Assessing Value-Laden Technology

Abstract

Technological innovations—tools, artefacts, and processes—open up new possibilities of human action and thereby increase the domain of our positive freedom. Technology is inherently value-laden, since such an intended increase of freedom may be a good or bad relative to human values. The use of tools may also involve unintended and unwanted by-products and side effects. Therefore, technology should not develop in a deterministic or random manner but should be guided by reasonable democratic principles. Technology assessment (TA) is a pattern for the evaluation of technological projects and products by their costs and benefits, risks, and profits. Using philosophical distinctions and arguments as its method, this paper explains, elaborates, and illustrates Niiniluoto’s formula TA = 6E + S for TA. The first E is effectiveness, the ability of the new tool or solution to produce its intended effects. This is the main concern of the engineer. The second is its economic profit, based on the monetary exchange value of the product. This is the domain of economic theories. Effectiveness and economy, and efficiency as their combination, are not the only relevant dimensions of TA. As products of design, artefacts have esthetic qualities, studied today in applied esthetics. The relations of tools to the health of their users are studied in ergonomics. The relations of human technologies to the health of the natural environment and sustainable development are treated in ecology. Technical tools and their effects can always be evaluated by ethical standards which concern their moral worth. Technological systems have also an impact which is social in the broad sense, since they can lead to changes in the communicative, legal, institutional, and political spheres of society.

Keywords:

ecology economics effectiveness ergonomics esthetics ethics freedom quality of life social impact technology assessment tools values

References

Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. The MIT Press.
Bijker, W. E., & Law, J. (1992). Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. The MIT Press.
Buchanan, J. M. (1986). Liberty, market and the state: Political economy in the 1980s. Oxford University Press.
Bugliarello, G., & Doner, D. B. (Eds.). (1979). The history and philosophy of technology. University of Illinois Press.
Carpenter, S. (1983). Technoaxiology: Appropriate norms for technology assessment. In P. T. Durbin & F. Rapp (Eds.), Philosophy and technology: Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 80, pp. 115–136). Springer.
Durán, J. M., & Pirtle, Z. (2020). Epistemic standards for participatory technology assessment: Suggestions based upon well-ordered science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(3), 1709–1746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00211-7
Durbin, P., & Rapp, F. (Eds.). (1983). Philosophy and technology. D. Reidel.
Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. Alfred A. Knopf.
Elster, J. (1983). Explaining technical change. Cambridge University Press.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage.
Habermas, J. (1970). Toward a rational society. Beacon Press.
Hennen, L. (2012). Why do we still need a participatory technology assessment? Poiesis & Praxis, 9, 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-012-0122-5
Ihde, D. (1979). Technics and praxis: A philosophy of technology. D. Reidel.
Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford University Press.
Kotarbiński, T. (1965). Praxiology; An introduction to efficient action. Oxford University Press.
Kutz, C. (2000). Complicity: Ethics and law for a collective age. Cambridge University Press.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Open University Press.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. The University of Chicago Press.
Michalos, A. (1983). Technology assessment, facts and values. In P. T. Durbin & F. Rapp (Eds.), Philosophy and technology: Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 80, pp. 59–81). Springer.
Ministry of Education, & Ministry of Employment and the Economy. (2009). Evaluation of the Finnish national innovation system: Policy report. Taloustieto Oy.
Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. The University of Chicago Press.
Niiniluoto, I. (1990). Should technological imperatives be obeyed? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 4(2), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698599008573357
Niiniluoto, I. (1997a). Technology policy in a liberal state. In S. Hellsten, M. Kopperi & O. Loukola (Eds.), Taking the liberal challenge seriously: Essays on contemporary liberalism at the turn of the 21st century (pp. 192–204). Ashgate.
Niiniluoto, I. (1997b). Ciencia frente a tecnología: ¿diferencia o identidad? Arbor, 157(620), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.1997.i620.1818
Niiniluoto, I. (1997c). Límites de la tecnología. Arbor, 157(620), 391–410. https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.1997.i620.1823
Niiniluoto, I. (2016). Science vs. technology: Difference or identity? In M. Franssen, P. Vermaas, P. Kroes & A. Meijers (Eds.), Philosophy of technology after the empirical turn (pp. 93–106). Springer.
Niiniluoto, I. (2017). G. H. von Wright on the dangers of technology. In I. Niiniluoto & T. Wallgren (Eds.), On the human condition: Philosophical essays in honour of the centennial anniversary of Georg Henrik von Wright (pp. 421–431). Societas Philosophica Fennica.
Niiniluoto, I. (2020). Tekniikan filosofia. Gaudeamus.
Niiniluoto, I. (2022a). Beauty, truth, and justice: Philosophical essays on culture, science, and society. Societas Philosophica Fennica.
Niiniluoto, I. (2022b). Concepts, experts, and deep learning. In S. Wuppuluri & I. Stewart (Eds.), From electrons to elephants and elections: Exploring the role of content and context (pp. 577–586). Springer.
Sahal, D. (1987). Patterns of technological innovation. Addison-Wesley.
Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland. (1993). Toward an innovative society: A development strategy for Finland. Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (1983). Technology assessment and the problem of quantification. In P. T. Durbin & F. Rapp (Eds.), Philosophy and technology: Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 80, pp. 151–164). Springer.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (1985). Technology assessment, expert disagreement and democratic procedures. In P. T. Durbin (Ed.), Research in philosophy and technology (Vol. 3, pp. 103–129). JAI Press.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (1991). Risk and rationality: Philosophical foundations for populist reforms. University of California Press.
Skolimowski, H. (1966). The structure of thinking in technology. Technology and Culture, 7(3), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/3101935
Teknologianeuvottelukunta. (2021). Finnish technology policy in the 2020s: A global leader through technology and information. Valtiovarainministeriö. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-367-692-3
Uusitalo, L. (1986). Environmental impacts of consumption patterns. Gover.
von Wright, G. H. (1963). The varieties of goodness. Routledge; Kegan Paul.
Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous technology. The MIT Press.

Cited by