Abstract
How must we understand the demand that engineering be morally responsible? Starting from the epistemic aspect of the problem, I distinguish between two approaches to moral responsibility. One ascribes moral responsibility to the self and to others under epistemic conditions of transparency, the other under conditions of opacity. I argue that the first approach is inadequate in the context of contemporary society, technology, and engineering. Between the actions of an engineer and the eventual consequences of her actions lies a complex world of relationships, people, things, time, and space. How adequate is the concept of individual action under these circumstances? Moreover, in a technological society it is hard to sharply distinguish between her contribution and those of others, and between her action and “accident” or “luck”. How, then, can we still act responsibly? I propose that we equip our moral thinking to deal with these new conditions, and argue that imagination can help engineers, researchers, and other stakeholders to reconstruct a world, imagine a history and a future, and imagine consequences for others in distant times and places. I illustrate this by exploring what it means to reconstruct a world of offshore engineering. I conclude that not only engineers but also other stakeholders could benefit from an education of the imagination, and I suggest further transdisciplinary work that contributes to a better understanding of responsible engineering under conditions of epistemic opacity.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The relation between technology and tragedy is, by itself, an interesting issue that deserves further discussion. For example, Jos de Mul has argued that technology is the locus of tragedy today, since although we create(d) it ourselves, it gets out of control de Mul 2006. My own understanding of the tragic is informed by my reading of Kierkegaard’s essay “The Ancient Tragical Motif as Reflected in the Modern” in Either/Or (Kierkegaard 1843; Coeckelbergh 2006b). The gist of my view is that tragic action, and therefore tragic responsibility, is situated between absolute control and the absence of control. If we had absolute control, our actions would not be tragic, and we would be fully responsible. If, on the other hand, we lacked any control, as is the case with the weather, for example, such external circumstances would not constitute a tragic condition for us either. Engineers (and many of us at many times and in many circumstances, given that we live in a technological culture) find themselves in such a situation: they can do something, but they lack complete control. Under epistemic conditions of opacity, there is insufficient knowledge available for that purpose.
- 2.
- 3.
Consider also criminal justice cases: the legal apparatus has not been adapted to the tragic conditions I referred to. I intend discuss this issue in another publication.
References
Anders, Günter. 1956. Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen (Volume I): Über die Seele im Zeitalter der zweiten industriellen Revolution. München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1987.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics/Ethica Nicomachea (trans. W.D. Ross) In The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon. New York: The Modern Library, 2001: CA 350 BC pp. 935–1126.
Bijker, Wiebe E., Hughes, Thomas P. and Trevor Pinch, eds. 1987. The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Briggle, Adam and Carl Mitcham. 2007. The Embedded and the Networked: Reflections on Technology-Society Relations. PSTS Philosophy of Technology Series Vol. 3, eds. Heersmink, Richard, Kruijsen, Tom and Pieter E. Vermaas.
Coeckelbergh, Mark. 2006a. Regulation or Responsibility? Autonomy, Moral Imagination, and Engineering. Science, Technology, and Human Values 31(3): 237–260.
Coeckelbergh, Mark. 2006b. Tragedy, Ethics, and Technological Risk: Responsibility between Freedom and Fate. Paper presented at The Locus of Tragedy Conference, Antwerp, 23–25, November 2006.
Coeckelbergh, Mark and Ger Wackers. 2007. Imagination, Distributed Responsibility, and Vulnerable Technological Systems: The Case of Snorre A. Science & Engineering Ethics 13(2):235–248.
Davis, Michael. 1989. Explaining Wrongdoing. Journal of Social Philosophy 20: 74–90.
de Mul, Jos. 2006. De domesticatie van het noodlot. Kampen: Klement/Pelckmans.
Dreyfus, Hubert L. 1991. Being-In-The-World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division 1. Cambridge, MA/London: The MIT Press.
Feinberg, Joel. 1968. Collective Responsibility. In Journal of Philosophy 65(21): 222–251.
Feinberg, Joel. 1986. Harm to Self. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, John Martin and Mark Ravizza. 1998. Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1976. La volonté du savoir. Translated as The History of Sexuality Vol. I. London: Pelican Books, 1981.
Foucault, Michel. 1988. Technologies of the Self. In Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault, eds. Martin, L.H., Gutman, H., and P. H. Hutton. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.
Hadji, Ishtiyaque. 1998. Moral Appraisability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harris, Charles E., Pritchard, Michael S., and Michael J. Rabins. 1995. Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Heidegger, Martin. 1927. Sein und Zeit. In Gesamtausgabe Vol. 2, ed. F.-W. von Herrmann, 1977.
Jonas, Hans. 1979. Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag. Translated as The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of An Ethics for the Technological Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
Kierkegaard, Søren. 1843. The Ancient Tragical Motif as Reflected in the Modern. In Either/Or: A Fragment of Life (Vol. 1), trans. D.F. Swenson and L.M. Swenson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1944.
Latour, Bruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lenk, Hans and Maring, Mathias. 2001. Responsibility and Technology. In Responsibility. The Many Faces of a Social Phenomenon, eds., Auhagen, Ann Elisabeth and Bierhoff, Hans-Werner, London: Routledge
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1921. Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung. In Annalen der Naturphilosophie, 14. Translated as Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trans. C.K. Ogden. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1922.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Coeckelbergh, M. (2009). Imagining Worlds: Responsible Engineering Under Conditions of Epistemic Opacity. In: Poel, I., Goldberg, D. (eds) Philosophy and Engineering:. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2804-4_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2804-4_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2803-7
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2804-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)