Abstract
In this chapter, we arrive at the final question of this study: what would enable and support practitioners exercising a forward-looking responsibility for future social roles of technologies? Chapters 4 and 5 discussed the first two challenges formulated in Sect. 3.5. The first challenge was to show how people can accept a forward-looking responsibility for our actions while also rejecting the autonomous and atomist subject of the deontological and utilitarian theories. To take on this challenge, Chap. 4 explained how ANT can be morally enriched by recognizing that moral practices are part of the human-technology networks. Furthermore, it explores how people can make their actions their own in the networks and practices, even though these actions are biologically, socially and technologically embedded. The second challenge was to understand mediation theory in a manner that made it feasible to appreciate the different forms of causation. To meet this challenge, Chap. 5, reformulated mediation theory with Alasdair MacIntyre’s work on practices, reasons and reasoning to show that technologies alter our actions by mediating the reasons for action—the perceptions, options for actions and moral beliefs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology, building society. Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Barnes, D. (2006). The great stink of Paris and the nineteenth-century struggle against filth and germs. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Bleukx, A., & Tampère, C. (2004). Zelfverklarende wegen: uitbreiding van de verkeersveiligheidstoolbox ontwikkeld aan de K.U. Leuven. Leuven: KU Leuven.
Bossel, H. (2000). Policy assessment and simulation of actor orientation for sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 35(3), 337–355.
Bournemouth University. (2008). Animation aids psychology in ‘Second Life’ experiment. March: Science Daily. 21.
Burgh, M. (1997, 22 Februari). Gevolgen van voorspellend erfelijkheidsonderzoek; Alles beter dan onzekerheid. Interview met medisch psycholoog Tibben. NRC Handelsblad.
Coeckelbergh, M. (2006). Regulation or responsibility? Autonomy, moral imagination and engineering Science. Technology & Human Values, 31(3), 237–260.
Coeckelbergh, M. (2007). Imagination and principles: An essay on the role of imagination in moral reasoning. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hoetink, A. (2003a). Advanced cruise control en verkeersveiligheid (No. R-2003-24). Leidschendam: Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid (SWOV).
Hoetink, A. (2003). Advanced cruise control in the Netherlands; A critical review (paper nr. 4082). Based on SWOV report R-2003-4. Solutions for today… and tomorrow. Proceedings of the 10th World Congress and Exhibition on Intelligent Transportation Systems and Services ITS. Brussels: ERTICO - ITS.
Jager, W. (2007). Simulating human behavior for understanding and managing environmental resourse use. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 97–116.
Johnson, M. (1993). Moral imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
MacIntyre, A. (1999). Dependent rational animals: Why human beings need the virtues. London: Duckworth.
Martin, M. (2006). Moral creativity in science and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(3), 421–433.
Mills, C. (1959). The sociological imagination. London: Oxford University Press.
More, T. (2005). Utopia. London: Elibron Classics Series.
Nicholas, O. (2001). Medieval children. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (1995). Poetic justice: The literary imagination and public life. Boston MA: Beacon Press.
Nussbaum, M. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pew, R., & Mavor, A. (1997). Representing human behavior in military simulations. Interim report. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.
Pritchard, M. (2001). Responsible engineering: The importance of character and imagination. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(3), 391–402.
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Revisedth ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rip, A., Misa, T., & Schot, J. (1995). Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter Publishers.
Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54, 251–268.
Stemerding, D., & Swierstra, T. (2006). How might interactive scenariostudies help us to think about the normative implications of genomics and predictive medicine. In A. de Bouvet, P. Boitte, & G. Aiguier (Eds.), Questions éthiques en médicine prédictive (81–88). Parijs: John Libbey Eurotext.
Swierstra, T., & Rip, A. (2007). Nano-ethics and Nest-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. Nanoethics, 1(1), 3–20.
Swierstra, T., Stemerding, D., & Boenink, M. (2009). Exploring techno-moral change: the case of the obesity pill. In P. Sollie & M. Düwell (Eds.), Evaluating new technologies: Methodological problems for the ethical assessment of technology developments. Dordrecht: Springer.
Tenner, E. (1997). Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. New York: Vintage Books.
Tenner, E. (2004). Our own devices: How technology remakes humanity. New York: Vintage Books.
Tibben, A. (2000). Van vrees naar hoop: erfelijke neurodegeneratieve ziekten opnieuw bezien. Rede uitgesproken bij de openlijke aanvaarding van het ambt van bijzonder hoogleraar aan de Faculeit der Geneeskunde. Leiden: University of Leiden.
Tibben, A., Timman, R., Bannink, E., & Duivenvoorden, H. (1997). Three-year follow-up after presymptomatic testing for Huntington’s disease in tested individuals and partners. Health Psychology, 16, 20–35.
Verbeek, P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(3), 361–380.
Waelbers, K. (2009b). Technological delegation: Responsibility for the unintended. Journal for Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 51–68.
Waelbers, K., Stafleu, F., & Brom, F. (2004). Not all animals are equal: Differences in moral foundations for the Dutch veterinary policy on livestock in nature reservations. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 17, 497–515.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Waelbers, K. (2011). Tools for a Forward-Looking Responsibility. In: Doing Good with Technologies:. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1640-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1640-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1639-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1640-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)