Abstract
Nowadays, the role of values in the configuration of technology appears as a crucial topic. (1) What technology is and ought to be depends on values. These values can be considered in a twofold framework: the structural dimension and the dynamic perspective. (2) Axiology of technology takes into account the existence of these values—structural and dynamic—of its configuration, because technology is not a value-free undertaking and it has an “internal” side as well as an “external” part. Thus, axiology of technology studies the role of the “internal” values of technology (those characteristic of technology itself) and the task of “external” values of technology (those around this human undertaking). (3) Subsequently, the ethics of technology deals with ethical values. In this regard, the ethical analysis of technology is also twofold: there is an endogenous perspective (as a free human undertaking related to the creative transformation of the reality) and an exogenous viewpoint, insofar as technology is related to other human activities within a social setting.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
To some extent, there is a similitude between this variation and the explicit change in the case of science. Cf. Gonzalez (2013a).
- 4.
The issue of the registration and used of patents has important practical consequences. See in this regard Wen and Yang (2010).
- 5.
Usually, the outcomes of science are public and of free access to users. However, the characteristic products of technology can be patented and, therefore, be initially private and with no free access for users.
- 6.
This imperative-hypothetical argumentation is different from the kind of argumentations commonly used in science, such as the hypothetical-deductive or the inductive-probabilistic.
In technology, if the aim is accepted, then the means and costs should be considered. If the means can guarantee the achievement of the aim—in a finite number of steps—and the estimated costs seem reasonable, then these means should be used to obtain the chosen objective, otherwise the “instrumental rationality,” which is central in technology, does not work in this case. The “imperative” component—focused on the means that should be used—in technological argumentation comes after the acceptance of the hypothetical aims, means, and costs.
- 7.
These components are considered in Gonzalez (2005b), pp. 3–49; especially, p. 12.
- 8.
It is interesting the existence of institutions that explicitly supports a direct connection between technology and future. This is the case of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, which has a “Hillman Center for Future-Generations Technologies.”
- 9.
A notorious example of the search of the combination of art and technology is Steve Jobs. He was the cofounder of Apple, the founder of NeXT and the chairman of Pixar. He insisted in connecting aesthetical values and sophisticated technological procedures. Cf. Isaacson (2011), pp. 238–249, especially, pp. 239, 244 and 248.
- 10.
- 11.
This option is considered and criticized by Ilkka Niiniluoto, cf. Niiniluoto (1997a).
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
The analysis follows here Gonzalez (2005b), p. 9.
- 15.
Technoscience understood as “hybridrization” or “symbiosis of science and technology” suggests examples, such as the interaction of the computer sciences and the information and communication technologies, which lead to products popularly called “new technologies,” where the patents are on properties different from those obtained by previous technologies. See Echeverria (2003), pp. 64–68 and 71–72.
- 16.
- 17.
See, in this regard, Gonzalez (2005b), pp. 3–49; especially, pp. 8–13.
- 18.
- 19.
On the difference between “markets” and “organizations,” see Simon (2001).
- 20.
According to Steve Jobs, “you can’t win on innovation unless you have a way to communicate to customers,” Isaacson (2011), p. 369.
- 21.
On the distinction on “process,” “evolution,” and “historicity,” see Gonzalez (2013b).
- 22.
A relevant analysis of the objectivity of values is in Rescher (1999), ch. 3, pp. 73–96.
- 23.
On this issue, see section 3 “The Role of Innovation in Technology” in Gonzalez 2013c,pp. 19–24.
- 24.
An interesting reflection can be made on the role of “technological imperatives,” cf. Niiniluoto (1990).
- 25.
According to Walter Isaacson, Jobs “knew that the best way to create value in the twenty-first century was to connect creativity with technology, so he built a company where leaps of the imagination were combined with remarkable feats of engineering. He and his colleagues at Apple were able to think differently: They developed not merely modest product advances based on focus groups, but the whole new devices and services that consumers did not yet know they needed,” Isaacson (2011), p. xxi.
