How norms in technology ought to be interpreted

Onderzoeksoutput: Bijdrage aan tijdschriftTijdschriftartikelAcademicpeer review

Samenvatting

This paper defends the claim that there are — at least — two kinds of normativity in technological practice. The first concerns what engineers ought to do and the second concerns normative statements about artifacts. The claim is controversial, since the standard approach to normativity, namely normative realism, actually denies artifacts any kind of normativity; according to the normative realist, normativity applies exclusively to human agents. In other words, normative realists hold that only "human agent normativity" is a genuine form of normativity. I will argue that normative realism is mistaken on this point. I will mainly draw on material of Daniel Dennett and Philip Pettit to show that it makes sense to talk about artifactual normativity. We claim that this approach can also make sense of human agent normativity — or more specifically "engineer normativity". Moreover, it avoids some of the problems formulated by opponents of normative realism. Thus I will develop a strategy which: (i) makes sense of artifactual normativity; and (ii) makes sense
Originele taal-2Engels
Pagina's (van-tot)117-133
Aantal pagina's17
TijdschriftTechné
Volume10
Nummer van het tijdschrift1
StatusGepubliceerd - 2006

Vingerafdruk

Duik in de onderzoeksthema's van 'How norms in technology ought to be interpreted'. Samen vormen ze een unieke vingerafdruk.

Citeer dit