Digital Minimalism and Social Media Attention
The Mortality of Your Phone
Argument 1: Why Spending Attention on Social Media Is a Big Deal
Conclusion: Spending so much attention on social media and not getting it back is a really big deal.
Premise: Attention is the most valuable thing we have.
Support for the Premise:
We only experience what we pay attention to.
We only remember what we pay attention to.
Choosing what to focus on shapes how we live our lives.
Argument 2: Why Attention Is Valuable
Conclusion: Our attention is the most valuable thing we have.
Premises:
Attention controls what we experience.
Attention controls what we remember.
Attention reflects our values and priorities in life.
Argument 3: Why It’s Wrong When Our Attention Is Manipulated
Conclusion: It’s wrong when our attention is taken through manipulation for profit.
Premise: Because it takes away our ability to choose freely (violates autonomy).
Implied Support:
Being manipulated means we aren’t deciding for ourselves.
Autonomy (the ability to choose how we live) is important for a good life.
Main Focus (Ronald Price)
It's a serious problem how much attention we give to social media.
Attention is the most valuable thing we have.
We experience, remember, and build our lives around what we pay attention to.
Social media distracts us or takes that attention without our conscious choice, it takes away from our ability to live meaningfully and intentionally.
Supporting Concepts
Attention is limited and shapes our experience of life.
Social media is designed to manipulate us using unpredictable rewards.
The constant distraction weakens our ability to think deeply or focus.
It’s wrong when our time is taken through manipulative tricks rather than free choice.
Bhargava and Velasquez on Addiction, Insult, and Exploitation
Addiction Argument
Conclusion: Some people are addicted to social media or internet use.
Support:
Addiction has six signs (from psychologist Mark Griffiths):
Salience (dominates thoughts/behavior)
Mood modification
Tolerance
Withdrawal
Conflict
Relapse
Social media has addictive features:
Intermittent rewards (like a slot machine)
Social validation (likes, comments)
No natural stopping cues (infinite scroll)
Harm Argument
Addiction to social media causes harm.
Exploitation Argument
Conclusion: Social media companies wrongfully exploit addicted users.
Premises:
Exploitation happens when someone takes advantage of another’s vulnerability to serve their own goals.
Exploitation becomes morally wrong when it's done in a way that disrespects the person being exploited.
Social media companies:
Use addictive designs to target users' vulnerabilities.
Do this to increase profits.
Use algorithms that turn users’ desires against them, which is disrespectful.
“Insult to Injury” Argument
The way companies addict users is extra wrong because they use the users’ own wants to manipulate them.
Algorithms don’t just distract; they study what users like and use that data to pull them in more.
This is viewed as an insult, a deeper kind of disrespect.
Main Focus (Bhargava and Velasquez)
Social media can be addictive, and companies wrongfully exploit users who become addicted.
Key Argument 1 (Addiction)
Some users meet the criteria for addiction, their use shows signs like salience, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, relapse, and mood modification.
These behaviors are driven by features like infinite scroll, likes, and unpredictable rewards.
Key Argument 2 (Exploitation)
Social media companies exploit vulnerable users to make a profit.
This exploitation is morally wrong when it disrespects the user, for example, by using algorithms that manipulate users' own desires against them.
Supporting Concepts
Six-part definition of addiction from psychologist Mark Griffiths
Exploitation defined as taking advantage of vulnerability for one’s own gain
Morally objectionable exploitation adds disrespect to this dynamic
Aylsworth and Castro on Digital Minimalism
Smartphones Threaten Rational Agency
Conclusion: Smartphones are a threat to our rational agency.
Premises:
Phones give us desires that don’t go through reflection or reasoning.
Phones also interfere with desires that do get our rational approval.
This undermines our ability to act based on thoughtful decisions about what matters to us.
We Have a Moral Duty to Be Digital Minimalists
Conclusion: We have a moral duty to practice digital minimalism.
Premises:
Digital minimalism = being intentional with phone use so it doesn’t interfere with our chosen goals ("ends").
A rationally approved desire becomes an “end,” which reflects our values.
If something (like phone use) disrupts our ability to set and follow through on ends, it disrespects our rational agency.
According to Kant, humanity (the capacity to reason and choose) has objective moral value.
