For Ethical Issues in Science and
Technology
J. Blackmon



Select Themes in Ethics of Technology
Ethical Theory and Terminology
Conclusion

Themes in Ethics of Technology










Innovation Presumption: Liberty, Optimism, and
Inevitability
Situated Technologies
Lifecycle
Power
Forms of Life
Extrinsic Concerns
Intrinsic Concerns
Responsible Development
Ethics and Public Policy
Framework for Ethical Analysis of Emerging
Technologies

Themes in Ethics of Technology










Innovation Presumption: Liberty, Optimism, and
Inevitability
Situated Technologies
Lifecycle
Power
Forms of Life
Extrinsic Concerns
Intrinsic Concerns
Responsible Development
Ethics and Public Policy
Framework for Ethical Analysis of Emerging
Technologies

Themes in Ethics of Technology










Innovation Presumption: Liberty, Optimism, and
Inevitability
Situated Technologies
Lifecycle
Power
Forms of Life
Extrinsic Concerns
Intrinsic Concerns
Responsible Development
Ethics and Public Policy
Framework for Ethical Analysis of Emerging
Technologies


Why does the ethical
evaluation of
technology tend to
focus on what might
be problematic about
it?
Are we all luddites?

Innovation Presumption: We should invent,
adopt, and use new technologies.


Innovation Presumption: We should invent,
adopt, and use new technologies.
Innovation Presumption + Unknown
Consequences → Warranted Scrutiny


Innovation Presumption: We should invent,
adopt, and use new technologies.
The popularity of the Innovation Presumption
+ Unknown Consequences → Warranted
Scrutiny


And it’s a win either way: Scrutiny allows us to
avoid paying the negative consequences where
the IP turns out to have been false. And should
it turn out to be true in other cases, scrutiny
may reveal why it’s true.
So, we advocate scrutiny of the IP without
adopting an unfair bias against it.
Three Principles Supporting the IP
1. Liberty: We should be free to innovate so long
as it isn’t harmful to others. (J. S. Mill’s Harm
Principle)
2. Technological Optimism: Technology
improves and will continue to improve human
lives.
3. Technological Determinism: Technological
advancement is inevitable.
Three Principles Supporting the IP
1. Liberty: We should be free to innovate so long
as it isn’t harmful to others. (J. S. Mill’s Harm
Principle)
2. Technological Optimism: Technology
improves and will continue to improve human
lives.
3. Technological Determinism: Technological
advancement is inevitable.
Liberty: We should be free to innovate so long as
it isn’t harmful to others.
Harm Principle: The only purpose for which
power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against his
will, is to prevent harm to others.
Liberty: We should be free to innovate so long as
it isn’t harmful to others.
Much remains to be said!
 What is harm?
 Who are the others?
 What kind of power, and how much?
Liberty: We should be free to innovate so long as
it isn’t harmful to others.
Much remains to be said!
 What is harm?
 Who are the others?
 What kind of power, and how much?
Cindy cuts Jake
 She’s a trained surgeon performing an
emergency tracheotomy with no anesthesia.
 Cindy has caused physical damage and pain to
Jake. She may even have done this against his
will.
 Has Cindy caused harm to Jake?
Cindy cuts Jake
 She’s a trained surgeon performing an
emergency tracheotomy with no anesthesia.
 Cindy has caused physical damage and pain to
Jake. She may even have done this against his
will.
 Has Cindy caused harm to Jake?
Cindy cuts Jake
 So perhaps whether Cindy harms Jake depends
on whether she saves him from further/worse
harm.
Cindy cuts Jake
 So perhaps whether Cindy harms Jake depends
on whether she saves him from further/worse
harm.
 But then whether harm is being committed
depends on what is yet to come.
Cindy cuts Jake
 So perhaps whether Cindy harms Jake depends
on whether she saves him from further/worse
harm.
 But then whether harm is being committed
depends on what is yet to come.
 This is a notorious problem: How far into the
future should we look when assessing
consequences?


