Skip to main content
Open Book Publishers

6. Conceptual Disruption and the Ethics of Technology

Chapter of: Ethics of Socially Disruptive Technologies: An Introduction(pp. 141–162)

Export Metadata

  • ONIX 3.1
  • ONIX 3.0
    • Thoth
    • Project MUSE
      Cannot generate record: No BIC or BISAC subject code
    • OAPEN
    • JSTOR
      Cannot generate record: No BISAC subject code
    • Google Books
      Cannot generate record: No BIC, BISAC or LCC subject code
    • OverDrive
      Cannot generate record: No priced EPUB or PDF URL
  • ONIX 2.1
  • CSV
  • JSON
  • OCLC KBART
  • BibTeX
  • CrossRef DOI deposit
    Cannot generate record: This work does not have any ISBNs
  • MARC 21 Record
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 Markup
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 XML
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
Metadata
Title6. Conceptual Disruption and the Ethics of Technology
ContributorJeroen Hopster(author)
Philip Brey(author)
Michael Klenk(author)
Guido Löhr(author)
Samuela Marchiori(author)
Björn Lundgren(author)
Kevin Scharp(author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0366.06
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0366/chapters/10.11647/obp.0366.06
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
CopyrightJeroen Hopster et al.
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2023-09-05
Long abstractThis chapter provides a theoretical lens on conceptual disruption. It offers a typology of conceptual disruption, discusses its relation to conceptual engineering, and sketches a programmatic view of the implications of conceptual disruption for the ethics of technology. We begin by distinguishing between three different kinds of conceptual disruptions: conceptual gaps, conceptual overlaps, and conceptual misalignments. Subsequently, we distinguish between different mechanisms of conceptual disruption, and two modes of conceptual change. We point out that disruptions may be induced by technology, but can also be triggered by intercultural exchanges. Conceptual disruptions frequently yield conceptual uncertainty and may call for conceptual and ethical inquiry. We argue that a useful approach to address conceptual disruptions is to engage in conceptual engineering. We outline what conceptual engineering involves and argue that discussions on conceptual disruption and conceptual engineering can benefit from closer integration. In closing, we discuss the relevance of studying conceptual disruption for technology ethics, and point to the promise of this line of research to innovate practical philosophy at large.
Page rangepp. 141–162
Print length22 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Contributors

Jeroen Hopster

(author)
Assistant Professor of Ethics at Utrecht University
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9239-3048

Jeroen Hopster is an Assistant Professor of Ethics at Utrecht University. His research centers on climate ethics and on investigating the nature of socially disruptive technologies. ORCID: 0000-0001-9239-3048

Philip Brey

(author)
Professor in philosophy and ethics of technology at University of Twente
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4789-4588

Philip Brey is a Professor in philosophy and ethics of technology at the University of Twente and leader of the ESDiT programme. His research is in general ethics of technology, in which he investigates new approaches for ethical assessment, guidance and design of emerging technologies, and in ethics of digital technologies, with a focus on AI, robotics, internet, virtual reality and the metaverse. ORCID: 0000-0002-4789-4588.

Michael Klenk

(author)
Assistant Professor of Ethics and Philosophy of Technology at Technische Universiteit Delft
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1483-0799

Michael Klenk is an Assistant Professor of Ethics and Philosophy of Technology at TU Delft. He works on the intersection of metaethics, epistemology, and moral psychology, most recently on the topic of (online) manipulation. ORCID: 0000-0002-1483-0799

Guido Löhr

(author)
Assistant Professor of Logic and AI at Vrije University Amsterdam
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7028-3515

Guido Löhr is an Assistant Professor of Logic and AI at Vrije University Amsterdam. They work on various topics in philosophy of language, social ontology and philosophy of technology with a focus on concepts. ORCID: 0000-0002-7028-3515

Samuela Marchiori

(author)
PhD candidate, Conceptual Engineering in the Philosophy of Technology at Technische Universiteit Delft
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6426-7690