- 26.
This distinction between construction and application can be seen in science: applied science is not the same as application of science. Cf. Niiniluoto (1993) and Niiniluoto (1995).
When applied science is developed, the aim is the solution to specific problems in a concrete realm of reality, whereas application of science is the use of that knowledge in a variable setting. Thus, using the same applied science, the applications of the available knowledge can be clearly different (for example, in hospitals).
- 27.
Commonly, this leads to legal aspects (international, national, and regional). In this regard, the precautionary principle has been discussed in many ways, as can be seen in the final bibliography of this chapter. Cf. D’Souza and Taghian (2010); Stirling (2006); and World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (2005).
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
Prescription is attached to an evaluation and an assessment of the good and bad for society of the decision. This is a common practice in applied sciences such as economics, cf. Gonzalez (1998b).
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.
This is also the case in science, cf. Gonzalez (1999b).
- 34.
See in this regard Neely and Luegenbiehl (2008).
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
From the internal point of view, the methodology of technology has a central role. It is based on an imperative-hypothetical argumentation, where the aims are crucial to making reasonable or to rejecting the means used by the process of developing a technological artifact. And, from an external perspective, technology requires social values as human undertaking: the technological processes cannot be beyond social control.
- 38.
Historicity is important regarding some values in technology. The historical dynamics of technology requires to consider the evolutionary changes (the improvements in off-shore platforms, aircrafts, automobiles, …) and the “technological revolutions” (such as the computers). An analysis of the second ones is in Simon (1987/1997).
Bibliography
Achterhuis, H. (ed.). 2001. American philosophy of technology: The empirical turn. Translated by Robert Crease. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Adner, R., and R. Kapoor. 2010. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal 31(3): 306–333.
Agassi, J. 1980. Between science and technology. Philosophy of Science 47: 82–99.
Agassi, J. 1982. How technology aids and impedes the growth of science. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2: 585–597.
Agassi, J. 1985. Technology. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Agazzi, E. 1992. Il bene, il male e la scienza. Le dimensioni etiche dell’impresa scientifico-tecnologica. Milan: Rusconi.
Annavarjula, M., and R. Mohan. 2009. Impact of technological innovation capabilities on the market value of firms. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management 8(3): 241–250.
Aven, T. 2006. On the precautionary principle in the context of different perspectives on risk. Risk Management 8(3): 192–205.
Becher, G. (ed.). 1995. Evaluation of technology policy programmes in Germany. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Berger, P.L., and T. Luckman. 1967. The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday-Anchor.
Beyleveld, D., and R. Brownsword. 2012. Emerging technologies, extreme uncertainty, and the principle of rational precautionary reasoning. Law, Innovation and Technology 4(1): 35–65.
Bijker, W.E. 1994. Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bijker, W.E., and J. Law. 1992. Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bijker, W.E., T.P. Huges, and T. Pinch. 1987. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Borgmann, A. 1984. Technology and the character of contemporary life: A philosophical inquiry. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Borgmann, A. 1999. Holding on to reality: The nature of information at the turn of the millennium. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bronson, K. 2012. Technology and values—Or technological values? Science and Culture 21(4): 601–606.
Bugliarello, G., and D.B. Doner (eds.). 1979. The history and philosophy of technology. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Bunge, M. 1966/1974. Technology as applied science. Technology and Culture 7:329–347. Reprinted in F. Rapp (ed.), Contributions to a philosophy of technology, 19–36. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Bunge, M. 1985. Epistemology and methodology III: Philosophy of science and technology. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Bynum, T.W., and S. Rogerson. 2004. Computer ethics and professional responsibility. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Byrne, E.F. (ed.). 1989. Technological transformation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Calluzzo, V.J., and Ch.J. Cante. 2004. Ethics in information technology and software use. Journal of Business Ethics 51(3): 301–312.