Therefore, we have a moral duty to ourselves to respect that capacity by avoiding behaviors (like excessive phone use) that harm it.
This Is a Duty to Ourselves, Not to Others
Conclusion: The responsibility to be a digital minimalist falls on us, not on tech companies.
Premises:
We each have the capacity for rational agency.
That gives us moral duties to protect and respect it, in ourselves.
Excessive, unreflective phone use is a failure to respect that capacity.
The Argument Is Not About Personal Goals Being Blocked
This isn’t about missing out on specific personal values (like time with friends).
The argument is based on the idea that unreflective phone use disrespects our deeper ability to choose what matters, our autonomy and moral self-governance.
Main Focus (Aylsworth and Castro)
We have a moral duty to be digital minimalists, be intentional about how we use our phones so they don’t interfere with our deeper values and goals.
Key Argument
Phone use often promotes shallow desires and blocks more important, rational ones, the ones we’d endorse if we reflected.
When our phone use doesn’t get our rational seal of approval, it undermines our rational agency.
Supporting Concepts
Rational agency is our ability to think, reflect, and set meaningful goals
A “rational seal of approval” is when a desire passes that reflective test
When phone use overrides this ability, it harms something deeply valuable in us
Therefore, we have a duty to ourselves to keep our phone use in check
Aylsworth and Castro on Digital Minimalism CONT.
Main Conclusion of the Argument
Conclusion (C2): We have an imperfect moral duty to ourselves to be digital minimalists.
Support for the Conclusion
C1 (Intermediate Conclusion): We have an imperfect duty to cultivate and protect our rational agency (also called our “humanity”).
Why C1 is true (P1–P3, not shown directly but implied):
P1: Humanity (rational agency) has objective and incomparable value.
P2: Kant says this value gives us basic moral duties.
P3: One such duty is to respect this rational agency in ourselves and others.
Key Definitions and Concepts
Digital Minimalism: Being intentional with phone use so that it doesn't interfere with goals we rationally approve of.
Rational Agency (Humanity): The capacity to set goals based on reason and reflection.
Imperfect Duty: A moral obligation to pursue a valuable goal but with flexibility on how and when to do it.
Kantian Basis of the Argument
Core Idea from Kant: Act in a way that respects humanity, our rational capacity to set ends, as something with infinite moral worth.
We must never treat ourselves or others merely as a means, but always at the same time as ends.
Application by A&C: Because rational agency has infinite value, we have a duty to ourselves to protect and use it well, which includes limiting phone use that distracts us from it.
Objections to the Argument
Objection to C1: Maybe we don’t have a moral duty to cultivate rational agency, maybe it's just smart or helpful, not a moral requirement.
Objection to P4: Even if it’s a duty, calling digital minimalism a moral duty might be too demanding.
Main Focus
Digital minimalism is not just smart; it’s a moral duty grounded in the value of humanity, or rational agency.
Key Argument
We have an imperfect duty to ourselves to protect and respect our rational agency.
Since phone use can interfere with this, we have a specific moral duty to be intentional with our phones.
Supporting Concepts
Kant says humanity (our rational agency) has infinite, objective value, or dignity
Moral duties stem from respecting this value, in ourselves and others
Imperfect duties give us flexibility in how we meet them, but we are still obligated to try
The duty to be a digital minimalist is one of these imperfect duties
Quiz #1
As defined in this class, an argument has at least one __ and a __.
a. Premise and conclusion
What is Aylsworth and Castro’s definition of being a digital minimalist?
a. To be intentional with one’s phone use so that it does not conflict with one’s ends
An imperfect duty, on Aylsworth and Castro’s definition (from Immanuel Kant) is __.
a. An obligation to pursue ends, but the obligation does not tell us how much to pursue those ends, and it does not tell us how much to pursue those ends, and it does not endorse particular actions through which those ends must be pursued.
b. Key words: obligation, doesn’t endorse
The attitude we should take toward humanity, in Kant’s view, is __.
a. Respect
Choose all of the components included in the definition of addiction Bhargava and Velasquez.
a. Salience
b. Tolerance
c. Mood modification
d. Conflict
Which of the following is a step (premise or conclusion) in the part of Aylsworth and Castro's argument that they lay out step by step for the main conclusion that we ought to adopt the end of digital minimalism?
