Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 1027–1047 | Cite as

How to Shape a Better Future? Epistemic Difficulties for Ethical Assessment and Anticipatory Governance of Emerging Technologies

  • Brent Daniel Mittelstadt
  • Bernd Carsten Stahl
  • N. Ben Fairweather
Article

Abstract

Empirical research into the ethics of emerging technologies, often involving foresight studies, technology assessment or application of the precautionary principle, raises significant epistemological challenges by failing to explain the relative epistemic status of contentious normative claims about future states. This weakness means that it is unclear why the conclusions reached by these approaches should be considered valid, for example in anticipatory ethical assessment or governance of emerging technologies. This paper explains and responds to this problem by proposing an account of how the epistemic status of uncertain normative claims can be established in ethical and political discourses based on Jürgen Habermas’ discourse ethics. To better understand the nature of the problem, the relationship between norms, facts and the future is explored in light of potential meta-ethical fallacies faced in the field of empirical ethics. Weaknesses of current approaches to anticipatory ethical assessment and governance are then explored, including the Precautionary Principle and Technology Assessment. We argue that the epistemic status of uncertain normative claims can be understood within Habermas’ approach to political discourse, which requires ‘translation’ of uncertain claims to be comprehensible to other stakeholders in discourse. Translation thus provides a way to allow for uncertain normative claims to be considered alongside other types of validity claims in discourse. The paper contributes a conceptual account of the epistemic status of uncertain normative claims in discourse and begins to develop a ‘methodology of translation’ which can be further developed for approaches to research and ethical assessment supporting anticipatory evidence-based policy, governance and system design.

Keywords

Emerging technologies Empirical ethics Evidence-based policy Technology assessment Epistemology Habermas Anticipatory governance 