Camarinha-Matos, L.M., E. Shahamatnia, and G. Nunes (eds.). 2012. Technology innovation for value creation proceedings. New York: Springer.
Carolan, M. 2007. The precautionary principle and traditional risk assessment. Organization and Environment 20(1): 5–24.
Carpenter, S. 1983. Technoaxiology: Appropriate norms for technology assessment. In Philosophy and technology, ed. P. Durbin and F. Rapp, 115–136. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Christophorou, L.G., and K.G. Drakatos (eds.). 2007. Science, technology and human values: International symposium proceedings. Athens: Academy of Athens.
Clark, A. 2003. Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies and the future of human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clarke, S. 2005. Future technologies, dystopic futures and the precautionary principle. Ethics and Information Technology 7(3): 121–126.
Collins, H.M. 1982. Frames of meaning: The sociological construction of extraordinary science. London: Routledge and K. Paul.
Constant, E. 1984. Communities and hierarchies: Structure in the practice of science and technology. In The nature of technological knowledge, ed. R. Laudan, 27–46. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Cranor, C.F. 2004. Toward understanding aspects of the precautionary principle. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29(3): 259–279.
Crombie, A.C. (ed.). 1963. Scientific change: Historical studies in the intellectual, social and technical conditions for scientific discovery and technical invention. From antiquity to the present. London: Heinemann.
Crousse, B., J. Alexander, and R. Landry (eds.). 1990. Evaluation des politiques scientifiques et technologiques. Quebec: Presses de l’Université Laval.
D’Souza, C., and M. Taghian. 2010. Integrating precautionary principle approach in sustainable decision-making process: A proposal for a contextual framework. Journal of Macromarketing 30(2): 192–199.
Das, M., and S. Kolack. 1990. Technology, values and society: Social forces in technological change. New York: Lang.
Dasgupta, S. 1994. Creativity in invention and design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dasgupta, S. 1996. Technology and creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.
De Solla Price, D.J. 1965. Is technology historically independent of science? A study in statistical historiography. Technology and Culture 6:553–568.
De Vries, M.J., S.E. Hansson, and A. Meijers (eds.). 2013. Norms in technology. Dordrecht: Springer.
Dosi, G. 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technological change. Research Policy 11: 147–162.
Durbin, P. (ed.). 1987. Technology and responsibility. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Durbin, P. (ed.). 1989. Philosophy of technology. Practical, historical and other dimensions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Durbin, P. (ed.). 1990. Broad and narrow interpretations of philosophy of technology. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Durbin, P., and F. Rapp (eds.). 1983. Philosophy and technology. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Echeverria, J. 2003. La revolución tecnocientífica. Madrid: FCE.
Elliott, B. 1986. Technology, innovation and change. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Ellul, J. 1954/1990. La technique; ou, L’en jeu du siècle. Paris: A. Colin, (2nd ed. revised, Paris: Economica, 1990.) Translated from the French by John Wilkinson with an introd. by Robert K. Merton: Ellul, J. 1964. The technological society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Elster, J. 1983. Explaining technical change: A case study in the philosophy of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feenberg, A. (ed.). 1995. Technology and the politics of knowledge. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Feibleman, J.K. 1982. Technology and reality. The Hague: M. Nijhoff.
Fellows, R. (ed.). 1995. Philosophy and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Floridi, L. (ed.). 2004. Philosophy of computing and information. Oxford: Blackwell.
Floridi, L. (ed.). 2010. Information and computing ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, C., and L. Soete. 1997. Economics of industrial innovation, 3rd ed. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Fuller, S. 1993. Philosophy, rethoric, and the end of knowledge: The coming of science and technology studies. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
García-Muina, F.E., E. Pelechano-Barahona, and J.E. Navas-López. 2011. The effect of knowledge complexity on the strategic value of technological capabilities. International Journal of Technology Management 54(4): 390–409.