How far into the future should we look when
assessing consequences?
Even if we somehow decided, should this view
of harm as something determined by future
outcomes be defended, or should we look for a
more plausible/satisfying alternative?
The Dukes of Hazzard
 Bo and Luke Duke
drive with extreme
recklessness all over
town, never hitting a
single person due
largely to luck.
 Have they harmed
anyone?
Liberty: We should be free to innovate so long as
it isn’t harmful to others.
Much remains to be said!
 What is harm?
 Who are the others?
 What kind of power, and how much?
The Chalk Checker
 Ida parks in a 1-hour parking space for more
than an hour when other 1-hour spaces are left
unoccupied. She gets a ticket.
The Chalk Checker
 In court, Ida cites the great philosopher J. S.
Mill, saying, “The only purpose for which
power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against her
will, is to prevent harm to others. But fining me
does not prevent harm to anyone, not even if
we count mere inconvenience as a harm. After
all, no one was harmed, not even
inconvenienced.”
The Chalk Checker
 In court, Ida cites the great philosopher J. S.
Mill, saying, “The only purpose for which
power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against her
will, is to prevent harm to others. But fining me
does not prevent harm to anyone, not even if
we count mere inconvenience as a harm. After
all, no one was harmed, not even
inconvenienced.”
The Chalk Checker
 Is Ida right? Which “other” has been harmed?
And if she is right, does the city have a case
against her?
 If the city does have a case against her, and yet
no one has been harmed, then is J. S. Mill is
wrong?
Non-existing Future and
Possible Persons
 Recall the
commentator on
Krasny’s Forum show:
There are no
passenger pigeons
wanting to be brought
back into existence.
Non-existing Future and
Possible Persons
 The problem
generalizes.
Test Cases
 Cindy the Surgeon
 The Dukes of Hazzard
 The Chalk Checker
 Non-Existing Future and Possible Pigeons
(Persons)
These cases test the Harm Principle.
Test Cases
 Cindy the Surgeon
 The Dukes of Hazzard
 The Chalk Checker
 Non-Existing Future and Possible Pigeons
(Persons)
Harm Principle: The only purpose for which power
can be rightfully exercised over any member of a
civilized community, against his will, is to prevent
harm to others.
Questions
 What is harm?
 Who are the others?
 What kind of power?
What kind of power?
 In many countries, the state has intervened in
the sale and distribution of cigarettes—
ostensibly for the good of the people.
 State Paternalism: In some cases, the state
should limit the behavior of the people for their
own good.
What kind of power?
 Hard Paternalism: Restricting activity for the
good of the person regardless of whether they
are informed and consenting.
 Soft Paternalism: Restricting activity for the
good of the person until that person meets
certain standards for voluntary action.
What kind of power?
 Thus, the Harm Principle and the Liberty
Principle raise questions about the exercise of
power.
 When power/intervention is called for, how
should it be used?
What kind of power?
 Laws use coercion.
 Financial incentives
 Self-regulation



Liberty: We should be free to innovate so long
as it isn’t harmful to others.
Harm Principle: The only purpose for which
power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against
his/her will, is to prevent harm to others.
While these principles may be attractive and
compelling sentiments, they do not in
themselves resolve important questions about
harm, others, and power.

Types of Value


Instrumental Value: the value of something as a
means to an end.
Intrinsic/Final Value: the value of something for
what it is or as an end.

Types of Value


Instrumental Value: the value of something as a
means to an end.
Intrinsic/Final Value: the value of something for
what it is or as an end.
 Subjective
 Objective

Types of Value


Instrumental Value: the value of something as a
means to an end.
Intrinsic/Final Value: the value of something for
what it is or as an end.
 Subjective
 Objective

Instrumental Value:
the value of
something as a means
to an end.

Instrumental Value:
the value of
something as a means
to an end.
The hammer has
instrumental value
because it does
something valuable:
pound nails.
Pounding nails
gets value from
easily and securely
fastening pieces of wood
together
gets value from
building safe
comfortable structures
gets value from
Health, comfort, general
happiness.


Instrumental Value:
the value of
something as a means
to an end.
Instrumental value
entails some noninstrumental value.

Types of Value


Instrumental Value: the value of something as a
means to an end.
Intrinsic/Final Value: the value of something for
what it is or as an end.
 Subjective
 Objective

Intrinsic/Final Value: the value of something
for it is or as an end.
Subjective: The value depends on how or whether
we value it.
 Objective: The value is independent of how or
whether we value it.



