آیا مصنوعات اخلاق دارند؟ برونو لاتور و اخلاق تکنولوژی

نوع مقاله: علمی-پژوهشی

نویسنده

عضو هیئت علمی پژوهشگاه علوم و فناوری اطلاعات ایران (ایرانداک)، پژوهشکده جامعه و اطلاعات، گروه اخلاق و حقوق اطلاعات

چکیده

 
 


چکیده
در این مقاله بر اساس سه معنای وساطت تکنولوژی نزد برونو لاتور، یعنی وساطت ترکیب، ترجمه و واگذاری، از سه معنای اخلاقی بودن تکنولوژی سخن خواهیم گفت. تکنولوژی بخشی از کنش‌های اخلاقی ماست، ما برخی از کنش‌های اخلاقی را به تکنولوژی واگذار می‌کنیم، و نیز تکنولوژی می‌تواند قصدها و انگیزهای اخلاقاً مهمی را در کاربر ایجاد کند. سپس بحثی را راجع به مسئولیت اخلاقی مطرح خواهیم کرد و با تفکیک مسئولیت از تقصیر نشان خواهیم داد که کنش‌های شبکه‌‌ای مستلزم سلب مسئولیت انسان یا اعطای مسئولیت به تکنولوژی نیستند و با این حال می‌توان به شکل معناداری از «مجازات تکنولوژی» نیز سخن گفت

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Does artifacts have morality? Bruno Latour and ethics of technology

نویسنده [English]

  • Rahman Sharifzadeh
Faculty Member of Iran Institute of Information Science and Technology (IRANDAK), Research Institute of Society and Information
چکیده [English]

Does Artifacts Have Morality?
Bruno Latour and Technology Ethics
In this paper, discussing Bruno Latour’s concept of technological mediation, we will claim that according to three kinds of technological mediation there would be three kinds of relation between morality and technology; Technology is part of our ethical actions, we delegate some of our ethical actions to technology, and technology can create, or change our, ethically important intentions. We will then discuss moral responsibly. Separating responsibility from accountability, we will show that networked actions do not nullify human’s moral responsibility or do not grant moral responsibility to technology, yet meaningfully, we can talk about "technology punishment.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Bruno Latour
  • mediation
  • Technology Ethics
  • moral responsibility
Atkins, Thomas and Nelson, Gene (2001). ‘Plagiarism and the Internet: Turning the Tables’, The English Journal Vol. 90, No. 4.
Floridi, L., and J. W. Sanders (2004). “On the Morality of Artificial Agents.” Minds and Machines, 14 (3): 349–79.
Ihde, Don. (1990). Technology and the Lifeworld. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Langdon Winner (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus, Vol. 109, No. 1, Modern Technology: Problem or Opportunity? (Winter, 1980), pp. 121-136
Latour, Bruno (1993). We have never been Modern, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno (1994). ‘On Technological Mediation: Philosophy, Psychology, Geneaology’, Common Knowledge, Vol. 94, No. 4.
Latour, Bruno (2002). ‘Morality and Technology, The End of the Means’, Theory, Culture, and Society, Vol. 19, No. 5.
Latour, Bruno (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour, Bruno (Jim Johnson) (1988). ‘Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer’, Social Problems Vol. 35, No. 3, Special Issue: The Sociology of Science and Technology (Jun., 1988), pp. 298-310.
Latour, Bruno and Madeleine Akrich (1992). ‘A Summary of a Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies’, In Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/ Building Society, Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Swierstra, T. E. (2005). Trapped in the duality of structure: An STS approach to engineering ethics.
In H. Harbers (Ed.), Inside the politics of technology (pp. 199–227). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
Press.
Verbeek, peter-paul (2011). Moralizing Technology, Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Waelbers, K. (2009). Technological delegation: responsibility for the unintended. Science and engineering ethics1(15), 51-68.

Waelbers KDorstewitz P. (2013). Ethics in actor networks, or: what Latour could learn from Darwin and Dewey, Sci Eng Ethics. 2014 Mar;20(1).

Winner, L. (1986). “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” In The Whale and the Reactor. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.