首页> 外文期刊>Philosophy & technology >Technology as Moral Agent
【24h】

Technology as Moral Agent

机译:作为道德代理的技术

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

In his new book Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things (2011), Peter-Paul Verbeek discusses the implications for the ethics of technology of the mediation theory that he developed in his previous book What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design (2005). His approach is not only original but also rich and multi-faceted, seemingly easily moving from abstract philosophical discussions about Heidegger and Foucault to the practice of engineering design and the development of ambient intelligence and persuasive technology. Part of the value of the book lays no doubt in this combination of philosophical argument and analysis of concrete technological developments. The book also has important practical implications for the design and development of new technologies, augmenting current approaches in engineering ethics and science and technology studies. At the core of the book, however, is a philosophical argument about how current ethical theory should be adapted to do justice to the moral significance of technologies. It is this argument I will be focusing on. There is a slight danger in this focus because it is likely to stress the points in which I disagree with Verbeek rather than the points at which I agree with him. Let me therefore at the outset stress that I agree that technological mediation is an interesting and important phenomenon that requires more attention in the ethics of technology. I also largely agree with the practical implications that Verbeek sketches for the design and use of technologies. In addition, I liked his Foucauldian treatment of freedom. What I doubt, however, is whether all these things require the kind of drastic changes in ethical theory that Verbeek proposes. Surely, ethicists have tended to ignore the role of technologies in morality and ethics, and surely doing justice to their moral significance may require certain changes in ethical theory, but I am not sure whether a redefinition of moral agency is the right target for such changes. But rather than getting ahead of my argument, I should start with explaining why Verbeek thinks that doing justice to the moral significance of technology requires a new approach to ethics.
机译:彼得·保罗·维尔贝克(Peter-Paul Verbeek)在他的新书《道德化的技术:理解和设计事物的道德》(2011)中,讨论了他在上一本书《事物在做什么:对技术的哲学思考》中提出的中介理论对技术伦理学的启示,代理商和设计(2005)。他的方法不仅新颖,而且内容丰富,涉及面广,似乎很容易从关于海德格尔和福柯的抽象哲学讨论转移到工程设计实践以及环境情报和说服技术的发展。毫无疑问,本书的部分价值在于哲学论证与具体技术发展分析的结合。这本书对新技术的设计和开发也具有重要的实践意义,它扩大了工程伦理学和科学技术研究的现有方法。然而,这本书的核心是一个哲学论点,即关于如何将当前的伦理理论改编为对技术的道德意义进行公正对待。我将重点讨论这个论点。此重点存在一点危险,因为它可能会强调我不同意Verbeek的观点,而不是我同意他的观点。因此,让我首先强调,我同意技术调解是一个有趣而重要的现象,需要在技术伦理学上给予更多关注。我也大致同意Verbeek所描述的对技术设计和使用的实际含义。另外,我喜欢他对自由主义的对待。但是,我怀疑的是,所有这些事情是否都需要Verbeek提出的那种道德理论上的急剧变化。当然,伦理学家往往会忽略技术在道德和伦理中的作用,并且一定要公正对待其道德意义可能需要对道德理论进行某些改变,但是我不确定重新定义道德机构是否是这种改变的正确目标。但是,除了超越我的论点之外,我还应该从解释韦尔贝克为什么认为对技术的道德意义进行公正来要求一种新的伦理学方法开始。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Philosophy & technology》 |2014年第2期|296-301|共6页
  • 作者

    Ibo van de Poel;

  • 作者单位

    Delft University of Technology;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 02:18:58

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号