 17(1), 2–83.
- Oksanen, V., & Välimäki, M. (2005). Copyright levies as an alternative compensation method. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 2(2), 25–39.
- Senftleben, M., Margoni, T., et al. (2022). Ensuring visibility and accessibility of European creative content. JIPITEC, 13, 67–86.
- Truyens, M., & Van Eecke, P. (2014). Legal aspects of text mining. Computer Law & Security Review, 30, 153–170.
- Wang, J. T., Deng, Z., et al. (2024). An economic solution to copyright challenges of generative AI. arXiv.