Authors
Neelke Doorn
Delft University of Technology
Abstract
The introduction of new technologies in society is sometimes met with public resistance. Supported by public policy calls for “upstream engagement” and “responsible innovation,” recent years have seen a notable rise in attempts to attune research and innovation processes to societal needs, so that stakeholders’ concerns are taken into account in the design phase of technology. Both within the social sciences and in the ethics of technology, we see many interdisciplinary collaborations being initiated that aim to address tensions between various normative expectations about science and engineering and the actual outcomes. However, despite pleas to integrate social science research into the ethics of technology, effective normative models for assessing technologies are still scarce. Rawls’s wide reflective equilibrium is often mentioned as a promising approach to integrate insights from the social sciences in the normative analysis of concrete cases, but an in-depth discussion of how this would work in practice is still lacking. In this article, we explore to what extent the WRE method can be used in the context of technology development. Using cases in engineering and technology development, we discuss three issues that are currently neglected in the applied ethics literature on WRE. The first issue concerns the operationalization of abstract background theories to moral principles. The second issue concerns the inclusiveness of the method and the demand for openness. The third issue is how to establish whether or not an equilibrium has been reached. These issues should be taken into account when applying the methods to real-world cases involving technological risks. Applying the WRE method in the context of engaged interdisciplinary collaboration requires sensitivity for issues of power and representativeness to properly deal with the dynamics between the technical and normative researchers involved as well as society at large.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1177/0162243917723153
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,827
External links

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

Justice as Fairness: A Restatement.John Rawls (ed.) - 2001 - Harvard University Press.
Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity.Ulrich Beck, Mark Ritter & Jennifer Brown - 1993 - Environmental Values 2 (4):367-368.
Collected Papers.John Rawls - 1999 - Harvard University Press.
The Concept of Law.Hla Hart - 1961 - Oxford University Press UK.

View all 41 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Reflective Equilibrium and Moral Objectivity.Sem de Maagt - 2017 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 60 (5):443-465.
Reflective Equilibrium in R & D Networks.Sjoerd D. Zwart & Ibo van de Poel - 2010 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 35 (2):174-199.
Reflective Equilibrium and Theory Acceptance.Bruce Edward Roig - 1985 - Dissertation, University of Georgia
The Reflective Equilibrium in Rawls’ Theory of Justice: The Perspective of Holistic Pragmatism.Mihai Burlacu - 2015 - Meta: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy 7 (2):336-356.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-11-27

Total views
2 ( #1,386,540 of 2,432,727 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #294,374 of 2,432,727 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes