An Exploration of the Technomoral Virtues

Honesty

    Vallor defines honesty as a respect for truth in a complex, interconnected world. In the technosocial context, Vallor emphasizes that practicing honesty extends beyond simply telling the truth—it requires moral expertise in communicating the truth well. A strong embodiment of the technomoral virtue of honesty involves the communication of information ethically, reliably, and appropriately, especially in an age dominated by digital media and surveillance technologies (Vallor, 2016, pp. 121–122).
    Sherlock Holmes, iconic detective created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, is known for his ability to solve cases through logic and observation. Holmes is clear-minded, relying only on reasoning separate of emotional influence and a relentless pursuit of the facts.
    Holmes exemplifies Vallor’s conception of honesty as more than truth telling. It involves a moral responsibility in how the truth is discovered and communicated. Holmes himself proclaims he is guided by the importance of “not allow[ing] your judgment to be biased by personal qualities” (Taliaferro & Le Gall, 2012, p. 134). His refusal to let bias or emotion cloud his judgment demonstrates the “virtue of honesty” through the “primacy assigned by Sherlock to objectivity and truth” (Taliaferro & Le Gall, 2012, p. 137). Holmes’ meticulous examination of what is the truth is a form of honesty that mirrors how the ethical communicator must handle information in today’s technosocial context.

Self-Control

    Self-control as a virtue is about the ability to consciously align and re-align one’s desires with the good. In a technosocial context, Vallor defines self-control as one’s ability to form and redirect their desires towards “goods and experiences” that are the most beneficial for your own and the collective human community’s capacity to lead physically and mentally fulfilling lives (Vallor, 2016, pp. 123–125).
    In science fiction movie Interstellar (2014), protagonist Joseph Cooper embodies the virtue of self-control as he is forced to choose between humanity’s survival and the most primal human instincts: protecting his children and preserving one’s own life. First, he must choose between staying with his children and the survival of the human race. Despite the large possibility he may never see them again, Cooper chooses to leave his children behind, embarking on a mission to save humanity as Earth becomes uninhabitable. Later on, he sacrifices his own life to give his partner the chance to find a habitable planet and secure humanity's future.
    Cooper is an exemplary example of the virtue of self-control by not just re-aligning his desires but by overcoming fundamental human instincts for the greater good. His choice to forgo both familial ties and self-preservation is what allows humanity to survive, truly showing how his self-control extends beyond individual desires and ensures the survival of the human race itself.

Humility

    Recognizing the limits of one’s knowledge and control is the hallmark of the virtue of humility. Compared to some of the other virtues, admitting that we do not know seems like a simple, trivial virtue to follow. However, humility that is not undertaken in the technosocial environment leads to both natural (assuming complete control over all diseases and faced with a scary rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria) and human society centered disasters (assuming control over the powerful tool of the internet and being the victim of embarrassingly large hacks). So, as a technomoral virtue, practicing humility involves acknowledgement of the limits of humans’ knowledge and understanding of the new technosocial world. By recognizing that humans are not the masters of the technologies that humans develop—and that they often exceed human understanding and control—it is possible to promote more responsible innovation (Vallor, 2016, pp. 125–127).
    The movie Forrest Gump (1994) follows the life of an intellectually disabled man during 1950s-1980s America, fictionally depicting his involvement among the historic events of the era. From the beginning, it is established that Forrest does not have a high IQ, a fact that he is aware of and repeats throughout the story: “I may not be a smart man, but I know what love is.” Forrest Gump “the film supports an ideology of humility” (Barkman & Sanna, 2020, p. 96). Forrest navigates a world of people smarter than him, but despite that unlike everyone else Forrest displays a profound sense of self-awareness. His humility is a genuine acknowledgment of his limitations and a result of this is he accepts that he cannot be in control of everything. Forrest's humility is starkly contrasted with the lives of those around him, particularly Jenny and Lieutenant Dan, who both suffer greatly as they try to control their fates in a world that is changing beyond their grasp.
    Forrest maintains this humility despite the recognition and success he achieves—whether being awarded for his military service, excelling at ping pong, or starting a successful shrimp business. These achievements are the real events and societal changes of the late 20th century, a period depicted with the same uncertainty and change that Vallor the fast-paced, technologically driven world Vallor.
    These achievements occur within the backdrop of real events and societal changes of the late 20th century, a period marked by the same uncertainty and rapid transformation that Vallor attributes to the technological world we must navigate today. In the same way that Vallor argues humility helps us navigate the uncertainties of the modern world, Forrest’s humility allows him to move through these changes gracefully and lead a meaningful life.

