Moral Circle, Law Exclusion and Surveillance Capitalism A Reflection of Our Ethical Judgments’ Patrons and Their Dysfunction

Our societies expose an unsustainable fracture of their intersubjective plots by which millions of people are deprived of their rights and survive in resigned territories by the law, denied by the system that excludes them. Although law exclusion precedes surveillance capitalism, it is functional to its goals of prediction and merchandizing of future identities and behavior. Those who are excluded from the law and those who are poorly included are, in such context, the discarded. The first part of this es-say defends the notion of the existence of feedback and continuity of the exclusionary system: more surveillance capitalism means more accuracy in the predictions of future behavior and, consequently, the more discard, the more exclusion. To do this, the author resorts to reading Zuboff, noting the necessary implications of the frag-mentation that she describes, in a scenario of pauperized societies. Then, based on a reading of Benhabib, the author commits himself to the idea that the schemes of “circle ethics” —which today monopolize the specific philosophical debate, from the separation of ethical and legal perspectives, closing any discussion on ethics of jus-tice— legitimizing and accelerating the process, naturalizing the pulverization of the political space. Finally, from a reading of Fricker, the proposal is to make use of the conceptual notions contributed by this author within the framework of femi-nist thought and —extrapolating them to the context of legal exclusion, whose scales the surveillance capitalism accelerates, in a concentration of knowledge, power and wealth that the moral circle legitimizes— to think from it of an ethics of justice that advances on the negative identity prejudices that sustain epistemic injustice. And that substitutes compartmentalisation and confrontation as patterns of judgment for recognition of the intersubjective character of each subjectivity, continually constructed and reconstructed in their relationships. In a strictly legal sense, this would mean ceasing to understand the law as a mechanism of order that is exhausted in the sanc-tion, and understanding the law as a common promise (a commitment) to avoid harms and minimize the disvalued impact of its registration in the social network, which obviously includes the sanction but can no longer be exhausted on it. So con-sequently, this would mean replacing the ethical imperative of prioritizing the intra-group in moral and legal responsibilities —which tends to perpetuate inequality and, in contexts of obscene inequality and limited resources, is naturally functional to the institutionalization of corruption and Mafia practices— by a scheme that receives the enforceable responsibility of the government in situations of marginalization and marginalization that pays respect for the law through a heroic demand.