Advertisement

Imaginative Value Sensitive Design: Using Moral Imagination Theory to Inform Responsible Technology Design

  • Steven UmbrelloEmail author
Original Research/Scholarship

Abstract

Safe-by-design (SBD) frameworks for the development of emerging technologies have become an ever more popular means by which scholars argue that transformative emerging technologies can safely incorporate human values. One such popular SBD methodology is called value sensitive design (VSD). A central tenet of this design methodology is to investigate stakeholder values and design those values into technologies during early stage research and development. To accomplish this, the VSD framework mandates that designers consult the philosophical and ethical literature to best determine how to weigh moral trade-offs. However, the VSD framework also concedes the universalism of moral values, particularly the values of freedom, autonomy, equality trust and privacy justice. This paper argues that the VSD methodology, particularly applied to nano-bio-info-cogno technologies, has an insufficient grounding for the determination of moral values. As such, an exploration of the value-investigations of VSD are deconstructed to illustrate both its strengths and weaknesses. This paper also provides possible modalities for the strengthening of the VSD methodology, particularly through the application of moral imagination and how moral imagination exceeds the boundaries of moral intuitions in the development of novel technologies.

Keywords

Value sensitive design Design psychology Moral imagination Applied ethics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper has been adapted from a dissertation accepted and published by the University of Edinburgh. I would like to thank the two anonymous reviews that provided both encouraging and constructive comments on this manuscript. Any remaining errors are the author’s alone. The view expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.

References

  1. Baum, S. D. (2016). On the promotion of safe and socially beneficial artificial intelligence. AI and Society.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-016-0677-0.Google Scholar
  2. Borges, M. (2004). What can Kant teach us about emotions? The Journal of Philosophy, 101(3), 140–158.Google Scholar
  3. Borning, A., & Muller, M. (2012). Next steps for value sensitive design. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on human factors in computing systemsCHI’12 (p. 1125).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208560.
  4. Brey, P. A. E. (2010). Philosophy of technology after the empirical turn. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 14(1), 36–48.  https://doi.org/10.5840/techne20101416.Google Scholar
  5. Brey, P. A. E. (2012). Values in technology and disclosive computer ethics. In L. Floridi (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of information and computer ethics (pp. 41–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511845239.004.Google Scholar
  6. Briggs, P., & Thomas, L. (2015). An inclusive, value sensitive design perspective on future identity technologies. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22(5), 1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2778972.Google Scholar
  7. Caviola, L., Mannino, A., Savulescu, J., & Faulmuller, N. (2014). Cognitive biases can affect moral intuitions about cognitive enhancement. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 1–5.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00195.Google Scholar
  8. Contissa, G., Lagioia, F., & Sartor, G. (2017). The ethical knob: Ethically-customisable automated vehicles and the law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25(3), 365–378.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9211-z.Google Scholar
  9. Correljé, A., Cuppen, E., Dignum, M., Pesch, U., & Taebi, B. (2015). Responsible innovation in energy projects: Values in the design of technologies, Institutions and Stakeholder Interactions 1 (Draft Version for Forthcoming Book). In B.-J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra, & J. van den Hoven (Eds.), Responsible innovation (Vol. 2, pp. 183–200). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, J., & Nathan, L. P. (2015). Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design: Sources, theory, values and application domains. In J. van den Hoven, P. E. Vermaas & I. van de Poel (Eds.), Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design: Sources, theory, values and application domains (pp. 12–40). Dordrecht: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0.
  11. De Tiège, A., Van de Peer, Y., Braeckman, J., & Tanghe, K. B. (2018). The sociobiology of genes: The gene’s eye view as a unifying behavioural-ecological framework for biological evolution. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 40(1), 6.Google Scholar
  12. Dechesne, F., Warnier, M., & van den Hoven, J. (2013). Ethical requirements for reconfigurable sensor technology: A challenge for value sensitive design. Ethics and Information Technology, 15(3), 173–181.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-013-9326-1.Google Scholar
  13. Denning, T., Kohno, T., & Levy, H. M. (2013). A framework for evaluating security risks associated with technologies used at home. Communications of the ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2398356.2398377.Google Scholar
  14. Ervas, F., Gola, E., & Rossi, M. G. (2018). Argumentation as a bridge between metaphor and reasoning. In S. Oswald, T. Herman & J. Jacquin (Eds.), Argumentation and language—Linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations (pp. 153–170). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Etzioni, A., & Etzioni, O. (2016). AI assisted ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(2), 149–156.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9400-6.Google Scholar
  16. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2008a). Rethinking metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1290862.Google Scholar
  17. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. B. (2008b). Conceptual projection and middle spaces. SSRN Electronic Journal.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1290862.Google Scholar
  18. Fesmire, S. (2003). John Dewey and moral imagination: Pragmatism in ethics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Flanagan, M., Howe, D. C., & Nissenbaum, H. (2008). Embodying values in technology: Theory and practice. In J. van den Hoven & J. Weckert (Eds.), Information technology and moral philosophy (pp. 322–353). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Friedman, B. (1996). Value-sensitive design. Interactions, 3(6), 16–23.  https://doi.org/10.1145/242485.242493.Google Scholar
  21. Friedman, B. (1997). Human values and the design of computer technology. In B. Friedman (Ed.) CSLI Publications. https://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/site/1575860805.shtml#.
  22. Friedman, B., Hendry, D. G., & Borning, A. (2017). A survey of value sensitive design methods. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 11(2), 63–125.  https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000015.Google Scholar
  23. Friedman, B., & Kahn, P. H., Jr. (2003a). Human values, ethics, and design. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook (pp. 1177–1201). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Friedman, B., & Kahn, P. H., Jr. (2003b). Human values, ethics, and design. In The human-computer interaction handbook (pp. 1177–1201). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  25. Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Jr., & Borning, A. (2006). Value sensitive design and information systems (PREPRINT). Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems: Foundations.  https://doi.org/10.1145/242485.242493.Google Scholar
  26. Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Jr., & Borinng, A. (2008). Value sensitive design and information systems. In K. E. Himma & H. T. Tavani (Eds.), The Handbook of information and computer ethics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Jr., Borning, A., & Huldtgren, A. (2013). Value sensitive design and information systems. In N. Doorn, D. Schuurbiers, I. van de Poel, & M. E. Gorman (Eds.), Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the Laboratory (pp. 55–95). Dordrecht: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4.Google Scholar
  28. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2017). Metaphor wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gogoll, J., & Müller, J. F. (2017). Autonomous cars: In favor of a mandatory ethics setting. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(3), 681–700.Google Scholar
  31. Goldberg, B. (2016). Mechanism and meaning. In J. Hyman (Ed.), Investigating psychology (pp. 62–80). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2007). The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. The Innate Mind, 3, 367–391.Google Scholar
  33. Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Harman, G. (2016). Immaterialism: Objects and social theory. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  35. Harman, G. (2018a). Object-oriented ontology: A new theory of everything. New York, NY: Penguin Random House.Google Scholar
  36. Harman, G. (2018b). Object-oriented ontology. Pelican.Google Scholar
  37. Harmon, J. L. (2016). The normative architecture of reality: Towards an object-oriented ethics. Lexington: University of Kentucky.  https://doi.org/10.13023/etd.2016.114.Google Scholar
  38. Hughes, J. (2014). Compassionate AI and selfless robots: A buddhist approach. In P. Lin, K. Abney, & G. A. Bekey (Eds.), Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics (pp. 69–84). Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Huldtgren, A. (2014). Design for values in ICT. In J. van den Hoven, P. E. Vermaas, & I. van de Poel (Eds.), Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design: Sources, theory, values and application domains (pp. 1–24). Dordrecht: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6994-6_35-1.Google Scholar
  40. Johnson, M. (1993). Moral imagination: Implications of cognitive science for ethics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Johnson, M. (2013). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Johnson, M. (2014). Morality for humans: Ethical understanding from the perspective of cognitive science. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kahn, C. H. (1987). Plato’s theory of desire. The Review of Metaphysics, 41(1), 77–103.Google Scholar