a. We have an imperfect duty to cultivate and protect our rational agency
b. Key words: cultivate, protect
Suppose Jack disrespects you by taking advantage of your vulnerabilities. It follows from Bhargava and Velasquez’s preferred definition of exploitation that Jack exploits you.
a. False
Which of the following best expresses Bhargava and Velasquez’s reason for thinking that social media companies disrespect addicted users?
a. Adaptive algorithms use addicted users’ own desires against themselves
b. Key words: use, against
Ken wants to become a social media influencer, and Ken considers things he can do to be one, and he makes plans after considering his options. After reading Immanuel Kant’s ideas, Ken concludes he is utilizing his humanity in his pursuit of his goal to be an influencer. Is Ken’s conclusion about Kant true or false, and why?
a. True, because Ken is setting goals and engaging in reasoning to reach them
To make this argument as strong as possible, complete this sentence that should go in 2.2 in the above argument map of an argument Bhargava and Velasquez make: "Social media companies take advantage of addicted users to __."
a. Advance their own ends
Which of the following claims if true implies Bhargava and Velasquez’s definition of morally objectionable exploitation is incorrect?
a. Basketball players sometimes exploit defenses in a morally objectionable way even when they do not disrespect the defenders by exploiting them.
b. Basketball players sometimes do not exploit defenses in a morally objectionable way even when they take advantage of a vulnerability in defense for their own ends in a way that disrespects the defenders.
There is an argument in the above image, starting at the beginning with “It is not likely…” ending with the phrase “… autonomously chosen end.” The main conclusion is ___. The interim conclusion is ___.
a. A duty to defend against threats to our humanity probably does not prohibit smartphone use; Thoughtful smartphone use can cultivate our humanity.
b. Key words: defend, thoughtful
Bhargava, Velasquez, and Nussbaum on Harm and Dignity
Main Focus
Bhargava & Velasquez argue that the harms caused by social media addiction are morally wrong.
They support this using Martha Nussbaum’s theory of human capabilities and dignity.
Summary
The focus is on whether harm from social media addiction is morally wrong, not just harmful but ethically bad.
Bhargava & Velasquez argue yes, using Martha Nussbaum’s claim that certain human capabilities (like practical reason and social affiliation) are essential to dignity and justice.
If social media addiction interferes with these capacities, it violates our dignity and therefore causes morally wrong harm.
They also address common objections, including the idea that correlation does not equal causation, and that the benefits of social media might outweigh the harms.
Key Arguments
Argument from Harm
Premise 1: Social media addiction causes harm.
Premise 2: If something causes harm, and the harm violates dignity, then it is morally wrong.
Conclusion: The harms social media causes to addicts are morally wrong.
Support from Nussbaum’s Capabilities Theory
Nussbaum’s View: Human dignity is based on having the ability to function in certain essential ways, called capabilities.
These include: life, bodily health, imagination, emotions, practical reason, social affiliation, and play.
Claim: Social media addiction interferes with these capabilities, especially practical reason (rational thinking) and affiliation (relationships).
Therefore, it undermines human dignity, making the harm morally wrong.
Objections Covered
Correlation ≠ Causation: Just because social media use is correlated with harm (like depression), doesn’t prove it causes it. Maybe depression leads to excessive use, not the other way around.
Benefits Might Outweigh Harms: Some argue that the communication and relationships social media enables might justify the harms it causes. If true, this could challenge the conclusion that the harms are morally wrong.
Alternate Views of Harm: Some might reject Nussbaum’s definition of dignity or think harm isn't always morally wrong, like getting hurt during sports with informed consent.
Bhargava and Velasquez on Addiction, Harm, and Exploitation CONT.
Main Conclusion of the Argument
Conclusion (C2): Social media companies commit a moral wrong by exploiting and harming addicted users.
Support for the Conclusion
C1 (Intermediate Conclusion): Social media companies cause harm through exploitative and addictive design features.
Why C1 is true (P1–P3, implied):
P1: Companies profit from attention, making users the product sold to advertisers.
P2: This gives them strong incentive to design addictive platforms.
