David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1):27-42 (2013)
Philosophers have talked to each other about moral issues concerning technology, but few of them have talked about issues of technology and the good life, and even fewer have talked about technology and the good life with the public in the form of recommendation. In effect, recommendations for various technologies are often left to technologists and gurus. Given the potential benefits of informing the public on their impacts on the good life, however, this is a curious state of affairs. In the present paper, I will examine why philosophers are seemingly reluctant to offer recommendations to the public. While there are many reasons for philosophers to refrain from offering recommendations, I shall focus on a specific normative reason. More specifically, it appears that, according to a particular definition, offering recommendations can be viewed as paternalistic, and therefore is prima facie wrong to do so. I will provide an argument to show that the worry about paternalism is unfounded, because a form of paternalism engendered by technology is inevitable. Given the inevitability of paternalism, I note that philosophers should accept the duty to offer recommendations to the public. I will then briefly turn to design ethics, which has reconceptualised the role of philosophers and, in my mind, fitted well with the inevitability of paternalism. Finally, I shall argue that design ethics has to be supplemented by the practice of recommendation if it is to sustain its objective
|Keywords||Paternalism Recommendation Design ethics Good life Role of philosopher|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Similar books and articles
Bjørn Hofmann (2003). Technological Paternalism: On How Medicine has Reformed Ethics and How Technology Can Refine Moral Theory. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (3):343-352.
Eric Higgs, Andrew Light & David Strong (eds.) (2000). Technology and the Good Life? University of Chicago Press.
Patrick Feng (2000). Rethinking Technology, Revitalizing Ethics: Overcoming Barriers to Ethical Design. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (2):207-220.
Edward Spence (2011). Is Technology Good for Us? A Eudaimonic Meta-Model for Evaluating the Contributive Capability of Technologies for a Good Life. Nanoethics 5 (3):335-343.
Kalle Grill (2007). The Normative Core of Paternalism. Res Publica 13 (4):441-458.
J. Wilson (2011). Why It's Time to Stop Worrying About Paternalism in Health Policy. Public Health Ethics 4 (3):269-279.
Franklin G. Miller & Alan Wertheimer (2007). Facing Up to Paternalism in Research Ethics. Hastings Center Report 37 (3):24-34.
Anders Albrechtslund (2007). Ethics and Technology Design. Ethics and Information Technology 9 (1):63-72.
Toni Robertson (2006). Ethical Issues in Interaction Design. Ethics and Information Technology 8 (2):49-59.
Simon Clarke (2002). A Definition of Paternalism. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 5 (1):81-91.
Thomas C. Leonard, Robert S. Goldfarb & Steven M. Suranovic (2000). New on Paternalism and Public Policy. Economics and Philosophy 16 (2):323-331.
Thaddeus Mason Pope, Is Public Health Paternalism Really Never Justified? A Response to Joel Feinberg.
Lynn A. Jansen & Steven Wall (2009). Paternalism and Fairness in Clinical Research. Bioethics 23 (3):172-182.
Martin Brigham & Lucas D. Introna (2007). Invoking Politics and Ethics in the Design of Information Technology: Undesigning the Design. [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 9 (1):1-10.
Added to index2011-07-02
Total downloads13 ( #98,897 of 1,008,519 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,266 of 1,008,519 )
How can I increase my downloads?