Can Technological Artefacts Be Moral Agents?

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 411-424

  Peterson, Martin ^a   Spahn, Andreas ^a  

^a EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Artefact; Moral agent; Moral relevance; Moral status; Verbeek

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BOMB; COMPUTER; ENGINEERING; ETHICAL THEORY; ETHICS; HUMAN; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY;

BOMBS; COMPUTERS; ENGINEERING; ETHICAL THEORY; HUMANS; SOCIAL VALUES; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 80053315997     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 16605454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-010-9241-3     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Black, H. (1997). Canadian scientists and inventors: Biographies of people who made a difference. Markham, Ontario: Pembroke Publishers.
2. Foucault, M. (1976-1984) The history of sexuality, Vol 1-3. London, UK: Penguin Books.
3. Gustafsson, J. E. (2010). Freedom of choice and expected compromise. Social Choice and Welfare, 35(1), 65-79.
4. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
5. Illies, C., & Meijers, A. (2009). Artefacts without agency. The Monist, 92(3), 420-440.
6. Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency and design. Pennsylvania, US: Pennsylvania State University Press.
7. Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). 'Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation'. Science Technology & Human Values, 31, 361-380.
8. Verbeek, P.-P. (2008). Obstetric ultrasound and the technological mediation of morality: A post phenomenological analysis. Human Studies, 31, 11-26.