P3: These platforms cause harm and manipulate users’ own desires, which is disrespectful.
P4 (Support for C2): Exploiting vulnerable people in a way that disrespects them is morally wrong, and social media companies meet all three parts of that definition.
Key Definitions and Concepts
Exploitation (Morally Wrong): Taking advantage of someone’s vulnerability, for personal gain, in a way that disrespects them.
Disrespect: Manipulating users by turning their own desires against them to increase usage or addiction.
Addictive Design Features:
Infinite scrolling
Intermittent rewards
Social validation (likes, comments)
Product vs. Consumer: In social media, users are not the consumers; they are the product being sold to advertisers.
Moral Responsibility and Blame
Question:
Who does the wrongdoing?
Quadrants B&V Encourage Students to Explore
Quadrant 1: Only social media companies are morally responsible.
Quadrant 2: Other people or systems may also share blame (e.g., tech workers, investors).
Quadrant 3: Even users who continue to support harmful platforms may commit moral wrongs.
Quadrant 4: Users are not doing anything wrong; blame rests only with companies.
B&V’s Position (Implied): Companies are the primary wrongdoers due to their exploitation of addiction and user vulnerability.
Users may or may not share blame depending on awareness and intent.
Objections to the Argument
Objection to Moral Wrongness: Some argue that the benefits of social media (e.g., communication, connection) outweigh the harms, so the harms are not morally wrong.
Objection from Causation: Critics say correlation doesn’t equal causation; social media may correlate with harm (e.g., depression) but may not cause it. Maybe the causation goes the other way.
B&V’s Response:
Acknowledge causation is difficult to prove but cite evidence that supports a causal link.
Emphasizing the moral wrong does not depend solely on intent but also on structure, incentives, and the effects of addictive designs.
Main Focus
Companies profit from addiction and design their platforms to exploit vulnerable users, a form of disrespect that makes the harm morally wrong.
They also raise the question of who is responsible for this harm.
Key Argument
Social media companies exploit users by designing addictive features that take advantage of vulnerabilities and disrespect users by using their own desires against them.
This constitutes a morally wrong harm.
Supporting Concepts
Exploitation is wrong when it includes disrespect, not just use of vulnerability.
Users are the product, not the customer, which distorts company incentives.
Even if no intent to harm exists, the outcomes of addiction and disrespect still matter morally.
Moral responsibility may extend beyond companies depending on participation and knowledge.
Aylsworth and Castro on Using ChatGPT to Write Papers
Main Conclusion of the Argument
Conclusion (C2): Students should write their own papers rather than use ChatGPT or other large language models (LLMs).
Support for the Conclusion
C1 (Intermediate Conclusion): The act of writing papers has a deeper value that justifies rejecting the use of ChatGPT.
Why C1 is true (P1–P3):
P1: Common reasons like “it’s cheating” or “you lose a skill” are not strong enough on their own.
P2: A meaningful justification must be rooted in final value, not just rules or consequences.
P3: To defend why students should write their own papers, we must identify a fundamental value that gives writing its worth.
Key Definitions and Concepts
Final Value: Something that is valuable for its own sake, the last link in a chain of reasons.
Instrumental Value: Something valuable only because it leads to something else of value.
Writing a Paper: Producing ideas and reasoning using your own words, not just submitting a response.
ChatGPT Use (as discussed): Any use of an AI model that generates ideas, arguments, or full papers on your behalf.
Structure of the Ethical Evaluation
Three Bad Justifications (Rejected by A&C)
“Because it’s cheating” doesn’t explain why using ChatGPT would still be wrong if it weren’t cheating.
“Because you lose a capacity” losing a skill alone doesn’t show it's morally or educationally wrong.
“Because writing is thinking” needs further explanation rooted in value, not just a claim.
Three Requirements for a Strong Justification (Proposed by A&C)
Identify a final value that explains why writing your own paper matters.
Show why this final value really is final, not just a means to something else.
Show how that value gives a good reason for students to write their own work.
Main Focus
Whether students have a good reason not to use ChatGPT to complete writing assignments.
They reject surface-level reasons like “cheating” or “losing skills” and argue that a deeper philosophical justification is needed, one based on final value.
Key Argument
Value of writing your own paper must come from something deeper, not just rule-following or skill practice, but from a final value like autonomy, rational development, or self-expression.
Without identifying that value, we can’t fully explain why using ChatGPT is wrong even when it’s allowed.
Supporting Concepts
Writing isn’t just about the final product; it’s about the process of thinking, developing, and reasoning.
If we replace that process with AI, we give up something that might be fundamentally human.
Philosophy requires clear, value-based reasoning, and the ethics of writing must be judged by those standards.
Aylsworth and Castro on ChatGPT CONT.
Main Conclusion of the Argument
Conclusion (C2): Students should write their own papers because doing so respects and expresses the final value of humanity (our rational agency).
Support for the Conclusion
C1 (Intermediate Conclusion): Humanity, our capacity to reason and set goals, is the final value that justifies writing one’s own papers.
Why C1 is true (P1–P3):
P1: Final value is something that is good in itself, not just as a means to something else.
P2: Humanity (rational agency) is the capacity to evaluate reasons, make choices, and set ends, and it is objectively, unconditionally, and non-fungibly valuable.
P3: Writing your own paper expresses and cultivates this rational agency in a way using ChatGPT does not.
Key Definitions and Concepts
Final Value: The last link in a chain of reasons, something that is valuable in itself, not just because it leads to something else.
Instrumental Value: Something valuable only because it leads to something else.
Humanity (Kant): Our ability to be rational agents who set ends and reflect on reasons. This is the basis of our moral dignity and duties.
Non-Fungible: There is nothing else of equal value that could replace or substitute for this capacity.
Objective Value: A value we are rationally committed to recognizing because using it (reason) to deny it ends up affirming it.
Basis of the Argument
Core Idea from Kant: We must respect humanity, in ourselves and others, as having infinite moral value. We should never treat ourselves merely as tools (means) but also as ends in themselves.
Application by A&C: Using ChatGPT to avoid the process of thinking and writing disrespects this value because it bypasses a core human capacity. Writing your own paper is a chance to express and strengthen your humanity.
Why Humanity is the Final Value
It is objective: you must rely on reason (your humanity) even to argue against valuing it.
It is unconditional: all humans have it, regardless of behavior.
It is non-fungible: no amount of happiness or efficiency can replace it (e.g., the “benevolent despot” thought experiment, giving up your agency would never be worth it).
Why This Supports the Main Conclusion
Premise 1: Humanity must always be treated as an end, never merely as a means.
Premise 2: Writing your own paper is an expression of your rational agency.
Premise 3: Using ChatGPT bypasses that expression, turning your agency into a tool, and undermines your dignity.
Conclusion: Students should write their own papers out of respect for humanity as a final value.
Main Focus
The value of writing your own paper cannot be fully explained by rules (cheating), skill-building, or even self-expression alone.
Instead, they ground it in a moral duty to respect humanity, which gives the deepest reason not to rely on ChatGPT.
Key Argument
Humanity, your ability to think, reflect, and write, has final value. Writing your own paper is a moral act that honors that value. Using ChatGPT instead turns that act into a tool-serving function, which fails to respect your dignity as a rational being.
Quiz #2
Which of the following best expresses (briefly) Bhargava and Velasquez’s reason for thinking that addicted users of social media are harmed in a morally wrong way?
a. It impairs distinctively human capabilities.
b. Feedback: They use Martha Nussbaum's theory, and discuss this usage of it on p. 10.
Using an idea from Martha Nussbaum, Bhargava and Velasquez argue that __ is/are central requirements for a life with dignity.
a. Capabilities
b. Feedback: See p. 9 of the reading.
Which of the following arguments do Aylsworth and Castro NOT challenge in Section 2 of the reading from this past week?
a. You should not use ChatGPT because that would violate a duty to yourself to protect your rational agency.
b. Feedback: In Section 2, they discuss the other three objections and why they reject them.
Bhargava and Velasquez argue that social media addiction has harmful effects.
a. True
b. Feedback: See p.8
As I described it in class, __ value is sometimes not the last link of a chain of (genuinely) valuable things that doesn’t go in a circle.
a. Instrumental
b. Feedback: See toward the end of the 4.22.25 slides.
