Do artifacts have morality? Bruno Latour and ethics of technology

Sharifzadeh, Rahman

doi:10.30465/ps.2020.4546

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Rahman Sharifzadeh

Faculty Member of Iran Institute of Information Science and Technology (IRANDAK), Research Institute of Society and Information

https://doi.org/10.30465/ps.2020.4546

Abstract

Do 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 mediations there would be three kinds of relations 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 responsibility. Separating responsibility from accountability, we will show that networked actions neither nullify human’s moral responsibility nor grant moral responsibility to technology, yet meaningfully, we can talk about ‘technology punishment’.

Keywords

References

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.

Lessing, Hans-Erhard (2001). "What Led to the Invention of the Early Bicycle?" Cycle History11, San Francisco.

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 ethics, 1(15), 51-68.

Waelbers K, Dorstewitz 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.

Philosophy of Science

Do artifacts have morality? Bruno Latour and ethics of technology

References

References

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

Volume 9, Issue 18 - Serial Number 18
February 2020
Pages 69-86

Do artifacts have morality? Bruno Latour and ethics of technology

References

References

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

Volume 9, Issue 18 - Serial Number 18February 2020Pages 69-86

Volume 9, Issue 18 - Serial Number 18
February 2020
Pages 69-86