Gehlen, A. 1965/2003. Anthropologische Ansicht der Technik. In Technik im technischen Zeitlater, eds. H. Freyer, J.Ch. Papalekas and G. Weippert. Düsserdorf: J. Schilling. Translated in abridged version as Gehlen, A. 2003. A philosophical-anthropological perspective on technology. In Philosophy and technology: The technological condition, eds. R.C. Scharff and V. Dusek, 213–220. Oxford: Blackwell.
Glendinning, Ch. 2003. Notes toward a Neo-Luddite Manifesto. In Philosophy and technology: The technological condition, ed. R.C. Scharff and V. Dusek, 603–605. Oxford: Blackwell.
Goldman, S.L. (ed.). 1989. Science, technology, and social progress. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press (Coedited by Associated University Presses, London).
Gómez, A. 2001. Racionalidad, riesgo e incertidumbre en el desarrollo tecnológico. In Filosofía de la Tecnología, ed. J.A. López Cerezo, J.L. Luján, and E.M. García Palacios, 169–187. Madrid: Ed. OEI.
Gómez, A. 2002. Estimación de riesgo, incertidumbre y valores en Tecnología. In Tecnología, civilización y barbarie, ed. J.M. De Cozar, 63–85. Barcelona: Anthropos.
Gómez, A. 2003. El principio de precaución en la gestión internacional del riesgo. Política y Sociedad 40(3): 113–130.
Gómez, A. 2007. Racionalidad y responsabilidad en Tecnología. In Los laberintos de la responsabilidad, ed. R. Aramayo and M.J. Guerra, 271–290. Madrid: Plaza y Janés.
Gonzalez, W.J. 1990. Progreso científico, Autonomía de la Ciencia y Realismo. Arbor 135(532): 91–109.
Gonzalez, W.J. 1996. Towards a new framework for revolutions in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 27(4): 607–625.
Gonzalez, W.J. 1997. Progreso científico e innovación tecnológica: La ‘Tecnociencia’ y el problema de las relaciones entre Filosofía de la Ciencia y Filosofía de la Tecnología. Arbor 157(620): 261–283.
Gonzalez, W.J. 1998a. Racionalidad científica y racionalidad tecnológica: La mediación de la racionalidad económica. Ágora 17(2): 95–115.
Gonzalez, W.J. 1998b. Prediction and prescription in economics: A philosophical and methodological approach. Theoria 13(32): 321–345.
Gonzalez, W.J. 1999a. Valores económicos en la configuración de la Tecnología. Argumentos de Razón Técnica 2: 69–96.
Gonzalez, W.J. 1999b. Ciencia y valores éticos: De la posibilidad de la Ética de la Ciencia al problema de la valoración ética de la Ciencia Básica. Arbor 162(638): 139–171.
Gonzalez, W.J. (ed.). 2005a. Science, technology and society: A philosophical perspective. A Coruña: Netbiblo.
Gonzalez, W.J. 2005b. The philosophical approach to science, technology and society. In Science, technology and society: A philosophical perspective, ed. W.J. Gonzalez, 3–49. A Coruña: Netbiblo.
Gonzalez, W.J. 2008. Economic values in the configuration of science. In Epistemology and the social, Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities, ed. E. Agazzi, J. Echeverría, and A. Gómez, 85–112. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Gonzalez, W.J. 2011a. Complexity in economics and prediction: The role of parsimonious factors. In Explanation, prediction, and confirmation, ed. D. Dieks, W.J. Gonzalez, S. Hartman, Th. Uebel, and M. Weber, 319–330. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gonzalez, W.J. 2011b. Conceptual changes and scientific diversity: The role of historicity. In Conceptual revolutions: From cognitive science to medicine, ed. W.J. Gonzalez, 39–62. A Coruña: Netbiblo.
Gonzalez, W.J. 2013a. Value ladenness and the value-free ideal in scientific research. In Handbook of the philosophical foundations of business ethics, ed. Ch. Lütge, 1503–1521. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gonzalez, W.J. 2013b. The sciences of design as sciences of complexity: The dynamic trait. In New challenges to philosophy of science, ed. H. Andersen, D. Dieks, W.J. Gonzalez, Th. Uebel, and G. Wheeler, 299–311. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gonzalez, W.J. 2013c. The roles of scientific creativity and technological innovation in the context of complexity of science. In Creativity, innovation, and complexity in science, ed. W.J. Gonzalez. 11–40. A Coruña: Netbiblo.
Graham, G. 1999. The internet: A philosophical inquiry. London: Routledge.
Habermas, J. 1968a/1971. Erkenntnis und Interesse. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Translated by Jeremy J. Shapiro. Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. 1968b. Technik und Wissenschaft als “Ideology”. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Hacking, I. 1983. Representing and intervening. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Hacking, I. 1999. The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hanks, C. (ed.). 2010. Technology and values: Essential readings. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Haraway, D. 1991. Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge and Institute for Social Research and Education.
Heidegger, M. 1954/2003. Die Frage nach der Technik. In Vorträge und Aufsätze, ed. M. Heidegger, 13–44. Pfullingen: Günther Neske. Translated as Heidegger, M. The question concerning technology. In Philosophy and technology: The technological condition, eds. R. C. Scharff and V. Dusek, 252–264. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hiskes, A.L.D. 1986. Science, technology, and policy decisions. Boulder: Westview Press.
Hottois, G. 1990. Le paradigme bioéthique: une éthique pour la technoscience. Brussels: De Boeck-Wesmael.
Ihde, D. 1979. Technics and praxis: A philosophy of technology. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Ihde, D. 1983. Existential technics. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Ihde, D. 1991. Instrumental realism: The interface between philosophy of science and philosophy of technology. Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Ihde, D. 2004. Has the philosophy of technology arrived? A state-of-the-art review. Philosophy of Science 71(1): 117–131.
Ihde, D., and E. Selinger (eds.). 2003. Chasing technoscience: Matrix for materiality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Isaacson, W. 2011. Steve Jobs. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Jacquette, D. (ed.). 2009. Reason, method, and value. A reader on the philosophy of Nicholas Rescher. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.
Jasanoff, S., G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen, and T. Pinch (eds.). 1995. Handbook of science and technology studies. London: Sage.
Jaspers, K. 1958. Die Atom-bombe und die Zukunft der Menschen. Munich: Piper.
Jonas, H. 1979/1984. Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Frankfurt am Main: Insel. Translated as Jonas, H. The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kitcher, Ph. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kopelman, L.M., D.B. Resnik, and D.L. Weed. 2004. What is the role of the precautionary principle in the philosophy of medicine and bioethics? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine 29(3): 255–258.
Ladriere, J. 1977/1978. Les enjeux de la rationalité: le defí de la science et de la technologie aux cultures. Paris: Aubier/Unesco. Translated as Ladriere, J. The challenge presented to culture by science and technology. Paris: UNESCO.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979/1986. Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press (2nd ed., 1986).
Laudan, R. (ed.). 1984. The nature of technological knowledge: Are models of scientific change relevant? Dordrecht: Reidel.
Lelas, S. 1993. Science as technology. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44: 423–442.
Lenk, H. 2007. Global technoscience and responsibility: Schemes applied to human values, technology, creativity and globalisation. London: LIT.
Lowrance, W.W. 1986. Modern science and human value. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lowrance, W.W. 2010. The relation of science and technology to human values. In Technology and values: Essential readings, ed. C. Hanks, 38–48. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. (From Lowrance (1986), pp. 145–150.)
Lujan, J.L. 2004. Principio de precaución: Conocimiento científico y dinámica social. In Principio de precaución, Biotecnología y Derecho, ed. C.M. Romeo Casabona, 221–234. Granada: Comares/Fundación BBVA.
Lujan, J.L., and J. Echeverria (eds.). 2004. Gobernar los riesgos. Ciencia y valores en la Sociedad del riesgo. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva/OEI.
