Abstract
AbstractThis paper clarifies and answers the following question: is technology morally neutral? It is argued that the debate between proponents and opponents of the Neutrality Thesis depends on different underlying assumptions about the nature of technological artifacts. My central argument centres around the claim that a mere physicalistic vocabulary does not suffice in characterizing technological artifacts as artifacts, and that the concepts of function and intention are necessary to describe technological artifacts at the right level of description. Once this has been established, I demystify talk about the possible value-ladenness of technological artifacts by showing how these values can be empirically identified. I draw from examples in biology and the social sciences to show that there is a non-mysterious sense in which functions and values can be empirically identified. I conclude from this that technology can be value-laden and that its value-ladenness can both derive from the intended functions as well as the harmful non-intended functions of technological artifacts.
Funder
Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,Philosophy
Reference37 articles.
1. Artiga, M. (2023). A Dual-Aspect Theory of Artifact Function. Erkenntnis, 88, 1533–1554.
2. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Polity.
3. Criado Perez, C. (2019). Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. Chatto & Windus.
4. Cummins, R. (1975). Functional analysis. The Journal of Philosophy, 72, 741–765.
5. Franssen, M. (2006). The Normativity of Artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(1), 42–57.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献