Justice

    As a virtue, justice is about ensuring fairness in the distribution of benefits and burdens. Justice as a technomoral virtue focuses specifically on this distribution in relation to the use of emerging technologies, emphasizing fairness, non-harm, and accountability for how these innovations impact human rights, dignity, and well-being (Vallor, 2016, pp. 128–129).
    There might be no better examination of the concept of justice, particularly within the context of American society, than the 1957 film 12 Angry Men (1957). 12 Angry Men is an almost two hour long film set in one room, capturing a jury's decision to acquit or convict an 18-year-old boy.
    In the American legal system, all of the people on a jury must agree in the decision to charge or acquit a defendant. Only known as Juror 8 in the movie, he serves as the guiding force in urging the rest of the jury to critically analyze the case beyond the surface-level evidence. Initially, all of the other eleven men on the jury quickly vote to convict the defendant, guided by the seemingly explicit evidence and their prejudice against the boy’s poorer background. Juror 8 challenges their blind faith in the legal system, pressing them to adopt a more nuanced understanding of justice, even when his skepticism is viewed as unreasonable and destabilizing. He compels a more careful examination of the evidence, from the witness’s disability to the emotional state of the boy’s family. His motivations lie solely in “a desire for truth and justice,” guiding the jurors through the prejudices and biases (Hanscomb & Philosophy Documentation Center, 2019, p. 4). Juror 8 exemplifies Vallor’s technomoral virtue of justice by emphasizing fairness, non-harm, and accountability. He ensures that the process respects the dignity and rights of the defendant, reinforcing that true justice is about moral integrity, especially in the face of societal pressures and preconceived judgments.

Courage

    The virtue of courage requires balancing intelligent fear and hope. To undertake a courageous task, one chooses to undertake the task knowing the risks and challenges (even when the outcomes are ambiguous or intimidating). Courage often requires personal sacrifice—whether in the form of loss or injury—in the pursuit of doing what is right (Vallor, 2016, p. 130). Technomoral courage is the ability to confront the moral and material risks of emerging technologies, making decisions that prioritize long-term human flourishing over immediate material comfort or safety (Vallor, 2016, pp. 129–132).
    Courage plays a special role in the book series Harry Potter written by J.K. Rowling. Orphaned as a baby (no doubt due partially to the courage his parents showed), Harry Potter is destined to confront the darkest wizard of his time, Lord Voldemort. As a preteen, Harry comes to terms with the immense responsibility he carries for the survival of the Wizarding World—it cannot be easy to come to terms with the fact that your life is not truly yours to control. Throughout his school years, Harry continually steps up to face the challenges of chasing down Voldemort and his supporters.
    The sorting hat helps identify that “Harry is a Grffyindor, whose most salient virtue is courage” (Patterson, 2009, p. 65). He proves true to his house, time and time again“reject[ing] his fear whenever he knows that the action to be undertaken affects the greater good” (Patterson, 2009, p. 65). From confronting Professor Quirrell in his first year, to saving Ginny from the basilisk, to accepting that he is the final Horcrux and may need to sacrifice his life for peace, Harry consistently demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice his own safety for the well-being of others.
    No one understands the weight of their existence better than Harry. And yet despite the sharp knowing of the risks and challenges he will endure, he chooses to be courageous every time.

