Identifying the normative challenges posed by technology's 'soft' impacts1

Etikk i Praksis

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 5-20

  Swierstra, Tsjalling ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Ethics; Intimate technologies; Soft impacts; Technology assessment; Technomoral change

Indexed keywords

EID: 84963813066     PISSN: 18903991     EISSN: 18904009     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Original version in French: 1991)
2. Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & Lente, H. van (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3-4), 285-298.
3. Brooks, R. A. (1990). Elephants don't play chess. Robotics and autonomous systems, 6(1), 3-15.
4. Brown, N., & Michael, M. (2003). A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(1), 3-18.
5. Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. WW Norton & Company.
6. De Waal, F. (2009). Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved: How Morality Evolved. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
7. Dewey J (1954). The later works. Swallow, Athens, OH
8. Dewey J (1994). In: Gouinlock J (ed.) The moral writings of John Dewey (revised edition). Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
9. Driessen, C., & Korthals, M. (2012). Pig towers and in vitro meat: Disclosing moral worlds by design. Social Studies of Science, 42(6), 797-820.
10. Gadamer, H.-G. (1986). Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzü ge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik (Vol. Band 1). Tü bingen: J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
11. Jonas, H. (1973). Technology and responsibility: Reflections on the new tasks of ethics. Social Research, 40(1), 31-54.
12. Kant, I. (1996, 1793). Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason (trans. George di Giovanni), in Immanuel Kant, Religion and Rational Theology, ed. Allen W. Wood and George di Giovanni. Cambridge. p. 92
13. Stern, R. (2004) Does 'Ought' Imply 'Can'? And Did Kant Think It Does? Utilitas, 16 (1). pp. 42-61.
14. Ketting, E. (2000). "De invloed van orale anticonceptie op de maatschappij." Nederlands Tijdschrift Geneeskunde 144, 283-286.
15. Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Lucivero, F., Swierstra, T., & Boenink, M. (2011). Assessing expectations: Towards a toolbox for an ethics of emerging technologies. NanoEthics, 5(2), 129-141.
17. Popper, K. R. (1962) The open society and its enemies (two volumes). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, . Original edition 1945
18. Porter, T.M. (1995). Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
19. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European journal of social theory, 5(2), 243-263.
20. Renn, O. and M. Roco (2006). Nanotechnology Risk Governance, Geneva: International Risk Governance Council. IRGC White Paper No. 2.
21. Ricoeur, P. (1988). Time and Narrative. 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22. Roeser, S. (2006). The role of emotions in judging the moral acceptability of risks. Safety Science, 44(8), 689-700.
23. Sayer, A. (2011). Why things matter to people: Social science, values and ethical life. Cambridge University Press.
24. Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E. (eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. Psychology Press.
25. Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk analysis, 19(4), 689-701.
26. Stirling, A. (2003). Risk, Uncertainty and Precaution: Some instrumental implications from the social sciences, in Berkhout F., M. Leach, I. Scoones (eds.), Negotiating Change, London: Edward Elgar, 33-76.
27. Swierstra, T., M. Boenink, and D. Stemerding. (2009). "Exploring Techno-moral Change: The Case of the Obesity Pill." In Evaluating New Technologies. Methodological Problems for the Ethical Assessment of Technology Developments, edited by P. Sollie and M. Dü well, 119-138. Dordrecht: Springer.
28. Swierstra, T., and H. te Molder. (2012). "Risk and Soft Impacts." In Handbook of Risk Theory, edited by S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, and M. Peterson, 1049-1066. Dordrecht: Springer.
29. Swierstra, T., and A. Rip. (2007). "Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of Moral Argumentation about New and Emerging Science and Technology." Nanoethics 1(1): 3-20.
30. Swierstra, T. (2011) Heracliteïsche ethiek. Omgaan met de soft impacts van technologie.
31. Swierstra, T., and K. Waelbers. (2012). "Designing a Good Life: A Matrix for the Technological Mediation of Morality." Science and Engineering Ethics 18(1): 157-172.
32. Swierstra, T. (2013). Nanotechnology and Technomoral Change. Ethica & Politica/Ethics & Politics 15(1), 200-219.
33. Taylor, C. (1986). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press.
34. Turkle, S. (2010). Alone Together. Why we expect more from technology and less from another. New York: Basic Books.
35. Van der Burg, S. (2009). "Taking the "Soft Impacts" of Technology into Account: Broadening the Discourse in Research Practice." Social Epistemology 23 (3-4): 301-316.
36. Van Est, R., et al. (2014). From Bio to NBIC convergence-From medical practice to daily life. Report written for the Council of Europe, Committee on Bioethics, The Hague, Rathenau Instituut.
37. Verbeek, P. P. (2010). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Penn State Press.
38. Walzer, M. (1994). Thick and thin: Moral argument at home and abroad. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press