Macpherson, C.B. 1983. Democratic theory: Ontology and technology. In Philosophy and technology, ed. C. Mitcham and R. Mackey, 161–170. New York: The Free Press.
Magnani, L., and N.J. Nersessian (eds.). 2002. Model based reasoning: Science, technology, values. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers.
Maguire, S., and J. Ellis. 2010. The precautionary principle and risk communication. In Handbook of risk and crisis communication, ed. R.L. Heath and D. O’Hair, 119–137. New York: Routledge.
McKinney, W.J., and H. Hammer Hill. 2001. Of sustainability and precaution: The logical, epistemological and moral problems of the precautionary principle and their implications for sustainable development. Ethics and the Environment 5(1): 77–87.
Meyers, R.A. (ed.). 2012. Encyclopedia of sustainability science and technology. New York: Springer.
Michalos, A. 1983. Technology assessment, facts and values. In Philosophy and technology, ed. P. Durbin and F. Rapp, 59–81. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Mitcham, C. 1980. Philosophy of technology. In A guide to the culture of science, technology and medicine, ed. P. Durbin, 282–363. New York: The Free Press.
Mitcham, C. 1994. Thinking through technology. The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Mitcham, C., and R. Mackey. (eds.). 1983. Philosophy and technology: Readings in the philosophical problems of technology. New York: Free Press (1st ed., 1972).
Mitcham, C., and K. Waelbers. 2009. Technology and ethics: Overview. In A companion to the philosophy of technology, ed. J.-K. Berg Olsen, S.A. Pedersen, and V.F. Hendricks, 367–383. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mohapatra, K.M. (ed.). 2004. Technology, environment and human values: A metaphysical approach to sustainable development. New Delhi: Concept Publishing.
Myers, N. 2002. The precautionary principle puts values first. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 22(3): 210–219.
Neely, K.A., and H.C. Luegenbiehl. 2008. Beyond inevitability: Emphasizing the role of intention and ethical responsibility in engineering design. In Philosophy and design: From engineering to architecture, ed. P. Vermaas et al., 247–257. Dordrecht: Springer.
Niiniluoto, I. 1990. Should technological imperatives be obeyed? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4: 181–187.
Niiniluoto, I. 1993. The aim and structure of applied research. Erkenntnis 38: 1–21.
Niiniluoto, I. 1994. Nature, man, and technology – Remarks on sustainable development. In The changing circumpolar north: Opportunities for academic development, vol. 6, ed. L. Heininen, 73–87. Rovaniemi: Arctic Centre Publications.
Niiniluoto, I. 1995. Approximation in applied science. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of Science and Humanities 42: 127–139.
Niiniluoto, I. 1997a. Ciencia frente a Tecnología: ¿Diferencia o identidad? Arbor 157(620): 285–299.
Niiniluoto, I. 1997b. Límites de la Tecnología. Arbor 157(620): 391–410.
Ojha, S. 2011. Science, technology and human values. New Delhi: MD Publications.
Olive, L. 1999. Racionalidad científica y valores éticos en las Ciencias y la Tecnología. Arbor 162(637): 195–220.
Olsen, J.K.B., S.A. Pedersen, and V.F. Hendricks (eds.). 2009. A companion to the philosophy of technology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ortega y Gasset, J. 1939/1997. Ensimismamiento y alteración. Meditación de la Técnica. Buenos Aires: Espasa-Calpe. Reprinted in Ortega y Gasset, J. Meditación de la Técnica. Madrid: Santillana.
Peterson, M. 2007. Should the precautionary principle guide our actions or our beliefs? Journal of Medical Ethics 33(1): 5–10.
Pinch, T.J., and W.E. Bijker. 1984. The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science 14:399–441. Published, in a shortened and updated version, as Pinch, T.J., and W.E. Bijker. 2003. The social construction of facts and artefacts. In Philosophy and technology: The technological condition, eds. R. C. Scharff and V. Dusek, 221–232. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pitt, J. (ed.). 1995. New directions in the philosophy of technology. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Pitt, J. 2000. Thinking about technology: Foundations of the philosophy of technology. New York: Seven Bridges Press.
