What Next after Determinism in the Ontology of Technology? Distributing Responsibility in the Biofuel Debate
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3):525-538 (2011)
This article builds upon previous discussion of social and technical determinisms as implicit positions in the biofuel debate. To ensure these debates are balanced, it has been suggested that they should be designed to contain a variety of deterministic positions. Whilst it is agreed that determinism does not feature strongly in contemporary academic literatures, it is found that they have generally been superseded by an absence of any substantive conceptualisation of how the social shaping of technology may be related to, or occur alongside, an objective or autonomous reality. The problem of determinism emerges at an ontological level and must be resolved in situ. A critical realist approach to technology is presented which may provide a more appropriate framework for debate. In dialogue with previous discussion, the distribution of responsibility is revisited with reference to the role of scientists and engineers
|Keywords||Technical determinism Social determinism Critical realism Technology Biofuels Responsibility|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Roy Bhaskar (1998). The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Routledge.
Dave Elder-Vass (2005). Emergence and the Realist Account of Cause. Journal of Critical Realism 4 (2):315-338.
Wybo Houkes & Anthonie Meijers (2006). The Ontology of Artefacts: The Hard Problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37 (1):118-131.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Manuel Vargas (2004). Responsibility and the Aims of Theory: Strawson and Revisionism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85 (2):218-241.
Jules Holroyd (2011). The Metaphysics of Relational Autonomy. In Charlotte Witt (ed.), Feminist Metaphysics: Explorations in the Ontology of Sex, Gender and the Self. Springer 99--115.
Phillip D. Gosselin (1979). Is There a Freedom Requirement for Moral Responsibility? Dialogue 18 (3):289-306.
Graeme Kirkpatrick (2008). Technology and Social Power. Palgrave Macmillan.
Noa Latham (2004). Determinism, Randomness, and Value. Philosophical Topics 32 (1-2):153-167.
Clive Lawson (2008). An Ontology of Technology. Techne 12 (1):48-64.
Erik Paredis (2011). Sustainability Transitions and the Nature of Technology. Foundations of Science 16 (2):195-225.
Clive Lawson (2007). Technology, Technological Determinism, and the Transformational Model of Technical Activity. In Clive Lawson, John Latsis & Nuno Martins (eds.), Contributions to Social Ontology. Routledge 32--49.
Bernd Carsten Stahl (2006). Responsible Computers? A Case for Ascribing Quasi-Responsibility to Computers Independent of Personhood or Agency. Ethics and Information Technology 8 (4):205-213.
Laurens Landeweerd, Patricia Osseweijer & Julian Kinderlerer (2009). Distributing Responsibility in the Debate on Sustainable Biofuels. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4):531-543.
Added to index2010-06-09
Total downloads16 ( #225,387 of 1,796,214 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #284,809 of 1,796,214 )
How can I increase my downloads?