Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (1):13-34 (2012)
|Abstract||There are many ways to avoid responsibility, for example, explaining what happens as the work of the gods, fate, society, or the system. For engineers, “technology” or “the organization” will serve this purpose quite well. We may distinguish at least nine (related) senses of “responsibility”, the most important of which are: (a) responsibility-as-causation (the storm is responsible for flooding), (b) responsibility-as-liability (he is the person responsible and will have to pay), (c) responsibility-as-competency (he’s a responsible person, that is, he’s rational), (d) responsibility-as-office (he’s the responsible person, that is, the person in charge), and (e) a responsibility-as-domain-of-tasks (these are her responsibilities, that is, the things she is supposed to do). For all but the causal sense of responsibility, responsibility may be taken (in a relatively straightforward sense)—and generally is. Why then would anyone want to claim that certain technologies make it impossible to attribute responsibility to engineers (or anyone else)? In this paper, I identify seven arguments for that claim and explain why each is fallacious. The most important are: (1) the argument from “many hands”, (2) the argument from individual ignorance, and (3) the argument from blind forces. Each of these arguments makes the same fundamental mistake, the assumption that a certain factual situation, being fixed, settles responsibility, that is, that individuals, either individually or by some group decision, cannot take responsibility. I conclude by pointing out the sort of decisions (and consequences) engineers have explicitly taken responsibility for and why taking responsibility for them is rational, all things considered. There is no technological bar to such responsibility|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Marie-Therese Miller (2009). Managing Responsibilities. Chelsea House.
Michael C. Loui (1998). The Engineer's Responsibility for Quality. Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (3):347-350.
Richard T. De George (1982). The Moral Responsibility of the Hospital. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 7 (1):87-100.
Donald Gotterbarn (2001). Informatics and Professional Responsibility. Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (2).
Gunnar Björnsson (2011). Joint Responsibility Without Individual Control: Applying the Explanation Hypothesis. In Jeroen van den Hoven, Ibo van de Poel & Nicole Vincent (eds.), Compatibilist Responsibility: beyond free will and determinism. Springer.
Simon Robinson (2009). The Nature of Responsibility in a Professional Setting. Journal of Business Ethics 88 (1):11 - 19.
Michael J. Phillips (1995). Corporate Moral Responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly 5 (3):555-576.
Helmut Danner (1998). Existential Responsibility - The Civic Virtue. Studies in Philosophy and Education 17 (4):261-270.
Garrath Williams, Moral Responsibility. Oxford Bibliographies Online.
Pamela Hieronymi (2008). Responsibility for Believing. Synthese 161 (3):357-373.
Maureen Kelley (2005). Limits on Patient Responsibility. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (2):189 – 206.
Garrath Williams, Responsibility. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Jessica Christie Ludescher (2011). Sustainable Development and the Destruction of the Amazon. Environmental Ethics 33 (2):197-218.
Neal Judisch (2005). Responsibility, Manipulation and Ownership: Reflections on the Fischer/Ravizza Program. Philosophical Explorations 8 (2):115-130.
Added to index2010-11-18
Total downloads12 ( #93,438 of 549,196 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,196 )
How can I increase my downloads?