This study analyzes a complex case in society, namely, how to distinguish ride-sharing applications, such as Uber, from ordinary taxi enterprises. We conduct a structural analysis of normative practices with distinctions at the following levels: (1) aspects; (2) radical types, genotypes, and phenotypes; (3) part-whole, enkaptic relationships, and interlinkages; and (4) the distinction between qualifying and foundational functions as it is captured in the theory of normative practices. We conclude that the genotype of taxi matchmaking enterprises, of which Uber is an example, represents a novel normativity that could positively serve society and also produce normative challenges, depending on its governance. Therefore, regulators should not dismiss the entire genotype of taxi matchmaking enterprises, but should address the phenotypes that are illegal or that cannot thrive without the illegal behaviors of its users. This conclusion is clear from the structural and directional sides of the practice.

By taking Uber as a case, we take a practice focus, in-depth analysis of the sharing economy. The business model that is typical for the sharing economy is based on using underutilized goods by private persons through digital technologies. In this paper, we bring together the complex reality of the sharing economy with a philosophical tool for analyzing normative issues. We listed a number of issues that were raised in debates, protests and court files that creates tensions and dilemmas for regulators and established industries and categorized them in a table with potentially normative aspects of the issues. The categorization was done through a multi-aspectual analysis. It revealed that next to several public complaints and worries, also other, presumably overlooked aspects, may give rise to moral issues and dilemmas at a deeper level.

Several philosophers of technology have argued that technology mediates human actions. For example, in the branch of post-phenomenology, authors such as Don Ihde and Peter-Paul Verbeek have described the mediating aspects of technology in terms of morality of technology (more prominent in Verbeek) as well as in the sense that technology changes our perception of ourselves and the world (more prominent in Ihde). In this article, different existing types of mediation are presented, critiqued, and enriched. The four types are illustrated by referring to military high-Tech environments with a focus on visual data and imaging technologies. These technologies can mediate actions (1) by inviting certain behavior, (2) through amplification and reduction, (3) through built-in norms, and (4) through interpretation. The four types of mediation mainly focus on the technology or technological artifact itself. What these approaches fail to grasp, however, is the specific user practices in which most technologies function. In this article, it is argued that to understand the mediating aspects of technology more fully, attention should be paid to the specific user context in which the technology functions. Therefore, an enriched understanding of the four types of mediation of technology is proposed by taking the lens of normative practices and analyzing the different types of mediation through this lens. The Kunduz Airstrike Incident, which took place in 2009 in Afghanistan, is a case in which a visual data sharing device called Rover played a prominent role. This case is used in this article to illustrate how technology mediates human actions in military practice.

Digital technologies can create novel clusters of societal entities. This can lead to tensions in relationships between existing societal entities and in some cases it requires a rethinking of the structures that characterize these relationships. An example of a digital technology that has challenged existing relationships between traditional businesses, legal authorities and the public is Uber, an application-based transportation networking company. One way of understanding such complex relationships is in terms of enkaptic interlacements. The theory of enkapsis is a philosophical tool, based on a specific view of reality, which may guide a novel understanding of the relationship between artefacts and entities and between social structures that exist in reality. It distinguishes between three main types of relationships between societal entities, namely part-whole relationships, enkaptic interlacements and interlinkages. If we apply this rather abstract theory to the complex case of Uber, we find, for example, that Uber has a part-whole relationship with the information technology infrastructure. This implies that without digital technologies, Uber loses its meaning and will not function according to its primary function, namely to connect drivers to passengers. We explore how the theory of enkapsis can explain a multiplicity of other complex relationships and explain the different responses to Uber in different countries, cultural settings and legal systems.