References

  1. Ahmed A, Skogh G (2006) Choices at various levels of uncertainty: an experimental test of the restated diversification theorem. J Risk Uncertain 33:183–196. doi:10.1007/s11166-006-0332-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin C (2008) Family carers, ethics and dementia: an empirical study. In: Widdershoven G (ed) Empirical Ethics in Psychiatry. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 107–122Google Scholar
  3. Banks G (2009) Evidence-based policy making: what is it? How do we get it? Productivity Commission CanberraGoogle Scholar
  4. Birnbacher D (1999) Ethics and social science: which kind of co-operation? Ethical Theory Moral Pract 2:319–336. doi:10.1023/A:1009903815157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black M (1964) The gap between “is” and “should”. Philos Rev 73:165. doi:10.2307/2183334 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierickx K (2004) What is the role of empirical research in bioethical reflection and decision-making? An ethical analysis. Med Health Care Philos 7:41–53. doi:10.1023/B:MHEP.0000021844.57115.9d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brey P (2011) Anticipatory technology ethics for emerging IT. CEPE 2011 Crossing boundariesGoogle Scholar
  8. Cagnin C, Keenan M, Johnston R et al (2008) Future-oriented technology analysis: strategic intelligence for an innovative economy. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  9. Collingridge D (1980) The social control of technology. Macmillan, PalgraveGoogle Scholar
  10. Cuhls K (2003) From forecasting to foresight processes—new participative foresight activities in Germany. J Forecast 22:93–111. doi:10.1002/for.848 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Vries M, Gordijn B (2009) Empirical ethics and its alleged meta-ethical fallacies. Bioethics 23:193–201. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01710.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Department of Health (2011) Whole system demonstrator programme - headline findings - December 2011Google Scholar
  13. Dusek V (2006) Philosophy of technology: an introduction. Blackwell PublishingGoogle Scholar
  14. Floridi L (2010) The Cambridge handbook of information and computer ethics. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Freestone D (1991) The precautionary principle. In: Churchill R, Freestone D (eds) Int. Law Glob. Clim. Change. Graham and Trotman, London, p 447Google Scholar
  16. Friedman B, Kahn P, Borning A (2008) Value sensitive design and information systems. In: Himma K, Tavani H (eds) Handb. Inf. Comput. Ethics. Wiley Blackwell, pp 69–102Google Scholar
  17. Gardiner SM (2006) A core precautionary principle. J Polit Philos 14:33–60. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00237.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Genus A, Coles A (2005) On constructive technology assessment and limitations on public participation in technology assessment. Tech Anal Strat Manag 17:433–443. doi:10.1080/09537320500357251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Georghiu L (2008) The handbook of technology foresight: concepts and practice. Edward Elgar PublishingGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodin RE (1983) Political theory and public policy. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Grunwald A (2009) Technology assessment: concepts and methods. Handb. Philos. Sci. 9Google Scholar
  22. Habermas J (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Suhrkamp, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  23. Habermas J (1991) Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik. Suhrkamp, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  24. Habermas J (1992) Moral consciousness and communicative action. The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  25. Habermas J (1997) Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy, new ed. Polity PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Habermas J (1998) The inclusion of the other: studies in political theory. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Habermas J (2008) Between naturalism and religion: philosophical essays. PolityGoogle Scholar
  28. Habermas J (2011) “The political”: the rational meaning of a questionable inheritance of political theology. Power Relig. Public Sphere. Columbia University Press, pp 15–33Google Scholar
  29. Heng MSH, De Moor A (2003) From Habermas’s communicative theory to practice on the internet. Inf Syst J 13:331–352. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2575.2003.00144.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hildebrandt M, de Vries K (eds) (2013) Privacy, due process and the computational turn: the philosophy of law meets the philosophy of technology (Hardback) - Routledge. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Hongladarom S (2005) Electronic surveillance in the workplace: a Buddhist perspective. Electron. Monit. Workplace Controv. Solut. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, pp 208–225Google Scholar
  32. Hourdequin M (2007) Doing, allowing, and precaution. Environ Ethics 29:339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hughes J (2006) How not to criticize the precautionary principle. J Med Philos 31:447–464. doi:10.1080/03605310600912642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hume D (2004) A treatise of human nature: being an attempt to introduce the experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects. Penguin ClassicsGoogle Scholar
  35. John S (2010) In defence of bad science and irrational policies: an alternative account of the precautionary principle. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 13:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jonas H (1984) Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Suhrkamp, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  37. Jordan A, O’Riordan T (1999) The precautionary principle in contemporary environmental policy and politics. Prot. Public Health Environ. Implement. Precautionary Princ. Island Press, Washington DC, pp 15–35Google Scholar
  38. Joss S, Bellucci S (2002) Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives. Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Kant I (1827) Kritik der praktischen VernunftGoogle Scholar
  40. Kant I (1870) Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. L. HeimannGoogle Scholar
  41. Keynes JM (1921) Treatise on probability. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Klein HK, Huynh MQ (2004) The critical social theory of Jürgen Habermas and its implications for IS research. Soc. Theory Philos. Inf. Syst. Wiley, Chichester, pp 157–237Google Scholar
  43. Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty and profit. Houghton Miflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  44. Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University pressGoogle Scholar
  45. Latour B, Venn C (2002) Morality and technology the end of the means. Theory Cult Soc 19:247–260. doi:10.1177/026327602761899246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Leget C, Borry P, De Vries M (2009) “Nobody tosses a dwarf!” The relation between the empirical and the normative reexamined. Bioethics 23:226–235. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01711.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lyytinen K, Hirschheim R (1988) Information systems as rational discourse: an application of Habermas’s theory of communicative action. Scand J Manag 4:19–30. doi:10.1016/0956-5221(88)90013-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Magnani L (2007) Morality in a technological world: knowledge as duty. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  49. McMillan JH (2008) The possibility of empirical psychiatric ethics. In: Widdershoven G (ed) Empirical Ethics in Psychiatry. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 9–22Google Scholar
  50. Mill JS (2002) Utilitarianism, 2nd revised. Hackett Publishing Co, IncGoogle Scholar
  51. Mingers J, Walsham G (2010) Toward ethical information systems: the contribution of discourse ethics. MIS Q 34:833–854Google Scholar
  52. Mittelstadt B (2013) On the ethical implications of personal health monitoring: a conceptual framework for emerging discourses. De Montfort UniversityGoogle Scholar
  53. Molewijk AC, Stiggelbout AM, Otten W et al (2003) Implicit normativity in evidence-based medicine: a plea for integrated empirical ethics research. Health Care Anal 11:69–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moore GE (1993) Principia ethica: with the preface to the second edition and other papers. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  55. Morris J (2000) Rethinking risk and the precautionary principle. Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar
  56. Mumford E (1996) Systems design: ethical tools for ethical change. MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  57. Mumford E (2003) Redesigning human systems. Idea Group Inc (IGI)Google Scholar
  58. Musschenga AW (2005) Empirical ethics, context-sensitivity, and contextualism. J Med Philos 30:467–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pantelopoulos A, Bourbakis NG (2010) A survey on wearable sensor-based systems for health monitoring and prognosis. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C Appl Rev 40:1–12. doi:10.1109/TSMCC.2009.2032660 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Popper KR (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Basic Books, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  61. Reuzel RPB, van der Wilt GJ, ten Have HAMJ, de Vries Robbé PF (2001) Interactive technology assessment and wide reflective equilibrium. J Med Philos 26:245–261. doi:10.1076/jmep.26.3.245.3015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Roncaglia A (2009) Keynes and probability: an assessment. Eur J Hist Econ Thought 16:489–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sandberg A (1985) Socio-technical design, trade union strategies and action research. In: Mumford E, Hirschheim R, Fitzgerald G, Wood-Harper T (eds) Res. Methods Inf. Syst. IFIPColloquium Proc. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 79–92Google Scholar
  64. Searle J (1964) How to derive “ought” from “is.”. Philos Rev 73:43. doi:10.2307/2183201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sinn H-W (1980) A rehabilitation of the principle of insufficient reason. Q J Econ 94:493–506. doi:10.2307/1884581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smith A (2007) The theory of moral sentiments - Adam Smith. Standard Publications, IncGoogle Scholar
  67. Tran TA, Daim T (2008) A taxonomic review of methods and tools applied in technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 75:1396–1405. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2008.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. UNCED (1992) Rio Declaration on Environment and Development - United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163. Accessed 23 Nov 2012
  69. Van Eijndhoven J, van Est R (2002) The choice of participative technology assessment methods. In: Joss S, Belucci S (eds) Particip. Technol. Assess. Eur. Perspect. Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster, London, pp 209 – 234Google Scholar
  70. Van Hooren RH, Van der Borne HW, Curfs LMG, Widdershoven GAM (2008) Providing good care in the context of restrictive measures: the case of prevention of obesity in youngsters with Prader-Willi syndrome. In: Widdershoven G (ed) Empirical Ethics in Psychiatry. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 153–171Google Scholar
  71. Wagner WE (2003) The“bad science” fiction: reclaiming the debate over the role of science in public health and environmental regulation. Law Contemp Probl 66:63–133Google Scholar
  72. Widdershoven G, Abma T, Molewijk AC (2009) Empirical ethics as dialogical practice. Bioethics 23:236–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wingspread Statement (1998) The precautionary principleGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.De Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations