Aims and scope

Ethics and Information Technology is a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to advancing the dialogue between moral philosophy and the field of information and communication technology (ICT). The journal aims to foster and promote reflection and analysis which is intended to make a constructive contribution to answering the ethical, social and political questions associated with the adoption, use, and development of ICT.

Within the scope of the journal are also conceptual analysis and discussion of ethical ICT issues which arise in the context of technology assessment, cultural studies, public policy analysis and public administration, cognitive science, social and anthropological studies in technology, mass-communication, and legal studies. Research that deals with the history of ideas and provides intellectual resources for moral and political reflection on ICT is also welcomed. The general editorial policy is to publish work of high quality regardless of school of thought or philosophical tradition from which it derives.

Special Issue on AI, Judgment and Rules
Submission Date: 2026-04-01

The recent advances in AI research have progressively accelerated the possibility to automate decision-making in areas that, until recently, were considered an exclusive human prerogative.

The concept of judgment is invoked to back claims as to which decisions in areas such as law, medicine, military, public administration, and beyond, should or should not be automated or delegated to AI. .

Striking cases of “automated discrimination” in decision-making on welfare benefits and pre-trial detention have provided further grounds for the warning of AI critics against a shift “from judgment to calculation”. Many in the debate emphasise that making decisions, especially in sensitive areas, requires rule application to be supplemented with human judgment and discretion. What judgment is capable of adding is precisely what is not codifiable into rules, and thus what is unattainable by machines programmed to merely execute algorithms. .

On the other end of the spectrum, those who are more enthusiastic about AI often point out how the unruly character of human judgment is a source of inconsistency, incoherence and noise. They emphasise how human judges are inherently biased and prone to arbitrary behaviour. As non-algorithmic rules only partially succeed in keeping judges in check, algorithmic automation is presented as an enhanced remedy against the “flaws in human judgment”. .

The concepts of judgment and rules have figured prominently in philosophy and jurisprudence. The current debate on Artificial Intelligence brings these two key concepts again to the centre of the legal and philosophical debate, raising fundamental and practical questions as to the relationship between judgment, the application of rules, and the use of computer algorithms. .

It is noteworthy that, irrespective of the seeming irreconcilability of the claims currently advanced on human judgment and automation, a set of common assumptions appears to be shared across most participants in the debate on automated decision-making, namely: .

• that a close connection exists between the concepts of judgment and rules;
• that a crucial distinction is to be drawn between algorithmic and non-algorithmic rules; .
• that algorithmic rules are capable of exhaustively determining their application in advance, while non-algorithmic rules require decision-makers to do something more than merely apply rules; .
• that judgment performs a supplementary function by filling the gap between (nonalgorithmic) rules and their application. .

This special issue aims to investigate how the concepts of judgment and rules play out within the philosophical and legal debate on automated decision-making. While the concepts of judgment and rules appear to fuel a conceptual clash in a debate increasingly polarised between AI critics and enthusiasts, regulators erect as pillars of AI governance concepts that have a family resemblance with human judgment, i.e., meaningful human control, and human oversight. The challenges emerging in the ongoing implementation of the EU AI Act signal the urgency of both a clearer conceptual framework and practical insights informing the practices of development, deployment, and assessment of automated-decision making systems. This special issue aims to contribute to both the theoretical debates and AI governance by bringing together original conceptual, historical, and empirical research on the interplay between judgment, rules, and automation. .

■ Conceptual research

The special issue welcomes contributions aimed to address the following questions: .
•- How are the concept of judgment and rules mobilised in the current debate on the automation of decision-making? .
•- How do the positions in the current AI debates relate to broader families of research on judgment, in the Aristotelian, Kantian, hermeneutical, and utilitarian traditions, and behavioural sciences? • -
•- How are ideas of codifiability of moral knowledge, particularism and anti-theory in moral philosophy applicable to debates about AI and human judgment? .
•- How is the relationship between judgment and rules affected by the turn from rules to rule following inaugurated by Wittgenstein and elaborated in the philosophy of the 20th century? .

■ Historical research Conceptual-historical research has underscored how the study of past traditions can offer precious contributions to the elaboration of the concept of judgment and its relationship with that of rules and decision-making (e.g., Albert R. Jonsen, Stephen Toulmin, The Abuse of Casuistry. A History of Moral Reasoning, University of California Press 1989). This special issue invites research on traditions that offer conceptual and practical elaborations of the relationship between judgment and rules and that can contribute to the understanding of the current challenges posed by the automation of decision-making. In particular, the special issue welcomes research on traditions that offer insights on the relationship between abstract rules and particulars of each case; rules and rule formulations; the relationship between normative decision-making, training and practice. .