Empathy

    To embody the virtue of empathy, one has a deep, compassionate concern for others. In the digital age, this virtue emphasizes remaining open to the joys and pains of others against an increasingly impersonal nature of a more connected world. Empathy motivates ethical action and cooperation by encouraging us to understand and respond to the experience of others, bridging the emotional gap that technology creates (Vallor, 2016, pp. 133–138).
    Of Mice and Men offers a poignant example of empathy in the relationship between George and Lennie. Throughout the novel, George protects Lennie, not just out of obligation, but with a deep sense of understanding and compassion. Lennie, who has a mental disability, often finds himself in trouble due to his inability to control his strength and fully grasp how consequences result from actions.
George’s empathy is expressed in his ability to understand how Lennie sees the world—how a complex problems and motivations in the world are translated to his simpler, more innocent lens. He is able to recognize how Lennie perceives outside events and how Lennie’s emotions, fears, and confusions manifest.
    The ultimate expression of George’s empathy comes at the novel’s conclusion. After Lennie accidentally kills Curley’s wife, George makes the decision to end Lennie’s life. George has the foresight to know that other men will hunt Lennie down subjecting him to a violent death. George understands the terror and confusion that Lennie would feel if caught, and this is what informs George’s choice to end Lennie’s life himself. In Lennie’s final moments, George brings Lennie to a mental space of excitement and comfort by recounting the dream of their own ranch and the rabbits they will raise together. George’s actions show a profound understanding of Lennie’s emotional state, allowing him to shield Lennie from fear and pain in his final moments. In this decision, George demonstrates a greater understanding of Lennie than perhaps Lennie even understands himself.

Care

    Care is the virtue of responsibly meeting the needs of those who we share an environment with, including ourselves. Technomoral care involves both emotional responsiveness and practical skill in addressing the needs of those we share our technosocial world with, integrating technology in ways that enhance our ability to care for others without diminishing our moral growth (Vallor, 2016, pp. 138–140)
    While thinking about the beloved book Little Women written by Louisa May Alcott, Beth March seems like the obvious choice to represent the virtue of care. While Beth retains the deep understanding of others that is required for care, she tends to neglect her own needs in favor of others. Rather than balancing care for each individual, including herself, based on the present situation, she sometimes prioritizes others to the detriment of her own needs.
    A less obvious choice in Little Women, is Meg March who embodies the virtue of care through her consistent focus on family and responsibility. As the eldest of the March sisters, Meg takes on the role of caregiver for her younger sisters, helping to guide them through difficult situations with both emotional warmth and practical advice. Meg does not forget to indulge in her own wants—despite being considered somewhat vain by her family—as seen when she dresses up in fine clothes and wears kid gloves to attend "frivolous" parties. She considers the needs of each of her family members, but does not always place them above her own needs, a key element of the virtue of care.
    Meg maintains a sense of grounded responsibility, while adapting to the shifting realities of the world around her and her family, including the impacts of war, societal expectations of gender roles, and evolving family dynamics—reflecting Vallor's emphasis that our care for others must evolve alongside the transformations of the technosocial world.

Civility

    Civility is defined as living well with others in a global, technosocial community. This virtue involves a commitment to collective deliberation and cooperation, achieved through engaging in respectful and productive dialogue about the shared goods and ethical issues that affect the larger (global) community. Civility is a tool for a community to collectively work towards the good life (Vallor, 2016, pp. 141–145)
    The Great Gatsby written by F. Scott Fitzgerald is narrated by Nick Carraway, a new college graduate who moves to New York City in 1922 while seeking a job. He interacts with his cousin Daisy Buchanan and her husband Tom Buchanan, as well as the mysterious Jay Gatsby—all members of high society. Although Nick Carraway could be described as easy-going, his behavior goes beyond simple politeness or passivity. His civility, as framed by Vallor’s definition, is an attempt to engage with his flawed peers in meaningful dialogue, even when faced with their moral shortcomings. Nick’s interactions, particularly with Gatsby, reflect this. He engages in thoughtful conversation, trying to connect Gatsby’s past and present with the larger social and ethical context of their era, even as Gatsby’s ambition and moral compromises come to light.
    Nick’s civility is further contrasted by the violent and dismissive reactions of Tom Buchanan, who disregards the thoughts and feelings of others, most notably during his racist rant. While Tom's behavior exemplifies a lack of civility—deliberately shutting down conversation in favor of his own views and never questioning his assumed moral superiority—Nick listens, reflects, and attempts to steer these discussions towards a more meaningful understanding of the consequences of their actions, in pursuit of a happier community.
    The unhappy resolution at the end of the book cannot be attributed to a lack of virtuous civility from Nick, but to the absence of civility within the community itself. Tom and Daisy, insulated by their wealth, and Gatsby, consumed by his singular desire for Daisy, are unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion about improving their world beyond their own self-absorbed concerns. If Nick were surrounded by more willing participants in such discussions (although perhaps he chose these unwilling companions through his own complacency), he might have demonstrated an even more complete virtue of civility.

