Neither traditional philosophy nor current applied ethics seem able to cope adequately with the highly dynamic character of our modern technological culture. This is because they have insufficient insight into the moral significance of technological artifacts and systems. Here, much can be learned from recent science and technology studies (STS). They have opened up the black box of technological developments and have revealed the intimate intertwinement of technology and society in minute detail. However, while applied ethics is characterized by a certain “technology blindness,” the most influential approaches within STS show a “normative deficit” and display an agnostic or even antagonistic attitude toward ethics. To repair the blind spots of both applied ethics and STS,the authors sketch the contours of a pragmatist approach. They will explore the tasks and tools of a pragmatist ethics and pay special attention to the exploration of future worlds disclosed and shaped by technology and the management of deep value conflicts inherent to a pluralist society.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Akrich, M. 1992. The de-scription of technical objects. In Shaping technology/building society, edited by W. E. Bijker and J. Law, 205-224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Apel, K.-O. 1988. Diskurs und Verantwortung. Frankfurt a/M: Suhrkamp.
3.
Bohman, J. 1996. Public deliberation. Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Borgmann, A. 1984. Technology and the character of contemporary life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
Callon, M. 1987. Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In The social construction of technological systems, edited by W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes, and T.J. Pinch, 83-103. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
Caspary, W. R. 2000. Dewey on democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
7.
Clouser, K. D., and B. Gert. 1990. A critique of principlism. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy15:251-266.
8.
De Beaufort, I. 1998. Als twee druppels water? In Allemaal klonen, edited by H. Bout, 91-119. Amsterdam and The Hague: Boom/Rathenau Instituut.
9.
De Vries, G. 1999. Zeppelins: Over filosofie, technologie encultuur. Amsterdam: Van Gennep.
10.
Den Hartogh, G. 1997. The values of life. Bioethics11 (1): 43-66.
11.
Dewey, J. 1954. The later works. Athens, OH: Swallow Press Books.
12.
Dworkin, R. 1999. Playing God. Prospect Magazine May.
13.
Gill, R. 1996. Power, social transformation, and the new determinism: A comment on Grint and Woolgar. Science, Technology, & Human Values21 (3): 347-353.
14.
Grint, K., and S. Woolgar. 1995. On some failures of nerve in constructivist and feminist analyses of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values30 (3): 286-310.
15.
Gustafson,J. M. 1990. Moral discourse about medicine: A variety of forms. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy15:125-142.
16.
Habermas, J. 1991. Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik. Frankfurt a/M: Suhrkamp.
17.
Habermas, J. 1997. Between facts and norms. Cambridge: Polity.
18.
Hagendijk, R. 1996. Wetenschap, constructivisme en cultuur. Ph.D. diss., University of Amsterdam.
19.
Haila, Y. 2000. Beyond the nature-culture dualism. Biology and Philosophy15:155-175.
20.
Hamlett, P. W. 2003. Technology theory and deliberative democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values28 (1): 112-140.
21.
Harbers, H., and S. Koenis. 1999. De bindkracht der dingen. K&M, tijdschrift voor empirische filosofie23 (1): 3-10.
22.
Hickman, L. A. 1999. Making the family functional: The case for legalized same-sex domestic partnerships. Philosophy of the Social Sciences29 (2): 231-247.
23.
Ihde, D. 1998. Expanding hermeneutics. Evanston, Il: Northwestern University Press.
24.
Joas, H. 1993. Pragmatism and social theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
Joerges, B. 1999a. Do politics have artefacts? Social Studies of Science29 (3): 411-431.
26.
Joerges, B. 1999b. Scams cannot be busted: Reply to Woolgar & Cooper. Social Studies of Science29 (3): 450-457.
27.
Ketting, E. 2000. De invloed van orale anticonceptie op de maatschappij. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor geneeskunde144 (6): 283-286.
28.
Keulartz J., H. van der Windt, and J. Swart. Concepts of nature as communicative devices. (forthcoming in Environmental Values).
29.
Klaver, I., J. Keulartz, H. van den Belt, and B. Gremmen.2002. Born to be wild: A pluralist ethics concerning introduced large herbivores in the Netherlands. Environmental Ethics24 (1): 3-21.
30.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.
31.
Latour, B. 1993. La clef de Berlin. Paris: Editions La Découverte.
32.
Lynch, W. T., and E. R. Fuhrman. 1991. Recovering and expanding the normative: Marx and the new sociology of scientific knowledge. Science, Technology, & Human Values16:233-248.
33.
Oudshoorn, N. 1995. Technologie en zorg: Vrienden en vijanden. Het voorbeeld van nieuwe anticonceptiemiddelen voor vrouwen en mannen. Gezondheid 3 (3): 278-289.
34.
Pinch, P., and W. E. Bijker. 1987. The social construction of facts and artifacts. In New directions in the sociology and history of technology, edited by W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes, and T. Pinch, 17-50. Cambridge: MIT Press.
35.
Putnam, H. 1994. Words and life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
Radder, H. 1992. Normative reflexions on constructivist approaches to science and technology. Social Studies of Science22 (1): 141-173.
37.
Radder, H. 1998. The politics of STS. Social Studies of Science28 (2): 325-331.
38.
Rorty, R. 1996. Response to Simon Critchley. In Deconstruction and pragmatism, edited by C. Mouffe, 41-47. New York: Routledge.
39.
Rorty, R. 1998. Pragmatism as romantic polytheism. In The revival of pragmatism, edited by M. Dickstein, 21-37. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
40.
Schermer, M., and J. Keulartz. 2002. How pragmatic is bioethics? The case of in vitro fertilization. In Pragmatist ethics for a technological culture, edited by J. Keulartz, M. Korthals, M. Schermer, and T. Swierstra, 41-68. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
41.
Schermer, M. 2003. Pragmatisme as a research program—A reply to Arras. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics24:19-29.
42.
Singleton, V. 1996. Feminism, sociology of scientific knowledge and postmodernism: politics, theory and me. Social Studies of Science26 (2): 445-468.
43.
Stuhr, J. J., ed. 2000. Pragmatism and classical American philosophy: Essential readings & interpretive essays. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
Van den Berg, J.H. 1969. Medische macht en medische ethiek. Nijkerk: Callenbach.
45.
Van der Burg, W. 1991. The slippery slope argument. Ethics102:42-65.
46.
West, C. 1989. The American evasion of philosophy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
47.
Westbrook, R. B. 1998. Pragmatism and democracy: Reconstructing the logic of John Dewey’s faith. In The revival of pragmatism, edited by M. Dickstein, 128-141.Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
48.
Winner, L. 1980. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus109 (1): 121-136.
49.
Winner, L. 1993. Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values18 (3): 362-378.
50.
Woolgar, S. 1991. The turn to technology in social studies of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values16 (1): 20-50.
51.
Woolgar, S., and M. Ashmore. 1988. The next step: An introduction to the reflexive project. In Knowledge and Reflexivity, edited by S. Woolgar, 1-11. London: Sage.
52.
Woolgar, S., and G. Cooper. 1999. Do artefacts have ambivalence? Social Studies of Science29 (3): 433-449.
53.
Woolgar, S., and K. Grint. 1996. A further refutation of the assumption that political action depends on the “truth” and a suggestion that we need to go beyond this level of debate: A reply to Rosalind Gill. Science, Technology, & Human Values21 (3): 354-357.