  44. Kant, I. (2015). Critical neutralization of the antinomy of practical reason. In A. Reath & M. Gregor (Eds.), The critique of practical reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kemeny, M. E. (2009). Psychobiological responses to social threat: Evolution of a psychological model in psychoneuroimmunology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  46. Krakowiak, K. M., & Tsay-Vogel, M. (2015). The dual role of morally ambiguous characters: Examining the effect of morality salience on narrative responses. Human Communication Research, 41(3), 390–411.Google Scholar
  47. Kramp, M. K. (2003). Exploring life and experience through narrative inquiry. In O. Lagerspetz, J. Antfolk, Y. Gustafsson, & C. Kronqvist (Eds.), Foundations for research (pp. 119–138). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  49. Latour, B. (2017). Facing Gaia: Eight lectures on the new climatic regime. Polity.Google Scholar
  50. Le Dantec, C. A., Poole, E. S., & Wyche, S. P. (2009). Values as lived experience: Evolving value sensitive design in support of value discovery. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI’09 (pp. 1141–1150). New York, NY, USA: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518875.
  51. Meillassoux, Q. (2008). In R. Brassier (Ed.), After finitude: An essay on the necessity of contingency. Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. Meillassoux, Q. (2009). In R. Brassier (Ed.), After finitude: An essay on the necessity of contingency. Bloomsbury Publishing. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/after-finitude-9781441173836.
  53. Mordini, E. (2007). The narrative dimension of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology Perceptions, 3, 15–24.Google Scholar
  54. Morton, T. (2016). Dark ecology: For a logic of future coexistence. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Morton, T. (2018). Being ecological. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016). Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion BT. In V. C. Müller (Ed.), Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence (pp. 555–572). Cham: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26485-1_33.Google Scholar
  57. Newell, A. F., Gregor, P., Morgan, M., Pullin, G., & Macaulay, C. (2011). User-sensitive inclusive design. Universal Access in the Information Society, 10(3), 235–243.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-010-0203-y.Google Scholar
  58. Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). The fragility of goodness: Luck and ethics in greek tragedy and philosophy (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Peterson, J. B. (1999). Maps of meaning: The architecture of belief. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, truth and history (Vol. 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Roache, R. (2008). Ethics, speculation, and values. NanoEthics, 2(3), 317–327.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-008-0050-y.Google Scholar
  63. Rolf, M., & Crook, N. (2016). What if: Robots create novel goals? Ethics based on social value systems. In CEUR workshop proceedings (pp. 20–25).Google Scholar
  64. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Sarbin, T. R. (2001). Embodiment and the narrative structure of emotional life. Narrative Inquiry, 11(1), 217–225.Google Scholar
  66. Segerstrale, U. (2016). The westermarck thesis as a thinking tool for sociobiology. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (Eds.), Evolution, human behaviour and morality (pp. 97–118). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Stocker, M. (1976). The schizophrenia of modern ethical theories. Journal of Philosophy, 73(14), 453–466.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2025782.Google Scholar
  68. Taub, S. (2012). Iconicity and metaphor. In Sign languageAn international handbook (pp. 388–412). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  69. Tilmouth, C. (2007). Passion’s triumph over reason: A history of the moral imagination from spenser to rochester. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Timmermans, J., Zhao, Y., & van den Hoven, J. (2011). Ethics and nanopharmacy: Value sensitive design of new drugs. NanoEthics, 5(3), 269–283.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-011-0135-x.Google Scholar
  71. Turner, M. (1994). Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Turner, M. (2006). The artful mind: Cognitive science and the riddle of human creativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Turner, M. (2010). Conceptual integration. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford Handbooks Online.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0015.
  74. Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (2000). Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (Vol. 356). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  75. Umbrello, S. (2018). The moral psychology of value sensitive design: The methodological issues of moral intuitions for responsible innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 5(2), 186–200.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2018.1457401.Google Scholar
  76. Umbrello, S. (2019a). Atomically precise manufacturing and responsible innovation: A value sensitive design approach to explorative nanophilosophy. International Journal of Technoethics, 10(2), 10.  https://doi.org/10.2139/srn.3141478.Google Scholar
  77. Umbrello, S. (2019b). Beneficial artificial intelligence coordination by means of a value sensitive design approach. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 3(1), 5.  https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc3010005.Google Scholar
  78. Umbrello, S., & Baum, S. D. (2018). Evaluating future nanotechnology: The net societal impacts of atomically precise manufacturing. Futures, 100, 63–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.04.007.Google Scholar
  79. Umbrello, S., & De Bellis, A. F. (2018). A value-sensitive design approach to intelligent agents. In R. V. Yampolskiy (Ed.), Artificial intelligence safety and security (pp. 395–410). Boca Raton: CRC Press.  https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.17162.77762.Google Scholar
  80. Unger, R. M. (1976). Knowledge and politics. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  81. van den Hoven, J. (2013). Architecture and value-sensitive design. In C. Basta & S. Moroni (Eds.), Ethics, design and planning of the built environment (Vol. 224). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  82. van den Hoven, J. (2017). The design turn in applied ethics. In J. van den Hoven, S. Miller, & T. Pogge (Eds.), Designing in ethics (pp. 11–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511844317.Google Scholar
  83. van den Hoven, J., Lokhorst, G. J., & van de Poel, I. (2012). Engineering and the problem of moral overload. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(1), 143–155.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9277-z.Google Scholar
  84. van den Hoven, J., & Manders-Huits, N. (2009). Value-sensitive design. In J. K. B. Olsen, S. A. Pedersen, & V. F. Hendricks (Eds.), In a companion to the philosophy of technology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444310795.ch86.Google Scholar
  85. van den Hoven, J., & Weckert, J. (Eds.). (2008). Information technology and moral philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  86. van Wynsberghe, A. (2012). Designing robots with care: Creating an ethical framework for the future design and implementation of care robots. Enschede: University of Twente.  https://doi.org/10.3990/1.9789036533911.Google Scholar
  87. van Wynsberghe, A. (2013). A method for integrating ethics into the design of robots. Industrial Robot: An International Journal, 40(5), 433–440.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IR-12-2012-451.Google Scholar
  88. van Wynsberghe, A. (2016). Service robots, care ethics, and design. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(4), 311–321.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9409-x.Google Scholar
  89. van Wynsberghe, A., & Robbins, S. (2014). Ethicist as designer: A pragmatic approach to ethics in the lab. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(4), 947–961.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9498-4.Google Scholar
  90. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (2017). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  91. Warnier, M., Dechesne, F., & Brazier, F. (2014). Design for the value of privacy. In J. van den Hoven, P. E. Vermaas, & I. van de Poel (Eds.), Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design: Sources, theory, values and application domains (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6994-6_17-1.Google Scholar
  92. Wood, A. W. (1999). Kant’s ethical thought. Modern European Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139173254.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Ethics and Emerging TechnologiesUniversità degli Studi di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations