Abstract
AbstractAlthough the map of technology ethics is expanding, the growing subdomains within it may raise misgivings. In a recent and very interesting article, Sætra and Danaher have argued that the current dynamic of sub-specialization is harmful to the ethics of technology. In this commentary, we offer three reasons to diminish their concern about ethical proliferation. We argue first that the problem of demarcation is weakened if we attend to other sub-disciplines of technology ethics not mentioned by these authors. We claim secondly that the logic of sub-specializations is less problematic if one does adopt mixed models (combining internalist and externalist approaches) in applied ethics. We finally reject that clarity and distinction are necessary conditions for defining sub-fields within ethics of technology, defending the porosity and constructive nature of ethical disciplines.
Funder
“la Caixa” Foundation
Junta de Andalucía
Agencia Estatal de Investigación
Universidad de Granada
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,Philosophy
Reference36 articles.
1. Achterhuis, H. (ed.) (2001). American philosophy of technology: The empirical turn. Indiana University Press.
2. Avram, M., & Giordano, J. (2014). Neuroethics: Some things old, some things new, some things borrowed… and to do. AJOB Neuroscience, 5(4), 23–25.
3. Bayertz, K. (2016). Self-enlightenment of applied ethics. In A. Cortina, D. García-Marzá, & J. Conill (Eds.), Public Reason and Applied Ethics (pp. 33–47). Routledge.
4. Beauchamp, T. L. (2003). The nature of applied ethics. In R. Frey, C. H. Wellman (Eds.), A companion to applied ethics (pp. 1–16). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
5. Brey, P. A. (2012a). Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies. NanoEthics, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-0141-7
Cited by
3 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