Samuela Marchiori is a PhD candidate in Conceptual Engineering in the Philosophy of Technology at TU Delft. She is developing methods to address and overcome the disruption of moral concepts in relation to socially disruptive technologies. ORCID: 0000-0002-6426-7690

Björn Lundgren

(author)
Postdoctoral Researcher at Utrecht University
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5830-3432

Björn Lundgren is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Utrecht University. He is working on methods of ethics of technology. ORCID: 0000-0001-5830-3432

Kevin Scharp

(author)
Postdoctoral Researcher at University of Twente
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3900-4087

Kevin Scharp is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Twente. He has published widely on the topic of Conceptual Engineering. ORCID: 0000-0003-3900-4087

References
  1. Babushkina, Dina, and Athanasios Votsis. 2022. ‘Disruption, technology and the question of (artificial) identity’, AI & Ethics, 2: 611–22,
  2. Baker, Robert. 2013. Before Bioethics: A History of American Medical Ethics from the Colonial Period to the Bioethics Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press)
  3. Bryson, Joanna. 2018. ‘Patiency is not a virtue: The design of intelligent systems and systems of ethics’, Ethics and Information Technology, 20: 15–26, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9448-6
  4. Burgess, Alexis, Herman Cappelen, and David Plunkett (eds). 2020. Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198801856.003.0001
  5. Burgess, Alexis, and David Plunkett. 2013a. ‘Conceptual ethics I’, Philosophical Compass, 8(12): 1091–1101, https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12086
  6. ——. 2013b. ‘Conceptual ethics II’, Philosophical Compass, 8(12): 1102–10, https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12085
  7. Cappellen, Herman. 2018. Fixing Language: An Essay on Conceptual Engineering (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
  8. Cappelen, Herman, and David Plunkett. 2021. ‘A guided tour of conceptual engineering and conceptual ethics’, in Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics, ed. by Alexis Burgess, Herman Cappelen, and David Plunkett (Oxford: Oxford University Press), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198801856.003.0001
  9. Carnap, Rudolf. 1950. Logical Foundations of Probability (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press)
  10. Carpinella, Colleen, Alisa Wyman, Michael Perez, and Steven Stroessner. 2017. ‘The Robotic Social Attributes Scale (RoSAS): Development and validation’, HRI ’17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 254–62, https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020208
  11. Chalmers. David. 2020. ‘What is conceptual engineering and what should it be?’, Inquiry, https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2020.1817141
  12. Coeckelbergh, Mark. 2010. ‘Robot rights? Towards a social-relational justification of moral consideration’, Ethics and Information Technology, 12: 209–11, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9235-5
  13. De Wildt, Tristan, Ibo van de Poel, and Emile Chappin. 2022. ‘Tracing long-term value change in (energy) technologies: Opportunities of probabilistic topic models using large data sets’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 47: 429–58, https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211054439
  14. Eklund, Matti. 2015. ‘Intuitions, conceptual engineering, and conceptual fixed points’, in The Palgrave Handbook of Philosophical Methods, ed. by Chris Daly (London: Palgrave), 363–85, https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137344557_15
  15. Eriksen, Cecilie (2020). Moral Change: Dynamics, Structure, and Normativity (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan)
  16. Friedman, Batya, and David Hendry. 2019. Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination (Cambridge: MIT Press)
  17. Gallie, Walter. 1955. ‘Essentially contested concepts’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian society, 56: 167–98
  18. Gunkel, David. 2018. Robot Rights (Cambridge: MIT Press)
  19. Hamilton, William, Jure Leskovec, and Dan Jurafsky. 2016. ‘Diachronic word embeddings reveal statistical laws of semantic change’, in Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) (Berlin: Association for Computational Linguistics), 1489–501, https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P16-1141
  20. Haslanger, Sally. 2000. ‘Gender and race: (What) are they? (What) do we want them to be?’, Noûs, 34(1): 31–55 https://doi.org/10.1111/0029-4624.00201