Flexibility

    Flexibility as a virtue refers to flexibility in adapting beliefs and actions to new circumstances. Flexibility means being open to new ways of thinking and acting, however it is important that moral consistency is maintained at the same time. As a technomoral virtue, it is important to have the ability to recalibrate our values and practices in response to evolving technosocial realities that are unfamiliar and without precedent (Vallor, 2016, pp. 145–149).
    The volatile empire depicted in the fantasy webcomic Your Throne is exactly the kind of environment where the virtue of flexibility is crucial. The two female protagonists, nobles Lady Medea and Lady Psyche, must navigate this ever-shifting landscape as they work together to outsmart Prince Eros—a cold, calculating man who will stop at nothing to become immortal and omnipotent. Psyche, who possesses a divine power (initially thought to be just for healing but later revealed to be capable of mass destruction), mysteriously switches bodies with Medea for reasons that are initially unknown.
    Medea, who herself is cold, cunning, physically formidable, and just as calculating as Eros, models the virtue of flexibility. Initially, she is introduced as the fiancée of Prince Eros, but he quickly replaces her with Psyche. and the initial impression is that she is the antagonist to Psyche. At first glance, Medea appears to be the antagonist, threatening Psyche's relationship with Eros (which is initially portrayed as a love match). Medea’s actions seem driven by a calculated desire to reclaim her position and power. However, as the story unfolds and Eros’s true nature is revealed, along with other shocking twists (as a reader you never cease to be shocked) in their world, Medea adapts with remarkable ease. One of the most striking aspects of Medea's character is her ability to remain unshaken by each new challenge. Whether it’s accepting her former rival Psyche as an ally or awakening in Psyche's body for the first time, Medea takes everything in stride. This adaptability allows her and Psyche to match Eros, who seems unbeatable.
    The ultimate proof of Medea’s flexibility is seen in her emotional evolution—her evolution to being more emotionally vulnerable emerges as a result of the same analytical objectivity she applies to everything. As her cruel and neglectful family falls apart, and her environment and companions change (companions such as Psyche), this is her response/realization to the changes in her environment. Medea’s practices flexibility with amazing speed while never losing accurate alignment with her core values. (I would highly recommend reading this! It is super engaging and the storyline/what happens is truly unique).

Perspective

    A person with the virtue of perspective sees the larger moral picture. Technomoral perspective encourages a broader understanding of one's actions and desires fit into the larger moral landscape. As technology increasingly connects us to diverse viewpoints, practicing the virtue of perspective fosters a fuller understanding of the immediate and long-term consequences of our actions (Vallor, 2016, pp. 149–152).
    Atticus Finch from Harper Lee’s book To Kill a Mockingbird is virtuous in many ways, but embodies very strongly the virtue of perspective. The book follows Atticus’s defense of Tom Robinson, a Black man who is accused of raping a white women in the deeply racist and segregated town of Maycomb during the Great Depressoin. Despite the pervasive racial tension, the community “trust[s] him to do right…whether Maycomb knows it or not” (Osheim, 2011, p. 202). In fact, “he has a deep sense of how economic classes and race relations in his community are interrelated” (Osheim, 2011, p. 202). This trust reflects the belief of many people that Atticus holds a broader perspective, one that allows him to make decisions that are not only legally sound but also morally appropriate for the community.
    Although a lawyer, Atticus does not rely on the law to determine right from wrong. Instead, he seeks to understand the broader moral implications of his actions within this community. He teaches his daughter Scout the importance of seeing things from others’ perspectives even if they seem morally questionable in other areas. For example, he acknowledges Bob Ewell, the father of Mayella Ewell (who is partially forced by her father false accuses Tom Robinson of rape) illegally poaches, but the community turns a blind eye because his children would starve otherwise. In this respect he teaches Scout his own understanding that “a community may decide to overlook its laws in order to benefit the vulnerable” (Osheim, 2011, p. 202).
    In court, Atticus vehemently opposes Ewell’s racism and behavior, but he recognizes the complexities that contribute to Bob Ewell’s behavior. His ability to see these nuances speaks to his deep moral perspective, which allows him to also carry out the virtue of justice with great integrity. Examining Atticus “through the lens of virtue ethics yields a more nuanced appropriation of his character and points to the enduring moral relevance of the novel” (Osheim, 2011, pp. 199–200).

