Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 431–448 | Cite as

Distributed Cognition and Distributed Morality: Agency, Artifacts and Systems

  • Richard Heersmink
Original Paper

Abstract

There are various philosophical approaches and theories describing the intimate relation people have to artifacts. In this paper, I explore the relation between two such theories, namely distributed cognition and distributed morality theory. I point out a number of similarities and differences in these views regarding the ontological status they attribute to artifacts and the larger systems they are part of. Having evaluated and compared these views, I continue by focussing on the way cognitive artifacts are used in moral practice. I specifically conceptualise how such artifacts (a) scaffold and extend moral reasoning and decision-making processes, (b) have a certain moral status which is contingent on their cognitive status, and (c) whether responsibility can be attributed to distributed systems. This paper is primarily written for those interested in the intersection of cognitive and moral theory as it relates to artifacts, but also for those independently interested in philosophical debates in extended and distributed cognition and ethics of (cognitive) technology.

Keywords

Moral status of artifacts Moral agency Material agency Systems agency Neuroethics Responsibility Distributed moral cognition 

References

  1. Brey, P. (2014). From moral agents to moral factors: The structural ethics approach. In P. Kroes & P. P. Verbeek (Eds.), The moral status of technical artefacts (pp. 125–142). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coeckelbergh, M., & Wackers, G. (2007). Imagination, distributed responsibility and vulnerable technological systems: The case of Snorre A. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(2), 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies, M. (1991). Thinking like an engineer: The place of a code of ethics in the practice of a profession. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 20(2), 150–167.Google Scholar
  7. DeMarco, J., & Ford, P. (2014). Neuroethics and the ethical parity principle. Neuroethics, 7(3), 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Floridi, L. (2013). Distributed morality in an information society. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 727–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Floridi, L., & Sanders, J. (2004). On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machines, 14(3), 349–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giere, R. (2004). The problem of agency in scientific distributed cognitive systems. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(3), 759–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giere, R. (2006). The role of agency in distributed cognitive systems. Philosophy of Science, 73(5), 710–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanson, F. (2009). Beyond the skin bag: On the moral responsibility of extended agencies. Ethics and Information Technology, 11(1), 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harris, C., Keil, P., Sutton, J., & Barnier, A. (2010). Collaborative remembering: When can remembering with others be beneficial? In W. Christensen, E. Schier & J. Sutton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th conference of the Australasian Society for cognitive science (pp. 131–134).Google Scholar
  14. Heersmink, R. (2015). Dimensions of integration in embedded and extended cognitive systems. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 14(3), 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heersmink, R. (2016). Extended mind and cognitive enhancement: Moral aspects of cognitive artifacts. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. doi: 10.1007/s11097-015-9448-5.Google Scholar
  16. Himma, K. (2009). Artificial agency, consciousness, and the criteria for moral agency: What properties must an artificial agent have to be a moral agent? Ethics and Information Technology, 11(1), 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 7(2), 174–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hutchins, E. (2014). The cultural ecosystem of human cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 27(1), 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson, D. (2006). Computer systems: Moral entities but not moral agents. Ethics and Information Technology, 8(4), 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson, J., et al. (2013). The effects of note-taking and review on sensemaking and ethical decision making. Ethics and Behaviour, 23(4), 299–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaiser, M., Millar, K., Thorstensen, E., & Tomkins, S. (2007). Developing the ethical matrix as a decisions support framework: GM fish as a case study. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirsh, D. (2006). Distributed cognition: A methodological note. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(2), 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knappett, C., & Malafouris, L. (2008). Material and nonhuman agency: An introduction. In C. Knappett & L. Malafouris (Eds.), Material agency: Towards a non-anthropocentric approach (pp. ix–xix). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levy, N. (2007a). Rethinking neuroethics in the light of the extended mind thesis. American Journal of Bioethics, 7(9), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levy, N. (2007b). Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21 st century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ludwig, D. (2015). Extended cognition and the explosion of knowledge. Philosophical Psychology, 28(3), 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Magnani, L., & Bardone, E. (2008). Distributed morality: Externalizing ethical knowledge in technological artifacts. Foundations of Science, 13(1), 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malafouris, L. (2008). At the potter’s wheel: An argument for material agency. In C. Knappett & L. Malafouris (Eds.), Material agency: Towards a non-anthropocentric approach (pp. 19–36). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin, A., Bagdasarov, Z., & Connelly, S. (2015). The capacity for ethical decisions: The relationship between working memory and ethical decision making. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(2), 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Menary, R. (2007). Cognitive integration: Mind and cognition unbounded. London: Palgrave McMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Menary, R. (2010). Dimensions of mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(4), 561–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mepham, B. (2000). A framework for the ethical analysis of novel foods: The ethical matrix. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Michaelian, K. (2012). Is external memory memory? Biological memory and extended mind. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(3), 1154–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Michaelian, K., & Sutton, J. (2013). Distributed cognition and memory research: History and current directions. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peterson, M., & Spahn, A. (2011). Can technological artefacts be moral agents? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(3), 411–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rowlands, M. (1999). The body in mind: Understanding cognitive processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schulzke, M. (2013). Autonomous weapons and distributed responsibility. Philosophy and Technology, 26(2), 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smart, P., Heersmink, R., & Clowes, R. (2016). The cognitive ecology of the internet. In S. Cowley & F. Vallée-Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognition beyond the brain: Computation, interactivity and human artifice (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Søraker, J. (2007). The moral status of information and information technology: A relational theory of moral status. In S. Hongladarom & C. Ess (Eds.), Information technology ethics: Cultural perspectives (pp. 1–19). Hershey: Idea Group Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sterelny, K. (2010). Minds: Extended or scaffolded? Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(4), 465–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sutton, J. (2006). Distributed cognition: Domains and dimensions. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(2), 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sutton, J. (2010). Exograms and interdisciplinarity: History, the extended mind, and the civilizing process. In R. Menary (Ed.), the extended mind (pp. 189–225). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Verbeek, P. P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Verbeek, P. P. (2014). Some misunderstandings about the moral significance of technology. In P. Kroes & P. P. Verbeek (Eds.), The moral status of technical artefacts (pp. 75–88). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wheeler, M. (2010). In defense of extended functionalism. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind (pp. 245–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Wilson, R., & Clark, A. (2009). How to situate cognition: Letting nature take its course. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 55–77). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations