Abstract
Complexity and uncertainty are central to technological innovations. Many emerging complex technologies are developed under conditions of uncertainty. This brings to the fore the question of how we should deal with risky and uncertain technology developments that are potentially detrimental and harmful to human beings and the environment. It is argued that uncertainty gives rise to three fundamental questions with regard to ethical theory, namely its justification, its practicability, and, as a sub-question, how it deals with complex, uncertain cases that thwart practical moral reasoning due to a resultant lack of knowledge. Any ethics of technology should be able to formulate answers to these questions if it is to be regarded as adequate. This article purports to provide an answer to these questions by investigating Gewirth’s supreme moral principle—the Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC)—that requires every agent to act in accordance with its own and its recipients’ generic rights to freedom and well-being.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Beyleveld, D. The Dialectical Necessity of Morality. An Analysis and Defense of Alen Gewirth’s Argument for the Principle of Generic Consistency. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Beyleveld, D. and Brownsword, R. Human Dignity in Bioethics and Biolaw. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Beyleveld, D. and Brownsword, R. “Principle, Proceduralism, and Precaution in a Community of Rights.” Ratio Juris 2006, 19, 2, 141–168.
Collingridge, D. The Social Control of Technology. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1980.
Gewirth, A. Reason and Morality. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978.
Gewirth, A. “The Basis and Content of Human Rights” Georgia Law Review 1979, 13, 4, 1143–1170.
Gewirth, A. “The Justificatory Argument for Human Rights” Social Philosophy & Policy 1984, 1, 2, 1–24.
Grunwald, A. “Participation as a Means of Enhancing the Legitimacy of Decisions on Technology? A Sceptical Analysis.” Poiesis & Praxis 2004, 3, 1, 106–122.
Moor, J. “Just Consequentialism and Computing.” Ethics and Information Technology 1999, 1, 65–69.
Pontzen, H. “Discourse Ethics in TA Procedures: A Game Theory Model.” Poiesis & Praxis 2006, 4, 3, 219–230.
Regis, E. Jr. (Ed.). Gewirth’s Ethical Rationalism: Critical Essays with a Reply by Alan Gewirth. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1984.
Skorupinski, B, and Ott, K. “Technology Assessment and Ethics.” Poiesis and Praxis 2002, 1, 2, 95–122.
Sollie, P. “Ethics, Technology Development and Uncertainty: an outline for any future ethics of technology.” Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 2007, 5, 4, 293–306.
Spence, E.H. Ethics Within Reason. A Neo-Gewirthian Approach. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2006.
Steigleder, K. Grundlegung der normatieve Ethik. Der Ansatz von Alan Gewirth. Freiburg/München: Verlag Karl Alber, 1999.
Walker, W.E., Harremoës, P., Rotmans, J., Sluis, J.P. van der, Asselt, M.B.A. van, Janssen, P. and Krayer Von Kraus, M.P. “Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-based Decision Support.”Integrated Assessment 2003, 4, 1, 5–17.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sollie, P. (2009). Ethics of Technology at the Frontier of Uncertainty: A Gewirthian Perspective. In: Sollie, P., Düwell, M. (eds) Evaluating New Technologies. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2229-5_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2229-5_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2228-8
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2229-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)