Advertisement

Ethical Implications Regarding Assistive Technology at Workplaces

  • Hauke Behrendt
  • Markus Funk
  • Oliver Korn
Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 122)

Abstract

It is the purpose of this paper to address ethical issues concerning the development and application of Assistive Technology at Workplaces (ATW). We shall give a concrete technical concept how such technology might be constructed and propose eight technical functions it should adopt in order to serve its purpose. Then, we discuss the normative questions why one should use ATW, and by what means. We argue that ATW is good to the extent that it ensures social inclusion and consider four normative domains in which its worth might consists in. In addition, we insist that ATW must satisfy two requirements of good workplaces, which we specify as (a) an exploitation restraint and (b) a duty of care.

Keywords

Social inclusion Assistive systems at the workplace Ethics of technology Work ethics Impaired persons Human-computer interaction 

References

  1. Arendt, Hannah. 1998. The human condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aristotle. 2011. Nicomachean ethics. Trans. Robert C. Bartlett and Susan D. Collins. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bay, Herbert, Tuytelaars Tinne, and Gool Luc Van. 2006. Surf: Speeded up robust features. In Computer vision–ECCV 2006, 404–417. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bieker, Rudolf. 2005. Individuelle Funktionen und Potenziale der Arbeitsintegration. In Teilhabe am Arbeitsleben, ed. Rudolf Bieker, 12–24. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  5. Blakemore, Sarah-Jayne, and Suparna Choudhury. 2006. Development of the adolescent brain: Implications for executive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47(3): 296–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanke, Ulf, Bernd Schiele, Matthias Kreil, Paul Lukowicz, Bernard Sick, and Thiemo Gruber. 2010. All for one or one for all? Combining heterogeneous features for activity spotting. In Proceedings of the IEEE PerCom workshop on context modeling and reasoning, 18–24. Mannheim: IEEE.Google Scholar
  7. Blesinger, Berit. 2005. Persönliche Assistenz am Arbeitsplatz. In Teilhabe am Arbeitsleben, ed. Rudolf Bieker, 282–285. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  8. Bude, Heinz, and Andreas Willisch (eds.). 2008. Exklusion. Die Debatte über die Überflüssigen. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  9. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), BGBl. III 155/2008. http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
  10. Darwall, Stephan. 2013. Morality’s distinctiveness. In Morality, authority, & law, 3–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forst, Rainer. 2012. Toleration in conflict. Past and present. Trans. Ciaran Cronin. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Frehe, Horst. 2005. Das arbeitsrechtliche Verbot der Diskriminierung behinderter Menschen. In Teilhabe am Arbeitsleben, ed. Rudolf Bieker, 62–80. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  13. Funk, Markus, Oliver Korn, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2014. An augmented workplace for enabling user-defined tangibles. In CHI’14 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, 1285–1290. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  14. Gosepath, Stefan. 2004. Gleiche Gerechtigkeit. Grundlagen eines liberalen Egalitarismus. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  15. Griffin, James. 1986. Well-being: Its meaning, measurement and moral importance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Trans. William Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hardy, John, and Jason Alexander. 2012. Toolkit support for interactive projected displays. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia, 42. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  18. Hayek, Friedrich August. 1944. The road to selfdom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Heines, Hartmut. 2005. Teilhabe am Arbeitsleben – Sozialrechtliche Leitlininien, Leistungsträger, Förderinstrumente. In Teilhabe am Arbeitsleben, ed. Rudolf Bieker, 44–61. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  20. Höffe, Ottfied. 2006. Lebenskunst und moral. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  21. Honneth, Axel. 1992. Kampf um Anerkennung. Zur moralischen Grammatik sozialer Konflikte. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  22. Honneth, Axel. 2008. Arbeit und Anerkennung. Versuch einer Neubestimmung. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 56(3): 327–341.Google Scholar
  23. Honneth, Axel. 2011. Das Recht der Freiheit. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  24. Hurka, Thomas. 1993. Perfectionism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Joiko, Karin, Schmauder Martin, and Wolff Gertrud. 2006. In Psychische Belastung und Beanspruchung im Berufsleben, ed. Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin. Bönen/Westphalen: Kettler.Google Scholar
  26. Kagan, Shelly. 1998. Normative ethics. Oxford: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kambartel, Friedrich. 1993. Arbeit und Praxis. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 41(2): 239–249.Google Scholar
  28. Kant, Immanuel. 2002. Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals (ed. and trans. Allen W. Wood). New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kolodny, Niko, and John Brunero. 2013. Instrumental rationality. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/rationality-instrumental/. Accessed 15 Sept 2014.
  30. Korn, Oliver, Albrecht Schmidt, and Thomas Hörz. 2012. Assistive systems in production environments: exploring motion recognition and gamification. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on pervasive technologies related to assistive environments, 9. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  31. Korn, Oliver, Albrecht Schmidt, and Thomas Hörz. 2013. The potentials of in-situ-projection for augmented workplaces in production. A study with impaired persons. In CHI ’13 proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 979–984. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  32. Korn, Oliver, Markus Funk, Stephan Abele, Thomas Hörz, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2014. Context-aware assistive systems at the workplace. Analyzing the effects of projection and gamification. In PETRA’14 Proceedings of the 7th international conference on pervasive technologies related to assistive environments. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  33. Mead, Herbert. 1934. In Mind, self, and society, ed. Charles W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Moore, George Edward. 1993. In Principia ethica, ed. T. Baldwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  36. Nussbaum, Martha. 2006. Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and persons. New York: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  38. Parfit, Derek. 2011. On what matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rawls, John. 1999a. Two concepts of rules. In Collected papers, ed. Samuel Freeman, 20–46. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rawls, John. 1999b. Distributive justice: Some Addenda. In Collected papers, ed. Samuel Freeman, 154–175. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sauer, Dieter. 2011. Von der “Humanisierung der Arbeit” zur “Guten Arbeit”. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 15: 18–24.Google Scholar
  44. Scanlon, Thomas. 1998. What we owe to each other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Schlothfeldt, Stephan. 1999. Erwerbsarbeitslosigkeit als sozialethisches Problem. Freibung/München: Alber.Google Scholar
  46. Schmelzle, Cord. 2012. Zum Begriff politischer Legitimität. Leviathan 27: 419–435.Google Scholar
  47. Schulze, Marianne. 2011. Menschenrechte für alle: Die Konvention über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderung. In Menschenrechte – Integration – Inklusion. Aktuelle Perspektiven aus der Forschung, ed. Petra Flieger and Volker Schönwiese, 11–26. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
  48. Sennett, Richard. 2008. The craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Smith, Adam. 1976. In An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, ed. Roy H. Campbell and Andrew S. Skinner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Stahl, Titus. 2013. Immanente Kritik. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  51. Steinfath, Holmer (ed.). 1998. Was ist ein gutes Leben? Philosophische Reflexionen. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  52. Wenar, Leif. 2005. The nature of rights. Philosophy & Public Affairs 33(3): 223–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Williams, Bernard. 1972. Morality: An introduction to ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Visualization and Interactive Systems (VIS)University of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations