TRANSFORMATION OF ETHICAL NORMS AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL STRUCTURES UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CRYPTOTECHNOLOGIES: EXPERIENCE OF PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/NPU-VOU.2026.2(101).09Keywords:
cryptotechnologies, blockchain, ethical norms, anthropological structures, self-sovereign identity, decentralization, «code as law», technique, technologyAbstract
The article carries out a philosophical reflection on cryptotechnologies, blockchain, as a phenomenon that goes far beyond technical or economic innovation. It is shown that these technologies profoundly change ethical norms and anthropological structures of human existence. It is considered how cryptographic protocols form a new configuration of trust, often called «trust without trust», transfer responsibility to code and generate a conflict between the principle of «code is law» and living ethics. A classic example of this conflict was the case of «The DAO» in 2016. Particular attention is paid to shifts in the understanding of identity. Thus, if in the classical model the person was always socially mediated and could be restored through others, then in the conditions of crypto-technological changes, it is transformed to the level of self-sovereign identity, which depends on the cryptographic key and loses the possibility of their social restoration. Changes in collective existence are also analyzed, where tokenized voting in decentralized organizations replaces mutual recognition and generates new, less noticeable forms of inequality. The ambivalent nature of crypto-technologies is revealed. They simultaneously open up space for greater autonomy and create new forms of alienation, financial speculation and the attitude towards data, attention and even the future as resources that can be measured, sold and optimized. It is concluded that the transformation of ethical norms and anthropological structures under the influence of crypto-technologies is a radical change in the very way in which a person constitutes himself and his relations with others, and therefore requires constant philosophical attention.
References
Желюк, Т. Л. (Ред.). (2017). Архітектоніка управління збалансованим розвитком національної економіки. Крок.
Муратова, І. (2016). Понятійний простір філософського осмислення технології. Філософія та політологія в контексті сучасної культури, 3(12), 151–159.
Allen, C. (2016). The Path to Self-Sovereign Identity. URL: https://www.lifewithalacrity.com/article/the-path-to-self-soverereign-identity/ (дата звернення 20.06.2026 р.).
Bruntonб F. (2019). Digital cash: The unknown history of the anarchists, utopians, and technologists who created cryptocurrency. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691185668
DuPontб Q. (2017). Experiments in algorithmic governance: A history and ethnography of «The DAO», a failed decentralized autonomous organization. In M. Campbell-Verduyn (Ed.), Bitcoin and beyond: Cryptocurrencies, blockchains, and global governance. Routledge. Р. 157–177. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315211909
Ihde, D. (2010). Heidegger’s Technologies. New York : Fordham University Press. 155 р.
Ishmaev, G. (2020). Sovereignty, privacy, and ethics in blockchain-based identity management systems. Ethics and Information Technology, 22(4). Р. 301–313.
Filippi, De P., & Reijers, W. (2024). Blockchain Technology and the Rule of Code: Regulation via Governance. The George Washington law review. Vol. 92, №. 6. Р. 1229–1280.
Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming Technology. Oxford : University Press. 218 p.
Szostek, D. (2019). Blockchain and the Law. Nomos. 160 p.
Stiegler, B. (1998). Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus. Stanford : Stanford University Press. 316 р.
Wright, A., & De Filippi P. (2015). Decentralized blockchain technology and the rise of lex cryptography. Social Science Research Network, 34. Р. 41–52. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2580664
