Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

PHIL 3109 Final Review 1. Albert Borgmann a. A little bit of both, Tech. Determinism and Instrumentalism i.

Technological Determinism: technology is almost autonomously moving into the future ii. Tech. Instrumentalism: technology is merely a tool, doesnt control us. b. Device Paradigm (ie. how we see the world today) i. machinery vs. commodity 1. separation keeps growing more commodity w/ less machinery -> easy consumption ii. Paradigmatic consumption: object of such pleasures are commodities, and their enjoyment is consumption c. Solution: i. Focal Things and Focal Practices 1. Which practices and technologies should be at the center of our lives? 2. Don Idhe a. Philosophy of Technology b. Phenomenology: description of human experience in POV way i. I Technology World : technological mediation 1. Tech. is mediator b/w us and the world transforms our relationship w/ the world c. Multistability: no technology is one thing i. Can be used for multiple purposes and have different meanings d. 3 Kinds of Mediation i. Embodiment relations: (I Tech) World 1. Tech. is extension of our body through which we experience the world ii. Hermeneutic relations: I (Tech World) 1. Use tech. solely for its function in helping interpret and experience the world iii. Alterity relations: 1. experience world by interacting w/ technology as if it were a human e. Prognostic Predicament 1. We must do our best to predict effects of technology 2. New technologies have unexpected uses and unintended consequences ii. Does not offer solution but says 1. Avoid technological optimism or pessimism 2. Expect side effects, and amplify them 3. Think about multiple use trajectories 4. Experiment w/ different users 3. Honesty

a. Telling a lie is a paradigm case (false/misleading information w/ intent of deception? b. Why is it wrong? i. Deontology: fails to pass the categorical imperative, and doesnt show respect for others ii. Utilitarianism: dishonesty sabotages work which is otherwise good in a utilitarian sense c. Dishonesty other than lying: i. Deliberate deception ii. Withholding information iii. Failure to seek out the truth d. Dishonesty in research: i. Fabrication of data ii. Falsification of data e. Intellectual property i. Trade secrets ii. Patents iii. Copyrights f. Conflicts of interest *** i. When a professional, acting in a professional role, has interests that tend to make their judgment less likely to benefit the costumer. ii. Threaten to undermined the trust in a professionals expertise iii. Points to keep in mind 1. Not just any conflicting interest, only those that affect prof. judgment 2. Not overcommitment 3. Morally legitimate concerns 4. Not inherently unethical therefore must be disclosed 5. Sometimes cant be avoided; again, disclosure is key 4. Expertise a. Problems of expertise i. Democracy vs expertise 1. ie. Trial experts present evidence ii. Who counts as an expert? 1. Credentialed professionals, engineers, scientists 2. Harry Collins a. Non-expertise b. Contributory expertise (traditional) contributes to field c. Interactional expertise interacts w/ contributing experts iii. Expert witness must avoid perjury 1. Only cases you have time for 2. Cases u can do in good conscience 3. Consult w/ lawyer

4. Maintain objective, unbiased demeanor 5. Be open to new information iv. *experts can be critiqued by other experts 5. Risk *** a. Engineering definition: probability and magnitude of harm i. How much harm will an action cause? ii. How likely is it to happen? 1. Public tends to overestimate probability of harm b. Utilitarian approach: acceptable risk when prob and mag of benefit is greater than prob and mag of harm i. Limits 1. Not always easy to predict effects 2. Not easy to quantify effects 3. Doesnt account for distribution of effects 4. Doesnt account for informed consent c. Capabilities approach: focus on well-being and human potential rather than cost vs benefits i. Neo-Aristotelian way (capabilities are dependent on well being) ii. Benefits 1. Captures overlooked factors 2. Focus work on primary human concerns 3. More accurate than quantifying harm 4. Help prioritize focus iii. *Hazard: impairment of a capability d. Informed Consent: i. Must not be coerced ii. Must have relevant information iii. Must be rational and competent enough to evaluate the info e. Perrows normal accidents: i. Due to tight coupling and complex interactions of technological systems, some accidents are probably inevitable f. Schrader-Frechette article g. Liability: i. Law of Torts: deals w/ injuries to one person caused by another 1. Some cases of harm from technology have been brought in under this law 2. Standard of proof: more and better evidence in favor of plaintiff than defendant only need proof that substance is proximate cause of harm a. Less stringent that standard of proof in criminal proceedings (proof beyond a doubt), and scientific 6. Organizations a. Engineers have dual loyalty to prof standards and to organization i. Special concern for design, standards, safety, and quality go beyond simple concern for organization b. Managers are custodians of the organization

