Abstract
The first question of this study stressed that for dealing with the problem of whether we can take responsibility, it needs to become clear what it actually means to say that technologies play a social role. As clarified in Chap. 2, Actor Network Theory (ANT) teaches three important lessons: first, in exerting social power, the actions of humans and technologies are comparable. Second, the origin of action is dislocal, meaning that not just one human or technology determines the outcome, but that agency is the result of interactions between multiple humans and technologies. Third, the techno-social networks are constantly evolving as the human-technology associations are continuously formed, changed and broken off.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bentham, J. (1789/1996). Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. In J. H. Burns & H. L. A. Hart (Eds.), The collected works of Jeremy Bentham. London: Oxford University Press.
Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1992). Don’t throw the baby out with the bath school! A reply to Collins and Yearley. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 343–368). Chigaco: Chicago University Press.
Collins, H., & Kusch, M. (1998). The shape of actions: What humans and machines can do. Cambridge: MIT press.
Collins, H., & Yearley, S. (1992). Epistemological chicken. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 301–326). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Davidson, D. (1963). Actions, reasons, and causes. Philosophy, 60, 685–700.
Harbers, H. (1995). Van mensen en dingen, bespreking van Bruno Latour, Wij zijn nooit modern geweest. Krisis, tijdschrift voor filosofie, 15(1).
Hoeyer, K. (2006). Ethics wars: Reflections on the Antagonism between bioethicists and social science observers of biomedicine. Human Studies, 29, 203–227.
Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kant, I. (1785/1993). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. Hackett: Indianapolis (J. Ellington, Trans.).
Khong, L. (2003). Actants and enframing: Heidegger and Latour on technology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 34, 693–704.
Latour, B. (1987a). Hoe “de Heerser” te schrijven voor zowel machinaties als machines. Krisis, 7(26), 42–66.
Latour, B. (1987b). Science in action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1988). How to write “The Prince” for machines. In B. Eliot (Ed.), Technology and social change (pp. 20–43). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of the new mundane artefacts. In Shaping technology, building society. Cambridge: MIT-Press.
Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation: Philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common knowledge, 94(4), 29–64.
Latour, B. (1995a). De antropologisering van het wereldbeeld: een persoonlijk verslag. Krisis, 58, 29–37.
Latour, B. (1995b). A door must be either open or shut: A little philosophy of techniques. In A. Feenberg & A. Hannaway (Eds.), Technology, and the politics of knowledge (pp. 272–281). Indianapolis: Indiana University Press (C. Cussins, Trans).
Latour, B. (1996). Aramis or the love of technology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1999b). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2002). Morality and technology: The end of the means. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5/6), 247–260.
Latour, B. (2005a). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. (2005b). Van Realpolitik naar Dingpolitik. Krisis, 2, 40–61.
Lenk, H. (1993). Uber Verantwortungsbegriffe und das Verantwortungsproblem in der Ethik. In H. Lenk & G. Ropohl (Eds.), Technik und Ethik (2nd ed., pp. 112–148). Stuttgard: Reclam.
Lindeman, G. (2009). From Experimental Interaction to the Brain as the Epistemic Object of Neurobiology. Paper presented at the Artificial by Nature: IVth International Plessner Conference.
Mele, A. (2006). Action. In D. Borchert (Ed.), Encyclopedia of philosophy (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 14–22). Detroit, USA: Macmillan Reference.
Noorman, M. (2008). Limits to the autonomy of agents. In A. Briggle, K. Waelbers, & P. Brey (Eds.), Current issues in computing and philosophy. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Roeser, S. (2005). Defending moral intuition. In R. van Woudenberg, S. Roeser, & R. Rood (Eds.), Basic belief and basic knowledge: Papers in epistemology (pp. 231–250). Frankfurt: Ontos Verslag.
Ropohl, G. (1993). Neue Wege, die Technik zu verantworten. In H. Lenk & G. Ropohl (Eds.), Technik und Ethik (2nd ed., Vol. 8395, pp. 149–176). Stuttgart: Reclam.
Smith, A. (2003). Do you believe in ethics? Latour and Ihde in the trenches of the science wars (or: watch out, Latour, Ihde’s got a gun). In D. Ihde & E. Selinger (Eds.), Chasing technoscience: Matrix for materiality (pp. 182–194). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Swierstra, T. (1992). Latour de force. Kennis en methode, 1, 21–38.
Swierstra, T. (1995). Een koud bad. Krisis, tijdschrift voor filosofie, 15(1), 25–28.
Swierstra, T. (1999). Moeten artefacten moreel gerehabiliteerd? K&M - tijdschrift voor empirische filosofie, 4, 317–326.
Swierstra, T. (2000). Bruno Latour. In M. Doorman & H. Pott (Eds.), Filosofen van deze tijd (pp. 357–372). Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.
Swierstra, T., & Jelsma, J. (2005). Trapped in the duality of structure: An STS approach to engineering ethics. In H. Harbers (Ed.), Inside the politics of technology. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Swierstra, T., & Jelsma, J. (2006). Responsibility without moralism in technoscienfific design practice. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(3), 309–332.
Thomson, D. (1980). Moral responsibility of public officials: The problem of many hands. The American Political Science Review, 74(4), 905–916.
Turner, D., & Hartzell, L. (2004). The lack of clarity in the precautionary principle. Environmental Values, 13, 449–460.
Verbeek, P. (2005a). The morality of design: Some notes on the moral agency of artefacts, users and designers. Paper presented at the SPT 2005 Conference ‘Technology and designing’, Delft University of Technology.
Verbeek, P. (2005b). What things do – Philosophical reflections on technology, agency and design. Penn State: University Press.
Verbeek, P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(3), 361–380.
Verbeek, P. (2008a). Cultivating humanity: Towards a non-humanist ethics of technology’. In J.-K. B. Olsen, E. Selinger, & S. Riis (Eds.), New waves in philosophy of technology (pp. 241–266). Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
Waelbers, K. (2009a). From assigning to designing technological agency. Human Studies, 32(2), 241–250.
Waelbers, K. (2009b). Technological delegation: Responsibility for the unintended. Journal for Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 51–68.
Waelbers, K., Stafleu, F., & Brom, F. (2004). Not all animals are equal: Differences in moral foundations for the Dutch veterinary policy on livestock in nature reservations. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 17, 497–515.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Waelbers, K. (2011). Actor-Networks and Taking Responsibility. In: Doing Good with Technologies:. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1640-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1640-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1639-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1640-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)