skip to main content
article

Ethics for things

Published:01 September 2008Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This paper considers the ways that Information Ethics (IE) treats things. A number of critics have focused on IE's move away from anthropocentrism to include non-humans on an equal basis in moral thinking. I enlist Actor Network Theory, Dennett's views on as if' intentionality and Magnani's characterization of moral mediators'. Although they demonstrate different philosophical pedigrees, I argue that these three theories can be pressed into service in defence of IE's treatment of things. Indeed the support they lend to the extension of moral status to non-human objects can be seen as part of a trend towards the accommodation of non-humans into our moral and social networks. A number of parallels are drawn between philosophical arguments over artificial intelligence and information ethics.

References

  1. A. Adam, Artificial Knowing: Gender and the Thinking Machine . Routledge, London and New York, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. A. Adam. Cyborgs in the Chinese Room: Boundaries Transgressed and Boundaries Blurred. In J. Preston and M. Bishop, editors, Views into the Chinese Room: New Essays on Searle and Artificial Intelligence , pp. 319-337. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. A. Adam. Delegating and Distributing Morality: Can We Inscribe Privacy Protection in a Machine. Ethics and Information Technology , 7(4): 233-242, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M. Akrich. The De-Scription of Technical Objects. In W. E. Bijker and J. Law, editors, Shaping Technology/ Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change , pp. 205-224. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA and London, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. R. A. Brooks. Intelligence Without Representation. Artificial Intelligence , 47: 139-160, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. H. M. Collins, Artificial Experts: Social Knowledge and Intelligent Machines . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. H. M. Collins and M. Kusch, The Shape of Actions: What Machines and Humans Can Do . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA and London, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. D. C. Dennett. Is there an Autonomous 'Knowledge Level'? In Z. Pylshyn and W. Demopoulos, editors, Meaning and Cognitive Structure , pp. 51-54. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. D. C. Dennett. Review of Newell, Unified Theories of Cognition. Artificial Intelligence , 59(1-2): 285-294, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. D. C. Dennett. The Myth of Original Intentionality. In E. Dietrich, editor, Thinking Computers and Virtual Persons: Essays on the Intentionality of Machines , pp. 91-107. Academic Press, San Diego, CA and London, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. B. Easlea, Science and Sexual Oppression: Patriarchy's Confrontation with Woman and Nature . Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1981.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. L. Floridi. The Philosophy of Presence: From Epistemic Failure to Successful Observability. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments , 14(6):656-667, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. L. Floridi. Information Ethics, its Nature and Scope. In J. van den Hoven and J. Weckert, editors, Moral Philosophy and Information Technology . Cambridge University Press, UK, Cambridge, pp. 40-65, 2007a.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. L. Floridi. Distributed Morality in Multiagent Systems Paper Presented at CEPE 2007, San Diego, 2007b. Available at http://cepe2007.sandiego.edu/abstractDetail. asp?ID=40. Accessed August 30, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. K. E. Himma. There's Something About Mary: The Moral Value of Things Qua Information Objects. Ethics and Information Technology , 6(3): 145-159, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. K. E. Himma. Artificial Agency, Consciousness, and the Criteria for Moral Agency: What Properties Must an Artificial Agent Have to be a Moral Agent? Paper presented at CEPE 207, san Diego, 2007. Available at http://cepe2007.sandiego.edu/abstractDetail.asp?ID=2. Accessed August 30, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. B. Latour. Where are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts. In W. E. Bijker and J. Law, editors, Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change , pp. 225-258. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA and London, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. L. Magnani. Distributed Morality and Technological Artifacts. Paper presented at 4th International Conference on Human being in Contemporary Philosophy, Volgograd, 2007. Available at http://volgograd2007. goldenideashome.com/2%20Papers/Magnani%20Lorenzo %20p.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. G. Ryle, The Concept of Mind . Hutchinson, London, 1963.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. J. R. Searle. Minds, Brains and Programs. In R. Born, editor, Artificial Intelligence: The Case Against . pp. 18-40. Croom Helm, London and Sydney, 1987 (first published 1980).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. M. Siponen. A Pragmatic Evaluation of the Theory of Information Ethics. Ethics and Information Technology , 6(4): 279-290, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. T. Williamson, Knowledge and its Limits . Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Ethics for things

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access