Which of the following is NOT one of the three key features of the kind of value that humanity has, in Aylsworth and Castro's view?
a. Rational
b. Feedback: The other three options are spelled out on p. 14. Humanity has to do with rationality, but the question isn't asking about the features of humanity, but three key features of the value that it possesses.
Which of the following best expresses Bhargava and Velasquez’s reply to the objection that the benefits of social media outweigh harms?
a. The benefits of social media can be gotten without the addictive aspects of social media that cause harm to addicted users
b. Feedback: See the paragraph on p. 13 starting with "But this objection fails to consider."
Which of the following is an example of the error known as reverse causation?
a. Eating cookies correlates with drinking milk. I infer eating cookies causes people to drink milk. But I ignored the real possibility that drinking milk causes people to eat cookies.
b. Feedback: Reverse causation is the error where A correlates with B, and you infer A causes B when you ignore the real possibility that B instead causes A.
Assess this statement: Aylsworth and Castro believe that part of the reason you should not use ChatGPT to write your own papers is that it involves the loss or weakening of a capacity.
a. True; while not all capacities are valuable and can be lost without problem, the capacities that can be lost via use of ChatGPT are more essential to one’s humanity.
b. Feedback: See the bottom of p. 16-top of p. 17. What they argue in Section 2.2 is that loss of capacities alone is not enough reason to not use ChatGPT. But it is part of the reason, backed by principles linking those capacities to the value of humanity.
On p. 20, Aylsworth and Castro lay out an argument step-by-step. Which of the steps of the argument do they help illustrate and support with their example earlier in the paper from David Velleman about swimming and the "if not now, when" test?
a. If you have a duty to cultivate something, happen upon a good and unique opportunity to cultivate it, and do not have a good reason to pass on the opportunity, you ought to take the opportunity.
b. Feedback: Earlier on p. 18, after quoting from Velleman and explaining the quote, they say: "And now, hopefully, the force of the “if not now, when” test is clear. If you’re committed to something, are in the presence of a great opportunity to uphold that commitment, but then pass on that opportunity for no good reason, you’re failing to uphold your commitment. You demonstrate that you have not adopted the end in question."
If Nussbaum were to criticize excessive use of social media apps, which of the following assertions would best fit her views on capabilities?
a. Excessive use of social media apps involves the use of senses, imagination, and thought, but not in a way always integrated with the capabilities of practical reason and social affiliation.
b. Feedback: I suggested this in my slides 4.15.25. Further, the other options do not relate to Nussbaum's views clearly enough (she does not focus on violating autonomy) or make mistakes (the value of the capacity of bodily health is not based simply on the fact that you use your body; the option about social basis is not clearly a criticism).
Consider the following arguments that aim to address Aylsworth and Castro’s argument for the claim that students should write their own papers and therefore not use ChatGPT. Choose the option that is genuinely an objection (rather than saying something which doesn’t confront their premises or the connection between their premises and their conclusions), and which shows an accurate understanding of their argument and the concepts they use.
a. Their argument fails, because it relies on the claim that humanity has final value; but it is human happiness which has final value.
b. Feedback: Their argument fails, because they fail to consider the positive uses of ChatGPT to complete literature reviews, to answer questions, and to summarize content. They are talking about writing humanities papers in college courses; therefore, this "objection" does not clearly count as an objection to them.
c. Feedback: Their argument fails, because if their argument is correct, then we have a duty to protect any capacity that is essential to the functioning of our humanity. This is not an objection. It's just highlighting a consequence of their view. An objection would go on to say what's wrong with that consequence.
d. Feedback: Their argument fails, because if their argument is correct, then we are always morally obligated to take any opportunity to cultivate our humanity, which is too burdensome or just is impossible. The authors are explicit that we have an imperfect duty to cultivate our humanity, which involves latitude and choice and so does not involve taking up any opportunity.
e. Feedback: Their argument fails, because they say protecting humanity requires writing your own humanities paper; but plenty of humans have never written humanities papers and don’t need to do so. This objection seems to confuse the ordinary meaning of 'human' with Kant's technical meaning of humanity. Moreover, Aylsworth and Castro are only talking about what you should do IF faced with the opportunity to write a humanities paper. They are not saying you must write such papers.
Phil Study guide