Design Culture and Acceptable Risk

  • Kiyotaka Naoe

Technological design is usually considered as a process of stipulating target functions. Technological artifacts are, however, not determined entirely by the intent of the engineers who designed them: they unavoidably contain unpredictable and uncertain characters that transcend engineers’ intent, and they cannot be understood purely from a functionalist perspective. In aviation, for example, the smooth implementation of a flight is ensured by a system that includes pilots interacting with each other and with a suite of technological devices. Emphasizing the human aspect of technological designs, this article presents a theoretical framework that takes socio-cultural aspects of technology as the primary for a philosophical, ethical analysis. An analysis of the acceptability of risks shows that the reliability of a technology is determined by the reliability of the technological decisions, eventually the existence of a reliable technological culture. So the task of the ethics of risks is to provide ways to reform our technology culture.

Keywords

Transportation Expense Posit Metaphor Ethos 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bainbridge, L., 1987, Ironies of automation, in: New Technology and Human Error, J. Rasmussen, K. Duncan, and J. Leplat, eds., Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  2. Birsch, D., 1994, Product safety, cost‐benefit‐analysis, and the Ford Pinto case, in: The Ford Pinto Case, D. Birsch and J. H. Fielder, eds., SUNY Press, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
  3. Cassirer, E., 1985, Form und Technik, in: Symbol, Technik, Sprache, W. Orth, ed., Felix Meiner, Verlag, Hamburg (originally published in 1933).Google Scholar
  4. Collins, H., and Pinch, T., 1998, The Golem at Large, Cambridge UP, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, M., 1989, Explaining wrongdoing, J. of Social Phil. 20(1&2):74-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De George, R. T., 1994, Ethical responsibilities of engineers in large organizations: The Pinto case, in: The Ford Pinto Case, D. Birsch and J. H. Fielder, eds., SUNY Press, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
  7. Ferguson, E. S., 1992, Engineering and the Mind's Eye, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Harris, C., Pritchard, M., and Rabins, M., 1995, Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Hutchins, E., 1995, How a cockpit remember its speed?, Cogn. Sci. 19(2):265-283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ihde, D., 1999, Technology and prognostic predicaments, AI & Soc. 13:44-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Norman, D. A., 1993, Things that Make us Smart, Perseus Books, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Renn, O., Jaeger, C. C., Rosa, E. A., and Webler, T., 2001, The rational actor paradigm in risk theories, in: Risk in the Modern Age, M. J. Cohen, ed., Palgrave, London.Google Scholar
  13. Reason, J., 1997, Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents, Ashgate, Hampshire.Google Scholar
  14. Saito, N., 2005, What is Techno‐Literacy? (in Japanese), Kodansha, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  15. Schutz, A., 1970, Reflections on the Problem of Relevance, R. M. Zaner, ed., Yale UP, New Haven.Google Scholar
  16. Shrader‐Frechette, K., 1994, Ethics of Scientific Research, Rowman & Littlefield, Boston.Google Scholar
  17. Tenner, E., 1996, Why Things Bite Back, Vintage Books, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Velasquez, M. G., 2005, The ethics of consumer production, in: Business Ethics, Vol. 3, F. Allhoff and A. Vaidya, eds., SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  19. Vaughan, D., 1996, The Challenger Launch Decision, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  20. Winner, L., 1986, The Whale and the Reactor, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kiyotaka Naoe
    • 1
  1. 1.Tohoku UniversityJapan

Personalised recommendations