■ Empirical research

The special issue also welcomes case studies documenting how the relationship between judgment and rules manifest within the practices of development and deployment of automated decision-making systems, particularly in the context of AI systems classified as high-risk under Annex III of the AI Act (e.g., systems intended to be used in the context of decision-making on asylum, migration, welfare benefits, law enforcement, judicial application of the law, etc.). .
•- What are the conflicts and trade-offs between judgment and rules that emerge within the practices of design and use of automated systems aimed to support or replace human decision-making? .
•- How are such conflicts addressed and solved by the practitioners involved? .
•- How are requirements of meaningful human control and human oversight operationalised in practice? What is their relationship to rules and judgment? .

Special Issue on Ethics and Philosophy of Decentralized Technologies
Submission Date: 2026-04-23

After more than a decade of development, blockchain-based systems and applications continue to progress as a research field and as an industry. Blockchains and other decentralized systems solutions now include consensus protocols, smart contract platforms, and decentralized applications for finance, identity, supply chains, governance, and public records. At the same time, contestation about direction, prospects, core values, and effects of decentralized systems implementations persists.

Contemporary digital infrastructures entrench critical dependencies across societies and shape many dimensions of human life. In this landscape, questions arise about what role decentralized platforms and protocols can and should assume. Even when designed in good faith as neutral tools, these socio-technical systems have intended and unintended effects on societies and incorporate implicit value commitments into design structures shaped by game-theoretic incentives, cryptographic mechanisms, and social processes of coordination.

We invite contributions that investigate philosophical aspects of decentralized technologies. We welcome work that illuminates by means of philosophical reflection what these systems are, what they are perceived to be, the world these systems help bring about, what they facilitate or hamper, and what we should endorse or resist as they scale. Submissions may, amongst others, develop conceptual frameworks, descriptive heuristics, normative criteria, and/or decision-guiding analyses that advance our understanding of these systems and can guide responsible design and governance.

Contributions on decentralized systems in broader scope (e.g., decentralized AI), are also welcomed if implications for philosophy are reflected. Including (but not limited to): political philosophy, moral philosophy, philosophy of technology, philosophy of law, etc., and coming from all traditions, whether continental, analytic, or hybrid.

Suggested but not exhaustive list of invited topics:

1) Systems, decentralization, and critical infrastructures in digital society. How should we characterize blockchain networks as critical infrastructure, in both descriptive and normative terms, including their security assumptions, governance arrangements, dependencies on off-chain actors, and interactions with legal and financial systems?

(2 ) How can ethical considerations be made salient for developers, users, and other involved stakeholders, not as external constraints but as internalized reasons that shape incentives, procedures, and accountability structures. By what means of conceptual engineering can the conceptual gaps between technical analyses and philosophical frameworks be bridged? How can we choose appropriate levels of abstraction to map accurately low-level technical analysis to moral claims.

(3) Privacy and identity. How do systems and technologies shape persons and communities. What are the ethical implications of decentralized identity solutions, privacy enhancing tools, and reputation protocols. How do design choices influence agency, recognition, and vulnerability across different populations.

(4) Incentives in decentralized systems. How do token design, rewards, penalties, and governance rights align behavior with social goals. What is the role of stewardship, virtue, and duty in settings dominated by incentive engineering. How should we analyze unintended consequences such as short-termism, collusion, and externalities.

(5) How can we analyze and mitigate information asymmetries in blockchain ecosystems. How to distinguish organic expertise gaps stemming from complexity and strategically produced opacity generated and maintained for financial gains. Analyze resultant moral hazards and epistemic injustice, and propose remedies.

(6) Cultures and coordination in crypto, and accidental cults. What cultural patterns, myths, and memes sustain or distort collective action. How can communities cultivate critical discourse, distributed leadership, and epistemic humility, and reduce risks of charismatic domination, echo chambers, and manipulation.

(7) What do we owe to one another in infrastructures designed to resist unilateral control, when protocols are intentionally open for anybody to use, to copy and repurpose, what forms of moral responsibility, liability, and accountability are appropriate, how should designers and governors approach kill switches, safety valves, exit rights, and governance minimization, and what duties arise toward users, counterparties, and bystanders in globally accessible systems?