0FC05 Ethics of Technology Summary of week 2 readings

This document contains a summary of the mandatory readings for the TU/e course 0FC05 - Ethics of
Technology. It is recommended to only use this summary to recall the content of the readings, to gain
proper understanding of the course material, you should read the texts in full.

Part 1: L. Winner (1980), “Do Artefacts Have Politics?” Daedalus 109/1: 121-136

Technologies can contain or serve political properties in two fundamental ways. In the first, it
(technology) is employed as a means of settling an issue in a particular community. These are ‘technical
arrangements as forms of order’. The second is defined as ‘inherently political’. These in turn are man-
made systems that appear to require or are strongly compatible with particular kinds of political
relationships. The text provides some examples of both:

Technical arrangements as forms of order can be subdivided in two ways. For both some examples
will be given. The first is the use of an existing technology to induce an order.

• Building the bridges [technology] in NY too low for busses to pass in order to keep those
traveling by these means (mainly the poor) out of the areas they give access to [issue].
• Building roads [technology] more broadly such that it prevents the occurrence of street
fighting during the 1848 revolution [issue].
• Constructions of big concrete buildings and plazas [technology] on campus to allow for quick
diffusion of student demonstrations [issue].
• The deployment of big moulding machines [technology] to be operated by unskilled labour to
replace the skilled workers and result in the destruction of the National Union of Iron Moulders
[issue].

The second category of examples relates to those concerned with the technologies built in such a way
that it produces a set of consequences logically and temporally prior to any of its claimed uses. This
does by definition does not include things like television, from which its possible use to sell a political
candidate is quite evident.

• Introduction of mechanical tomato harvester [technology] to effectively harvest produce

[perceived issue] but also requiring a special type of tomato (more robust) and agricultural
planning (dense) that can only be adapted (and bought) by bigger players in the field. Thus,
outplaying the competition and causing the number of tomato growers to decline and reshape
the social relationships of the tomato production sector [real issue].

This extensive example is particularly interesting as the development of the machine was funded
(partly) by taxpayer money. Indicating a clear instance where scientific knowledge, technological
invention and corporate profit reinforce each other in deeply entrenched patters that bear the
unmistakable stamp of political and economic power.

Inherently political technologies are a lot more controversial than the examples that were previously
given, as again, they rely on the belief that some technologies are by their very nature political in a
specific way, to choose them is to choose a particular form of political life. Here, we can distinguish
two types of arguments. First, the adaptation of a given technology requires a set of social conditions
of the operating environment of that system. The technology cannot exist unless certain social as well
as material conditions were met. Second, a given technology is strongly compatible with (but does not
strictly require) social and political relationships of a particular stripe. For both cases one must ask if
the conditions are internal to that system (exerted by government, authoritarian) or external (derived
from unavoidable societal response, democratic). Let’s consider some examples.

Atom bomb: internal (clearly authoritarian) and requires a way to ensure that its management does
not “spin off”.

Railways: external (need for transport of goods and people) that to operate correctly, requires
administrative hierarchies.

Automobile assembly: external (demand for cheap personal transport in society) does not necessarily
require a specific social structure as is has shown to be properly operationable by workers in Sweden
and Yugoslavia.

Part 1: I. van de Poel (2001), “Investigating Ethical Issues in Engineering Design”, Science and
Engineering Ethics 7/3: 429-446.

Engineering ethics traditionally focuses on the ethical aspects involved in the actions and decisions of
engineers but should also include ethical aspects of the context in which engineers work or issues that
are related to broader (social) aspects of technology.

The design process consists of (generally speaking):

1. Analysis/formulation of the problem, including the formulation of certain goals and

requirement.
2. Dividing up the problem into smaller problems and the definition of their alternative solutions
(multiple!)
3. Simulating the concept designs
4. Choice of solution
5. Detail design
6. Design as a function of the production process

Aspects of the design process (defined above) is defined ethical when they meet at least one of the
following three criteria:

• They bring about, or are connected to, possible negative or positive consequences for others
than the designers. (Consequentialism)
• They are related to moral norms or values that are either generally accepted or are central to
groups involved in or affected by the design. (Deontology)
• They are related to visions about how to live the ethically good life and virtues involved in that.
(Virtue ethics)

By this definition, we can define moments in the design process that are potentially ethically relevant:

• the formulation of goals, design criteria and requirements and their operationalisation/choice
of indicators
• The choice of alternatives to be investigated and selection among those at a later stage.
• Assessment of trade-offs between design criteria and decisions about the acceptability of
particular trade-offs.
• Assessment of risks and unintended or unforeseen effects and decisions about their
acceptability/desirability.
 • Assessment of scripts (the fact that it allows, stimulates or demands certain forms of use or
enables/constrains certain social developments) and (implicit) political and social visions and
decisions about their desirability.

The text goes on to describe an extensive example in which this becomes apparent. The main
observations are that mainly when defining requirements and addressing trade-offs, the scope and the
choice thereof (not only related to requirements, but also the actors that set them) is very important
and can largely design the outcome of a design process.

The article then goes on to argue that engineers are largely involved with these issues, that ethical
aspects can be separated from their technical counterparts till a certain degree (but never entirely)
and that therefor the decision process cannot be separated completely (division of labour).

Engineers do often not seem to consider it their task to reflect on ethical issues. This is partly a
consequence of their obligation to meet customer and market needs, government legislation in the
form of certification and standards, informal rules and institution demands, but also their position in
the corporate hierarchy (do as the boss says).

Van de Poel proposes further research that should be conducted along the lines of three categories of
research questions, namely categories related to:

1. Questions on how engineers now (individual and collectively) deal with ethical issues and how
they could and should deal with these issues.
2. Organisation of the design process (how can this help ensure responsible behaviour?).
3. Formal methods and methodologies that are used.