Magnanimity

    A magnanimous individual transcends above petty concerns—self-interest, pride, and trivial desires. The virtue of magnanimity cultivates moral ambition and leadership. In the technosocial context, a magnanimous individual is uniquely positioned to drive ethical innovation and inspire others to contribute to the common good. Their ability to rise above self-interest and short-term gains gives them the moral vision necessary to lead effectively (Vallor, 2016, pp. 152–154).
    In Jojo Rabbit (2019), Rosie Betzler, the mother of the protagonist Jojo, lives in Nazi Germany and secretly participates in the resistance against the regime. She spreads anti-Nazi messages throughout the town and hides a Jewish girl, Elsa, in her home. At the same time, she is also raising Jojo, who has been deeply indoctrinated with Nazi ideology. One incident shows Jojo being kicked out of the Hitler Youth for refusing to kill a rabbit, and while Rosie disagrees with the Nazi regime, she goes to advocate for Jojo to be included again, allowing him to participate in small tasks.
    Rosie's ability to balance these two realities—her son’s Nazi beliefs and her own resistance against the regime—is a powerful demonstration of the virtue of magnanimity. This demonstrates her foresight and her moral leadership, as she quietly instilling the values that eventually guide him toward a more compassionate understanding of the world after her death.
    Her involvement in the resistance also reflects this magnanimous nature. In a time when many people in Nazi Germany succumbed to fear and joined the crowd for their own safety, Rosie chose the harder path. She takes great personal risks, passing out anti-Nazi pamphlets and hiding Elsa in their home.
    However, her true magnanimity is most evident in the quiet leadership she exhibits within her home. She subtly guides Jojo away from Nazi ideology without forcing him to confront the expectations of those around him, allowing him the space to question and evolve on his own. Her relationship with Elsa demonstrates her deep compassion and sense of responsibility, as she provides protection and comfort while also encouraging Elsa to maintain hope in an otherwise hopeless situation. As the adult with a deeper understanding of the situation, Rosie recognizes what each of them—Jojo and Elsa—needs and carefully tailors her guidance accordingly. She presents information in a way that gently leads them toward moral understanding, protecting them from harsh realities while encouraging personal growth.

Wisdom

    Technomoral wisdom is not a singular virtue like the others, but a state of moral expertise—the successful integration and application of all the technomoral virtues. This wisdom enables individuals to navigate complex technosocial landscapes and emerging technologies with a well-rounded moral perspective, ensuring that decisions and actions contribute to both individual and collective flourishing (Vallor, 2016, pp. 154–156).
    The premise of The Giver by Lois Lowry is that an individual known as the The Giver holds all the human memories from the past and must train his successor to take on this responsibility. They live in a community where knowledge, emotion, and individual pleasure are sacrificed for the sake of a more productive and controlled society.
    The very definition of The Giver role is the beholder of the community’s human wisdom. As the sole keeper of a vast reservoir of memories accumulated over many lifetimes, his role is to offer moral guidance to the Elders who govern the community. Because he is the only one who remembers past events or feels emotions, his wisdom gives him a well-rounded moral perspective and helps the Council avoid mistakes and foresee the moral and practical consequences of their decisions. In a way, the Elders do not understand morality, and the Giver provides the understanding of moral implications of their actions.
    The explanation for why this role was created is as follows: if the community relinquishes individual ability to make moral choices in favor of a rigid structure that prevents wrong decisions—and the consequent suffering—then the society can be more productive and stable. However, to ensure that important decisions are still made wisely, the wisdom required for decision-making is concentrated in a single individual, the Giver. The Giver must use his wisdom to ensure that all decisions contribute to the collective flourishing of the community. With this wisdom, the current Giver recognizes that depriving people of moral autonomy and the ability to learn from past experience does not create an ideal society (and allowing people to make their own decisions will at least lead to a more meaningful society). And it is with this perspective that the wisdom gives him that he agrees to a plan to reacquaint the community with their memories.