Radnitzky, G. 1978. The boundaries of science and technology. In The search for absolute values in a changing world, Proceedings of the VIth international conference on the unity of sciences, vol. II, 1007–1036. New York: International Cultural Foundation Press.
Rapp, F. (ed.). 1974. Contributions to a philosophy of technology. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Rapp, F. 1978. Analitische Technikphilosophie. Munich: K. Alber.
Regan, P.M. 2009. Legislating privacy: Technology, social values and public policy. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Rescher, N. 1980. Unpopular essays on technological progress. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Rescher, N. 1983. Risk: A philosophical introduction to the theory of risk evaluation and management. Lanham: University Press of America.
Rescher, N. 1984/1999. The limits of science. Berkeley: University of California Press. Revised edition. The limits of science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Rescher, N. 1999. Razón y valores en la Era científico-tecnológica. Barcelona: Paidós.
Rescher, N. 2003. Sensible decisions. Issues of rational decision in personal choice and public policy. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Rescher, N. 2009. The power of ideals. In Reason, method, and value. A reader on the philosophy of Nicholas Rescher, ed. D. Jacquette, 335–345. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.
Ricci, G.R. (ed.). 2011. Values and technology. New Brunswick: Transactions Publishers.
Rosenberg, N. 1994. Exploring the black box: Technology, economics, and history. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Sahal, D. 1987. Patterns of technological innovation. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Sandin, P. 2004. The precautionary principle and the concept of precaution. Environmental Values 13(4): 461–475.
Sandin, P. 2009. A new virtue-based understanding of the precautionary principle. In The ethics of protocells: Moral and social implications of creating life in laboratory, ed. M. Bedau and E.C. Parke, 88–104. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Scharff, R.C., and V. Dusek (eds.). 2003. Philosophy and technology: The technological condition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Shrader-Frechette, K. 1983. Technology assessment and the problem of quantification. In Philosophy and technology, ed. P. Durbin and F. Rapp, 151–164. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Shrader-Frechette, K. 1985. Risk analysis and scientific method: Methodological and ethical problems with evaluating societal hazards. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Shrader-Frechette, K. 1991. Risk and rationality: Philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Shrader-Frechette, K. 1992. Technology. In Encyclopedia of ethics, eds. L. C. Becker, and Ch.B. Becker, vol. 2, 1231–1234. New York: Garland Publishing. Reprinted also as Shrader-Frechette, K. 2010. Technology and ethics. In Technology and values: Essential readings, ed. C. Hanks, 60–64. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Shrader-Frechette, K. 1993. Burying uncertainty: Risk and the case against geological disposal of nuclear waste. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Shrader-Frechette, K. 1997. Technology and ethical issues. In Technology and values, eds. K. Shrader-Frechette and L. Westra, 25–31. Savage: Rowman and Littlefield (Originally published as Shrader-Frechette (1992)).
Shrader-Frechette, K. 2002. Environmental justice: Creating equality, reclaiming democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shrader-Frechette, K. 2005a. Objectivity and professional duties regarding science and technology. In Science, technology and society: A philosophical perspective, ed. W. J. Gonzalez, 51–79. A Coruña: Netbiblo.
Shrader-Frechette, K. 2005b. How to reform science and technology. In Science, technology and society: A philosophical perspective, ed. W. J. Gonzalez, 107–132. A Coruña: Netbiblo.
Shrader-Frechette, K., and L. Westra (eds.). 1997. Technology and values. Savage: Rowman and Littlefield.
Simon, H.A. 1987/1997. The steam engine and the computer: What makes technology revolutionary. EDUCOM Bulletin 22(1): 2–5. Reprinted in Simon, H.A. 1997. Models of bounded rationality. Vol. 3: Empirically grounded economic reason, 163–172. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Simon, H. 1996. The sciences of the artificial, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press (1st ed., 1969; 2nd ed., 1981).