i. Oriented to standards within organization c. Conflict i. Raelin natural conflict 1. Engineers have conflict b/w loyalty to profession and loyalty to org. managers do not 2. Communication probs due to expertise 3. Engineers who become managers experience internal conflicts ii. Jackall 1. Moral considerations not high on managers list 2. Loyalty to peers and org is high 3. Trails of responsibility are blurred; hard to assign blame iii. Advice to navigate organization 1. Report bad news 2. Adopt position of critical loyalty 3. Focus on issues not personalities 4. Keep the record straight (on paper) 5. Keep complaints confidential 6. Seek neutral outside meditators 7. Seek protection from retaliation 8. Move quickly d. Organizational Disobedience: i. public-policy exception refusing to break law, protecting public safety ii. 3 Kinds 1. Disobedience by contrary action: doing something against the company on your own time 2. Disobedience by non-participation: refusal to participate 3. Disobedience by protest e. Whistleblowing: revealing info to the public through non-approved channels i. Justifications 1. Utilitarian: weight benefits and harm prevention 2. Deontology: good intention/respect for yourself f. Impediments to Critical Thinking: i. Blind spots, 1. microscopic vision, 2. willful blindness ii. Uncritical acceptance of authority iii. Groupthink 7. Challenger Disaster a. Feynman: report on disaster, o-ring test b. Boisjoly: engineer i. Was he a whistleblower? 1. Phone conversation was not external 2. Testimony could be kind of considered

c. Collins account i. Story we hear is a fairytale of good engineers and bad managers 8. The Environment a. Goal of US govt laws on the environment i. Producing a cleaner environment harmony b/w man and nature ii. Codes -> most dont say much, now some say improve environment to enhance quality of life b. Criteria for Clean environment i. Comparative criterion no greater threat than other risks ii. Normalcy criterion pollutants normally present iii. Optimal-pollution reduction criteria if funds required to clean could be used in other areas to improve life iv. Maximum protection criterion every possible threat eliminated v. Demonstrable harm criterion every demonstrably harmful threat eliminated c. Attitudes company takes towards environment regulations: i. Sub-minimal attitude ii. Minimalist or compliance attitude iii. Progressive attitude d. Sustainability i. Achieving engineering goals while maintaining environmental resources (ie. dont use them ALL up b/c they are for everyone) 1. Involves sustaining local economies ii. Realistic sustainability 1. Minimizing non-renewable resources 2. Utilizing renewable resources only at the rate at which they can be replaced 3. Design products that minimize waste/maximize recycling capacity 4. Promoting equitable distribution of resources e. Anthropocentrism vs non-anthropocentrism i. Anthropocentrism: only human beings have intrinsic values nonhumans have value only as they contribute to human well-being ii. Non-anthropocentrism: some natural objects other than humans have intrinsic values f. Intrinsic value vs instrumental value (of nature) i. Intrinsic: values in themselves morally considerable ii. Instrumental: value insofar as they are used or appreciated by humans g. Leopold vs Carson i. Leopold nonanthropocentrism ii. Carson wrote silent spring about effects of pesticides led to environmentalism 9. International Engineering

a. In terms of future disaster prevention

a. Boundary-crossing problems: ethical problems that arise from entering countries/regions w/ different cultural, social, and economic conditions b. Absolutist vs Relativist Solutions i. Absolutist: laws, customs, and values of the HOME country should always be followed ii. Relativist: follow rules of HOST country iii. **Book emphasizes creative middle ways c. Two Criteria i. Should apply to many cultures ii. Immediate plausibility d. Four Standards i. Golden rule ii. Universal human rights iii. Promoting well-being iv. Engineering codes e. Problems i. Bribery ii. Extortion and grease payments paying for deserved services iii. Nepotism favoritism to relatives iv. Excessive gifts some cultures exchange gifts can look like bribery v. Paternalism overriding anothers ability to decide, for their own good vi. Negotiating taxes taxes are collected differently in other countries 10. Cases a. Carr and Prensky: E-books b. Love canal c. Turkle: social media the flight from conversation d. Webcam

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen