Ethics, technology development and uncertainty: an outline for any future ethics of technology

Author:

Sollie Paul

Abstract

PurposeThis conceptual paper aims to examine theoretical issues in the proactive ethical assessment of technology development, with a focus on uncertainty. Although uncertainty is a fundamental feature of complex technologies, its importance has not yet been fully recognized within the field of ethics. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to study uncertainty in technology development and its consequences for ethics.Design/methodology/approachGoing on the insight of various scientific disciplines, the concept of uncertainty will be scrutinised and a typology of uncertainty is proposed and introduced to ethical theory. The method used is theoretical and conceptual analysis.FindingsThe analysis results in questions with regard to the collection of information about the object of assessment (i.e. complex technologies and their development) and the framework of assessment (i.e. ethical theory and its practical aim of guiding the assessment of technology development). Moreover, based on the insights of the analysis of uncertainty, it is argued that substantive ethical theories prove to be inapt for the ethical assessment of complex technology development and therefore require a concomitant procedural approach. The paper concludes with requirements for any future ethics of technology under uncertainty.Originality/valueThe value of the paper consists in establishing the need of researching and incorporating uncertainty in ethics. The results are consequently of practical and theoretical interest for anyone working in the field of ethics and technology.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Computer Networks and Communications,Sociology and Political Science,Philosophy,Communication

Reference24 articles.

1. Beck, U. (1999), World Risk Society, Cambridge, Polity Press.

2. Beyleveld, D. (1991), The Dialectical Necessity of Morality: An Analysis and Defense of Alan Gewirth's Argument to the Principle of Generic Consistency, University Press of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

3. Beyleveld, D. and Brownsword, R. (2006), “Principle, proceduralism, and precaution in a community of rights”, Ratio Juris, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 141‐68.

4. Brey, P. (2001), “Disclosive computer ethics”, in Spinello, R.A. and Tavani, H.T. (Eds), Readings in Cyberethics, Jones and Bartlett Publishers Inc., Sudbury, MA, pp. 51‐62.

5. Brown, N., Rappert, B. and Webster, A. (2000), “Introducing contested futures: from looking into the future to looking at the future”, in Brown, N., Rappert, B. and Webster, A. (Eds), Contested Futures. A Sociology of Prospective Techno‐Science, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Aldershot, pp. 3‐20.

Cited by 34 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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3