Simon, H.A. 2001. Complex systems: The interplay of organizations and markets in contemporary society. Computational and Mathematical Organizational Theory 7: 79–85.
Skolimowski, H. 1966. The structure of thinking in technology. Technology and Culture 7: 371–383. (Reprinted in Rapp, F. (ed.). 1974. Contributions to a philosophy of technology. Dordrecht: Reidel.)
Skolimowski, H. 1968. On the concept of truth in science and in technology. In Akten des XIV. Internationalen Kongresses fiir Philosophie, 553–559. Vienna: Herder.
Smith, C.A. 1980. Technology and value theory. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2: 481–490.
Som, C., L.M. Hiltiy, and A.R. Köhler. 2009. The precautionary principle as a framework for a sustainable information society. Journal of Business Ethics 85: 493–505.
Spiegel-Rösing, I., and D. Price (eds.). 1977. Science, technology and society: A cross-disciplinary perspective. London: Sage Publications.
Stirling, A. 2006. Precaution, foresight and sustainability: Reflection and reflexivity in the governance of technology. In Reflexive governance for sustainable development, ed. J. Voss and R. Kemp, 225–272. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Stirling, A. 2009. The precautionary principle. In A companion to the philosophy of technology, ed. J.-K. Berg Olsen, S.A. Pedersen, and V.F. Hendricks, 248–262. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Tuomela, R. 1991. The social dimension of action theory. Daimon. Revista de Filosofía 3: 145–158.
Van den Hoven, J., and J. Weckert (eds.). 2008. Information technology and moral philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Van Gorp, A., and I. Van de Poel. 2008. Deciding on ethical issues in engineering design. In Philosophy and design: From engineering to architecture, ed. P. Vermaas et al., 77–89. Dordrecht: Springer.
Verbeek, P.-P. 2008. Morality in design: Design ethics and the morality of technological artifacts. In Philosophy and design: From engineering to architecture, ed. P. Vermaas et al., 91–103. Dordrecht: Springer.
Webster, A. 1991. Science, technology and society. London: Macmillan.
Weckert, J. 2012. In defense of the precautionary principle. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 31(4): 12–17.
Weckert, J., and J. Moor. 2007. The precautionary principle in nanotechnology. In Nanoethics: The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology, ed. F. Allhoff et al., 133–146. Hoboken: Wiley-Interscience.
Weed, D. 2005. Methodologic implications of the precautionary principle: Causal criteria. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 11(1): 107–133.
Wen, H., and D.Y. Yang. 2010. The missing link between technological standards and value-chain governance: The case of patent-distribution strategies in the mobile-communication industry. Environment and Planning A 42(9): 2109–2130.
White, L. 1962. The act of invention, causes, context, continuities, and consequences. Technology and Culture 3(4): 486–500.
Winner, L. 1977. Autonomous technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Winner, L. 1986. The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Winner, L. 1993. Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Science as Culture 16: 427–452. Published as Winner, L. 2003. Social constructivism: Opening the black box and finding it empty. In Philosophy and Technology: The Technological Condition, eds. R. C. Scharff and V. Dusek, 233–243. Oxford: Blackwell.
Winner, L. 2003. Luddism as epistemology. In Philosophy and technology: The technological condition, ed. R.C. Scharff and V. Dusek, 606–611. Oxford: Blackwell.
World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology. 2005. Precautionary principle. Paris: UNESCO.
Zak, P.J. (ed.). 2008. Moral markets: The critical role of values in the economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gonzalez, W.J. (2015). On the Role of Values in the Configuration of Technology: From Axiology to Ethics. In: Gonzalez, W. (eds) New Perspectives on Technology, Values, and Ethics. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol 315. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21870-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21870-0_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21869-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21870-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)