Skip to main content
Open Book Publishers

1: Introduction

Chapter of: Ethics of Socially Disruptive Technologies: An Introduction(pp. 11–32)

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
Title1: Introduction
ContributorIbo van de Poel(author)
Jeroen Hopster(author)
Guido Löhr(author)
Elena Ziliotti(author)
Stefan Buijsman(author)
Philip Brey(author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0366.01
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0366/chapters/10.11647/obp.0366.01
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
CopyrightIbo van de Poel et al.
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2023-09-05
Long abstractTechnologies have all kinds of impacts, on the environment, on human behavior, on our society and on what we believe and value. But some technologies are not just impactful, they are also socially disruptive: they challenge existing institutions, social practices, beliefs and conceptual categories. Here we are particularly interested in technologies that disrupt existing concepts, for example because they lead to profound uncertainty about how to classify matters. Is a humanoid robot - which looks and even acts like a human - to be classified as a person, or is it just an inert machine? Conceptual disruption occurs when the meaning of concepts is challenged, and it may potentially lead to a revision of concepts. We illustrate how technologies can be conceptually disruptive through a range of examples, and we argue for an intercultural outlook in studying socially disruptive technologies and conceptual disruption. Such an outlook is needed to avoid a Western bias in calling technologies socially or conceptually disruptive, and it takes inspiration from a broad range of philosophical traditions.
Page rangepp. 11–32
Print length22 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Contributors

Ibo van de Poel

(author)
Professor in Ethics and Technology at the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management at Technische Universiteit Delft
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9553-5651

Ibo van de Poel is a Professor in Ethics of Technology at TU Delft. His research focuses on values, technology and design and how values, and related concepts, that address ethical issues in technology (can) change over time. ORCID: 0000-0002-9553-5651

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

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

Elena Ziliotti

(author)
Assistant Professor of Ethics and Political Philosophy at Technische Universiteit Delft
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8929-9728

Elena Ziliotti is an Assistant Professor of Ethics and Political Philosophy at TU Delft. Her research focuses on Western democratic theory and Comparative democratic theory, with a particular focus on contemporary Confucian political theory. ORCID: 0000-0002-8929-9728

Stefan Buijsman

(author)
Assistant Professor at Technische Universiteit Delft
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0004-0681

Stefan Buijsman is an Assistant Professor at TU Delft and works on explainable AI and related epistemic challenges to responsible AI. ORCID: 0000-0002-0004-0681

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.