Subjective Final Value: Valued by us as an end
in itself
Examples of things often thought to have
subjective final value:





Works of art
Landscapes
Mementos
Religious artifacts
Historical sites


Objective Final Value: Valuable independent of
whether it’s valued by us as an end in itself
Examples of things often thought to have
objective final value:




Human beings
Life
Typically, technology is not thought to have
objective final value.
But of course, it affects things which do have it.
Types of Theories
 Example: Animal Testing
Suppose that developing a novel medical technology
requires extensive animal testing which would cause
considerable and persistent pain and suffering. Suppose
also that these animals are morally considerable—their
suffering matters in a moral sense. Should the testing go
forward?
Types of Theories
 One Response: It depends on the balance of the
good and bad outcomes that would result (or
are expected to result) from the testing. If the
outcome is likely to be overall good, then Yes;
if the outcome is likely to be overall bad, then
No.
Types of Theories
 Another Response: No. It is wrong to
intentionally cause harm to animals.
Types of Theories
 Another Response: Yes. It is permissible to use
(nonhuman) animals in the service of humans.
Types of Theories
 It depends on the balance of the good and bad
outcomes.
 No.
 Yes.
Types of Theories
 It depends on the balance of the good and bad
outcomes. --Consequentialist
 No. --Deontological
 Yes. --Deontological
Types of Theories
 Consequentialist Normative Theory: One
ought to take the action which will result in the
best outcome.
 Deontological Normative Theory: One ought to
do something if it conforms to an operative
rule.
Types of Theories
 Consequentialist Normative Theory: One
ought to take the action which will result in the
best outcome.
 Deontological Normative Theory: One ought to
do something if it conforms to an operative
rule.
 Virtue Theory: One ought to do whatever is an
instance of virtue: compassion, courage
honesty, etc.
Types of Theories
 Consequentialist Normative Theory: One
ought to take the action which will result in the
best outcome.
 Deontological Normative Theory: One ought to
do something if it conforms to an operative
rule.
 Virtue Theory: One ought to do whatever is an
instance of virtue: compassion, courage,
honesty, etc.
Consequentialist Normative Theory
 Utilitarianism: One ought to take the action
which will maximize utility.
Utilitarianism: One ought to take the action which
will maximize utility.
Utilitarianism: One ought to take the action which
will maximize utility.
 What is utility?
Utilitarianism: One ought to take the action which
will maximize utility.
 What is utility?
Pleasure (Jeremy Bentham)
 Happiness (J. S. Mill)

Utilitarianism: One ought to take the action which
will maximize utility.
 What is utility?
Pleasure (Jeremy Bentham)
 Happiness (J. S. Mill)


Maximizing pleasure or happiness?
Isn’t this just what they call hedonism?
Isn’t this just what they call hedonism?
Not really. For at least two reasons.
First, there are versions of utilitarianism which go
beyond base pleasure.
 What is utility?
Pleasure (Jeremy Bentham)
 Happiness, and greater and lesser kinds of happiness
(J. S. Mill)
 Preference Satisfaction?
 Well-being or welfare?
 Lack of pain and suffering?

First, there are versions of utilitarianism which go
beyond base pleasure.
 What is utility?
Pleasure (Jeremy Bentham)
 Happiness, and greater and lesser kinds of happiness
(J. S. Mill)
 Preference Satisfaction?
 Well-being or welfare?
 Lack of pain and suffering?

“It is better to be a human
being dissatisfied than a
pig satisfied; better to be
Socrates dissatisfied than a
fool satisfied.”
J. S. Mill
There are different kinds of
happiness: higher quality
and lower quality.
Second, it depends on what you mean by
hedonism.
Is utilitarianism a kind of hedonism?
 Yes, partly, by the original philosophical
meaning.
 No, not at all, by a popular conception.


Philosophical/Historical Definition:
Hedonism is the view that the only intrinsic
(non-instrumental) value is pleasure.
A Common Definition: Hedonism is the
pursuit of pleasure; sensual self-indulgence;
self-gratification.



Utilitarianism is emphatically not about
maximizing one’s own happiness. That would
be ethical egoism.
Goal of Utilitarianism: The greatest good for the
greatest number.
And this can entail great personal sacrifice,
which is entirely antithetical to ethical egoism.
A good utilitarian: “The
needs of the many
outweigh the needs of
the few, or the one.”
Dr. Spock, Star Trek II
The Wrath of Khan
A good utilitarian: “The
needs of the many
outweigh the needs of
the few, or the one.”
Dr. Spock, Star Trek II
The Wrath of Khan
Which many?
A good utilitarian: “The
needs of the many
outweigh the needs of
the few, or the one.”
Dr. Spock, Star Trek II
The Wrath of Khan
Which many?
What needs?
Utilitarianism: One ought to take the action which
will maximize utility.


What counts as utility?
What is it to maximize it?
From Ian Barbour’s ‘Philosophy and Human Values’
As Ian Barbour points out, if we are only
concerned with the greatest good for the greatest
number, certain questions and problems arise.
As Ian Barbour points out, if we are only
concerned with the greatest good for the greatest
number, certain questions and problems arise.
 Who matters?
As Ian Barbour points out, if we are only
concerned with the greatest good for the greatest
number, certain questions and problems arise.
 Who matters?
 How do we quantify and measure utility? And
if there are different kinds, how do we compare
them?
As Ian Barbour points out, if we are only
concerned with the greatest good for the greatest
number, certain questions and problems arise.
 Who matters?
 How do we quantify and measure utility? And
if there are different kinds, how do we compare
them?
 Total utility is blind to distribution of utility;
thus, there is nothing inherently wrong with
disparities of justice and equality.
Bill Gates walks into a
bar…
The total income of this
group is $505,000,
leading to an average
income of $50,500.
Bill Gates walks into a
bar…
Gates walks in with his
$1 billion income. The
total income of the group
shoots way up to over $1
billion. Thus the mean
income is over 0.1 billion
dollars or $100 million.
Who Matters?
 Most forms of utilitarianism are
anthropocentric (human-centered). But
increasingly the “circle of moral consideration”
has expanded to include non-human animals.
 This raises questions, however, about which
animals are included.
 This in turn raises the question of what makes
an entity worthy of moral consideration.
Who Matters?
 Also, do we include
the happiness of only
living beings?
 Or do we include the
happiness of those
who are yet to come?
Who Matters?
 If the latter, that is if we include the happiness
of those who are yet to come, how exactly do
we do this?
 How far into the future do we have to look?
 And what we do now not only determines
“happiness levels”, but it also determines who
will end up coming into existence.
 “My parents should have waited until they
were better off financially before having me!”
Who Matters?
 As Barbour points out, if sum total happiness is
the goal, then this might be achieved just by
having a great number of moderately happy
people in the world.
 Worse, they could no more that just tolerable
well off, so long as there is enough of them.
 Derek Parfit calls this this the “repugnant
conclusion”: This would not be a good world.
How do we quantify the greatest good?
 Is there just one thing, happiness (or pleasure,
or whatever), that can be measured on a single
numerical scale?
 It would appear not. In fact, it appears that we
have different kinds of goods.
How do we quantify the greatest good?
 Is there just one thing, happiness (or pleasure,
or whatever), that can be measured on a single
numerical scale?
 It would appear not. In fact, it appears that we
have different kinds of goods.
 If so, then what if they are incommensurable?
Total utility is blind to distribution.
 Suppose the extermination of a small minority
would make the majority so happy that the
total happiness it increased.
 Suppose total national income can be increased
if we accept great poverty for one segment of
society.
Total utility is blind to distribution.
 Suppose the extermination of a small minority
would make the majority so happy that the
total happiness it increased.
 Suppose total national income can be increased
if we accept great poverty for one segment of
society.
 According to utilitarianism, there is nothing
inherently wrong here.
Total utility is blind to distribution.
 This blindness to distribution results in a
system that is unjust.
 Unless we are prepared to abandon justice,
utilitarianism without justice must be rejected.
 We might reject utilitarianism altogether, or
we might supplement it with a principle of
justice.
Utility and Justice
 If the total good were the only criterion, then
we could justify a small social gain even if it
entailed a gross injustice.
 But if justice were the only norm, then we
would have to correct a small injustice even if it
resulted in widespread suffering or social
harm.
 Apparently, we must consider both justice and
the total good.