彼得森对杜鲁门和炸弹的误解

IF 1.5 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Ethics Policy & Environment Pub Date : 2020-11-23 DOI:10.1080/21550085.2020.1848196
J. O'day
{"title":"彼得森对杜鲁门和炸弹的误解","authors":"J. O'day","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2020.1848196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Martin B. Peterson argues that the social experiment analysis improperly shifts our focus onto the rhetorical dimension of debates over technology, which is ‘clearly irrelevant’ to the ‘traditional’ question: is this a morally acceptable technology? By invoking Harry Truman and the atom bomb in his counterargument, however, Peterson exemplifies the important role that rhetoric plays in our assessment and acceptance of certain technologies. Peterson’s account of The Bomb is an unfortunate byproduct of American nationalist dogma, but the social experiment analysis is well equipped to neutralize its obfuscating effect. Philosophers should further investigate its utility in light of this analytical strength.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"21 1","pages":"69 - 75"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Peterson Gets Wrong about Truman and The Bomb\",\"authors\":\"J. O'day\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21550085.2020.1848196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Martin B. Peterson argues that the social experiment analysis improperly shifts our focus onto the rhetorical dimension of debates over technology, which is ‘clearly irrelevant’ to the ‘traditional’ question: is this a morally acceptable technology? By invoking Harry Truman and the atom bomb in his counterargument, however, Peterson exemplifies the important role that rhetoric plays in our assessment and acceptance of certain technologies. Peterson’s account of The Bomb is an unfortunate byproduct of American nationalist dogma, but the social experiment analysis is well equipped to neutralize its obfuscating effect. Philosophers should further investigate its utility in light of this analytical strength.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics Policy & Environment\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"69 - 75\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics Policy & Environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2020.1848196\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics Policy & Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2020.1848196","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Martin B. Peterson认为,社会实验分析不恰当地将我们的注意力转移到技术辩论的修辞维度上,这与“传统”问题“显然无关”:这是一种道德上可接受的技术吗?然而,通过在他的反驳中引用哈里·杜鲁门和原子弹,彼得森举例说明了修辞在我们评估和接受某些技术时所起的重要作用。彼得森对《炸弹》的描述是美国民族主义教条的不幸副产品,但社会实验分析很好地抵消了其令人困惑的影响。哲学家应该根据这种分析的力量进一步研究它的效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
What Peterson Gets Wrong about Truman and The Bomb
ABSTRACT Martin B. Peterson argues that the social experiment analysis improperly shifts our focus onto the rhetorical dimension of debates over technology, which is ‘clearly irrelevant’ to the ‘traditional’ question: is this a morally acceptable technology? By invoking Harry Truman and the atom bomb in his counterargument, however, Peterson exemplifies the important role that rhetoric plays in our assessment and acceptance of certain technologies. Peterson’s account of The Bomb is an unfortunate byproduct of American nationalist dogma, but the social experiment analysis is well equipped to neutralize its obfuscating effect. Philosophers should further investigate its utility in light of this analytical strength.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics Policy & Environment
Ethics Policy & Environment ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
Revising the Keystone Species Concept for Conservation: Value Neutrality and Non-Nativeness Why Conceptions of Scale Matter to Artificity Arguments in SRM Ethics Animal Dignity: Philosophical Reflections on Non-Human Existence Justice and Sustainability Tensions in Agriculture: Wicked Problems in the Case of Dutch Manure Policy Covert Moral Enhancement: Are Dirty Hands Needed to Save the Planet?
×
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