  21. Hannon, Elizabeth, and Tim Lewens (eds). 2018. Why We Disagree About Human Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
  22. Hopster, Jeroen. 2021a. ‘What are socially disruptive technologies?’, Technology in Society, 67: 101750,
  23. ——. 2021b. ‘The ethics of disruptive technologies: Towards a general framework’, in Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, ed. by Juan de Paz Santana, Daniel de la Iglesia and Alfonso José López Rivero (Cham: Springer), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87687-6_14
  24. Hopster, Jeroen, and Guido Löhr. 2023. ‘Conceptual engineering and philosophy of technology: Amelioration or adaptation?’, Unpublished manuscript
  25. Jacobs, Naomi (2023). ‘De kunstmatige baarmoeder’, Wijsgerig Perspectief, 1.
  26. Jamieson, Dale. 2015. ‘Responsibility and climate change’, Global Justice: Theory, Practice, Rhetoric, 8(2): 23–47, https://doi.org/10.21248/gjn.8.2.86
  27. Kelbessa, Workineh. 2015. ‘African environmental ethics, Indigenous knowledge, and environmental challenges’, Environmental Ethics, 37(4): 387–410, https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics201537439
  28. Klenk, Michael. 2021. ‘Moral realism, disagreement, and conceptual ethics’, Inquiry, https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2021.1995483
  29. Lindauer, Matthew. 2020. ‘Conceptual engineering as concept preservation’, Ratio, 33(3): 155–62, https://doi.org/10.1111/rati.12280
  30. Löhr, Guido. 2022. ‘Linguistic interventions and the ethics of conceptual disruption’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 25: 835–49, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-022-10321-9
  31. ——. 2023. ‘Do socially disruptive technologies really change our concepts or just our conceptions?’, Technology in Society, 72: 102160, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102160
  32. Nickel, Philip. 2020. ‘Disruptive innovation and moral uncertainty’, NanoEthics, 14(3): 259–69, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-020-00375-3
  33. Nickel Philip, Olya Kudina, and Ibo van de Poel. 2022. ‘Moral uncertainty in technomoral change: Bridging the explanatory gap’, Perspectives on Science, 30(2): 260–83, https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00414
  34. O’Neill, Elizabeth. 2022. ‘Contextual integrity as a general conceptual tool for evaluating technological change’, Philosophy & Technology, 35: 79, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00574-8
  35. Queloz, Matthieu. 2019. ‘The points of concepts: Their types, tensions, and connections’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 49(8): 1122–45, https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2019.1584940
  36. Queloz, Matthieu, and Friedemann Bieber. 2022. ‘Conceptual engineering and the politics of implementation’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 103: 670–91, https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12394
  37. Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Belknap Press)
  38. Rueda, Jon, Jonathan Pugh, and Julian Savulescu. 2022. ‘The morally disruptive future of reprogenetic enhancement technologies’, Trends in Biotechnology, 2258: 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2022.10.007
  39. Scharp, Kevin. 2013. Replacing Truth (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
  40. Spatola, Nicolas, and Thierry Chaminade. 2022. ‘Cognitive load increases anthropomorphism of humanoid robots. The automatic path of anthropomorphism’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 167: 102884, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102884
  41. Strawson, Peter. 1963. ‘Carnap’s views on constructed systems versus natural languages in analytic philosophy’, in The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, ed. by Paul Schilpp (LaSalle: Open Court), 503–18
  42. Veluwenkamp, Herman, Marianna Capasso, Jonne Maas, and Lavinia Marin. 2022. ‘Technology as driver for morally motivated conceptual engineering’, Philosophy & Technology, 35: 71,
  43. Veluwenkamp, Herman, and Jeroen van den Hoven. 2023. ‘Design for values and conceptual engineering’, Ethics and Information Technology, 25: 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-022-09675-6
  44. Watene, K. 2022. ‘Indigenous philosophy and intergenerational justice’, in Reimagining the Human-Environment Relationship. United Nations University, http://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:8829/UNUUNEP_Watene_RHER.pdf
  45. Wiredu, Kwasi. 1994. ‘Philosophy, humankind and the environment’, in Philosophy, Humanity, and Ecology, ed. by H. Odera Oruka (Nairobi: ACTS Press)