References
  1. Baker, Robert. 2013. Before Bioethics: A History of American Medical Ethics from the Colonial Period to the Bioethics Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press)
  2. Behrens, Kevin Gary. 2012. ‘Moral obligations towards future generations in African thought’, Journal of Global Ethics, 8: 179–91, https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2012.705786
  3. Belkin, Gary S. 2003. ‘Brain death and the historical understanding of bioethics’, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 58: 325–61, https://doi.org/10.1093/jhmas/jrg003
  4. Bernstein, Anna, and Kelly Jones. 2019. ‘The economic effects of contraceptive access: A review of the evidence’, Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) Report #B381, https://iwpr.org/iwpr-issues/reproductive-health/the-economic-effects-of-contraceptive-access-a-review-of-the-evidence/
  5. Bijker, Wiebe, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor Pinch (eds). 1987. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Cambridge: MIT Press)
  6. Bombaerts, Gunter, Joel Anderson, Matthew Dennis, Alessio Gerola, Lily Frank, Tom Hannes, Jeroen Hopster, Lavinia Marin, and Andreas Spahn. 2023. ‘Attention as practice’, Global Philosophy, 33: 25, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-023-09680-4
  7. Brey, Philip. 2012. ‘Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies’, Nanoethics, 6: 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-0141-7
  8. Christensen, Clayton M. 2013. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail (Boston: Harvard Business Review Press)
  9. Collingridge, David. 1980. The Social Control of Technology (London: Frances Pinter)
  10. Danaher, John, 2023. ‘The case for outsourcing morality to AI’, Wired, https://www.wired.com/story/philosophy-artificial-intelligence-responsibility-gap/
  11. Diczfalusy, Egon. 2000. ‘The contraceptive revolution’, Contraception, 61: 3–7
  12. Enriquez, Juan. 2021. Right/Wrong: How Technology Transforms our Ethics (Cambridge: MIT Press)
  13. Friedman, Batya, and David Hendry. 2019. Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination (Cambridge: MIT Press)
  14. Gallie, W. B. 1955. ‘Essentially contested concepts’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56: 167–98
  15. Garcia, Ana Cristina Bicharra, Marcio Gomes Pinto Garcia, and Roberto Rigobon. 2023. ‘Algorithmic discrimination in the credit domain: what do we know about it?’ AI & Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01676-3
  16. Hickey, Colin, and Ingrid Robeyns. 2020. ‘Planetary justice: What can we learn from ethics and political philosophy?’, Earth System Governance, 6: 100045, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100045
  17. Hopster, Jeroen. 2021. ‘What are socially disruptive technologies?’, Technology in Society, 67, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101750
  18. Hopster, Jeroen, and Guido Löhr. 2023. ‘Conceptual engineering and philosophy of technology: Amelioration or adaptation?’, Unpublished manuscript
  19. IPBES. 2022. ‘Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)’, IPBES Secretariat, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522392
  20. Kudina, Olya. 2021. ‘“Alexa, who am I?”: Voice assistants and hermeneutic lemniscate as the technologically mediated sense-making’, Human Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-021-09572-9
  21. Lee, Minha, Peter Ruijten, Lily Frank, Yvonne de Kort, and Wijnand IJsselsteijn. 2021. ‘People may punish, but not blame robots’, in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Article 715. Yokohama, Japan: Association for Computing Machinery, https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445284
  22. 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
  23. Matthias, Andreas. 2004. ‘The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata’, Ethics and Information Technology, 6: 175–83, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1
  24. McKibben, Bill. 1990. The End of Nature (Anchor Books: New York)
  25. Mignolo, Walter. 2007. ‘Delinking: The rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of de-coloniality’, Cultural Studies, 21(2–3): 449–514, https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162647
  26. Mintah, Kwabena, Kingsley Tetteh Baako, Godwin Kavaarpuo, and Gideon Kwame Otchere. 2020. ‘Skin lands in Ghana and application of blockchain technology for acquisition and title registration’, Journal of Property, Planning and Environmental Law, 12: 147–69, https://doi.org/10.1108/JPPEL-12-2019-0062
  27. Nass, Clifford Ivar, and Scott Brave. 2005. Wired for Speech: How Voice Activates and Advances the Human-Computer Relationship (Cambridge: MIT Press)
  28. Nickel, Philip, Olya Kudina, and Ibo van de Poel. 2022. ‘Moral uncertainty in technomoral change: Bridging the explanatory gap’, Perspectives on Science, 30: 260–83, https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00414
  29. Nyholm, Sven. 2020. Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency, and Anthropomorphism (London: Rowman & Littlefield)
  30. Patterson, John. 1998. ‘Respecting nature: A Maori perspective’, Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology, 2: 69–78
  31. Pellegrini-Masini, Giuseppe, Fausto Corvino, and Lars Löfquist. 2020. ‘Energy justice and intergenerational ethics: Theoretical perspectives and institutional designs’, in Energy Justice Across Borders, ed. by Gunter Bombaerts, Kirsten Jenkins, Yekeen A. Sanusi, and Wang Guoyu (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 253–72
  32. Pérez-Muñoz, Cristian. 2022. ‘The strange silence of Latin American political theory’, Political Studies Review, 20(4), 592–607, https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299211023342
  33. Preston, Christopher. 2012. ‘Beyond the end of nature: SRM and two tales of artificiality for the Anthropocene’, Ethics, Policy & Environment, 15(2): 188–201, https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2012.685571
  34. Quijano, Anibal. 1992. ‘Colonialidad y modernidad-racionalidad’, Perú Indígena, 13(29): 11–20
  35. Roeser, Sabine, Rafaela Hillerbrand, Martin Peterson, and Per Sandin. 2012. Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk (New York: Springer)
  36. Sand, Martin. 2021. ‘A defence of the control principle’, Philosophia, 49: 765–75, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-020-00242-1
  37. Santoni de Sio, Filippo, and Jeroen van den Hoven. 2018. ‘Meaningful human control over autonomous systems: A philosophical account’, Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5: 15, https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00015
  38. Sedlmeir, Johannes, Hans Ulrich Buhl, Gilbert Fridgen, and Robert Keller. 2020. ‘The energy consumption of blockchain technology: Beyond myth’, Business & Information Systems Engineering, 62: 599–608, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x
  39. Smith, Merritt Roe, and Leo Marx (eds). 1994. Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism (Cambridge: MIT Press)
  40. Swierstra, Tsjalling. 2013. ‘Nanotechnology and technomoral change’, Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics, XV: 200–19
  41. Van den Hoven, Jeroen, Pieter E. Vermaas, and Ibo Van de Poel (eds). 2015. Handbook of Ethics and Values in Technological Design. Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains (Dordrecht: Springer), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0
  42. Van de Poel, Ibo. 2020. ‘Three philosophical perspectives on the relation between technology and society, and how they affect the current debate about artificial intelligence’, Human Affairs, 30(4): 499–511, https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2020-0042
  43. Van de Poel, Ibo, and Olya Kudina. 2022. ‘Understanding technology-induced value change: A pragmatist proposal’, Philosophy & Technology, 35: 40, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00520-8
  44. Van der Burg, Wibren. 2003. ‘Dynamic ethics’, Journal of Value Inquiry, 37: 13–34
  45. Van Norden, Bryan. 2017. Taking Back Philosophy: A Multicultural Manifesto (New York: Columbia University Press), https://doi.org/10.7312/van-18436
  46. Veluwenkamp, Herman, Marianna Capasso, Jonne Maas, and Lavinia Marin. 2022. ‘Technology as driver for morally motivated conceptual engineering’, Philosophy & Technology, 35: 71, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00565-9
  47. Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2005. What Things Do. Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design (Penn State: Penn State University Press)
  48. Watene, Krushil. 2016. ‘Valuing nature: Māori philosophy and the capability approach’, Oxford Development Studies, 44: 287–96, https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.2015.1124077
  49. West, Mark, Rebecca Kraut, and Han Ei Chew. 2019. ‘I’d blush if I could: Closing gender divides in digital skills through education’, UNESCO,
  50. Williams, Melissa. 2020. Deparochializing Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635042
  51. Wiredu, Kwasi. 1996. Cultural Universals and Particulars (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press)