Playing God: Symbolic Arguments Against Technology

IF 1.1 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Nanoethics Pub Date : 2022-08-30 DOI:10.1007/s11569-022-00422-1
Massimiliano Simons
{"title":"Playing God: Symbolic Arguments Against Technology","authors":"Massimiliano Simons","doi":"10.1007/s11569-022-00422-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In ethical reflections on new technologies, a specific type of argument often pops up, which criticizes scientists for “playing God” with these new technological possibilities. The first part of this article is an examination of how these arguments have been interpreted in the literature. Subsequently, this article aims to reinterpret these arguments as <i>symbolic arguments</i>: they are grounded not so much in a set of ontological or empirical claims, but concern symbolic classificatory schemes that ground our value judgments in the first place. Invoking symbolic arguments thus refers to how certain new technologies risk undermining our fundamental symbolic distinctions by which we organize and evaluate our interactions with the world and in society. Such symbolic distinctions, moreover, tend to be resilient against logical argumentation, mainly because they themselves form the basis on which we argue in the cultural and ethical sphere in the first place. Therefore, effective strategies to evaluate and counter these arguments require another approach, showing that these technologies either do not challenge these classifications or, if they do, how they can be accompanied by the proper actions to integrate these technologies into our society.</p>","PeriodicalId":18802,"journal":{"name":"Nanoethics","volume":"7 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nanoethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-022-00422-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In ethical reflections on new technologies, a specific type of argument often pops up, which criticizes scientists for “playing God” with these new technological possibilities. The first part of this article is an examination of how these arguments have been interpreted in the literature. Subsequently, this article aims to reinterpret these arguments as symbolic arguments: they are grounded not so much in a set of ontological or empirical claims, but concern symbolic classificatory schemes that ground our value judgments in the first place. Invoking symbolic arguments thus refers to how certain new technologies risk undermining our fundamental symbolic distinctions by which we organize and evaluate our interactions with the world and in society. Such symbolic distinctions, moreover, tend to be resilient against logical argumentation, mainly because they themselves form the basis on which we argue in the cultural and ethical sphere in the first place. Therefore, effective strategies to evaluate and counter these arguments require another approach, showing that these technologies either do not challenge these classifications or, if they do, how they can be accompanied by the proper actions to integrate these technologies into our society.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
扮演上帝:反对科技的象征性论证
在对新技术的伦理反思中,一种特定类型的论点经常出现,它批评科学家对这些新技术的可能性“扮演上帝”。本文的第一部分是对这些论点如何在文献中被解释的审查。随后,本文旨在将这些论点重新解释为符号论点:它们不是建立在一套本体论或经验主张的基础上,而是首先建立在我们价值判断基础上的符号分类方案。因此,援引符号论证是指某些新技术如何有可能破坏我们的基本符号区别,而我们正是通过这些区别来组织和评估我们与世界和社会的互动。此外,这种象征性的区别往往对逻辑论证具有弹性,主要是因为它们本身构成了我们首先在文化和伦理领域进行论证的基础。因此,评估和反驳这些论点的有效策略需要另一种方法,表明这些技术要么不会挑战这些分类,要么,如果它们挑战了,如何伴随着适当的行动将这些技术融入我们的社会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nanoethics
Nanoethics HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: NanoEthics: Ethics for Technologies that Converge at the Nanoscale will focus on the philosophically and scientifically rigorous examination of the ethical and societal considerations and the public and policy concerns inherent in nanotechnology research and development. These issues include both individual and societal problems, and include individual health, wellbeing and human enhancement, human integrity and autonomy, distribution of the costs and benefits, threats to culture and tradition and to political and economic stability. Additionally there are meta-issues including the neutrality or otherwise of technology, designing technology in a value-sensitive way, and the control of scientific research.
期刊最新文献
Normative Challenges of Risk Regulation of Artificial Intelligence An Integrated Embodiment Concept Combines Neuroethics and AI Ethics – Relational Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence, Emerging Neurotechnologies and the Future of Work Addressing Multiple Responsibilities in the Early Stages of R&D with Provenance Assessment Gene Editing Cattle for Enhancing Heat Tolerance: A Welfare Review of the “PRLR-SLICK Cattle” Case Representations of (Nano)technology in Comics from the ‘NanoKOMIK’ Project
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1