Blaming, Understanding and Justification

Magill, Kevin

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-2361-9_14

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In both cases it is not warranted to praise or blame the person for the outcome. Hence, since moral responsibility in this above elaborated view is related to reactive attitudes, which may have consequences for the well-being of an agent, the ascription of moral responsibility is only warranted if these reactive attitudes and their consequences are merited or deserved (see Zimmerman 1988 ; Wallace 1994 ; Watson 1996 ; Magill 2000 ; Eshleman 2008 ). This is usually translated into certain conditions that have to be met before it is fair to ascribe responsibility to someone.…”

Section: Three Perspectives For Ascribing Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility Ascriptions in Technology Development and Engineering: Three Perspectives

Doorn

2009

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decades increasing attention is paid to the topic of responsibility in technology development and engineering. The discussion of this topic is often guided by questions related to liability and blameworthiness. Recent discussions in engineering ethics call for a reconsideration of the traditional quest for responsibility. Rather than on alleged wrongdoing and blaming, the focus should shift to more socially responsible engineering, some authors argue. The present paper aims at exploring the different approaches to responsibility in order to see which one is most appropriate to apply to engineering and technology development. Using the example of the development of a new sewage water treatment technology, the paper shows how different approaches for ascribing responsibilities have different implications for engineering practice in general, and R&D or technological design in particular. It was found that there was a tension between the demands that follow from these different approaches, most notably between efficacy and fairness. Although the consequentialist approach with its efficacy criterion turned out to be most powerful, it was also shown that the fairness of responsibility ascriptions should somehow be taken into account. It is proposed to look for alternative, more procedural ways to approach the fairness of responsibility ascriptions.

show abstract

Section: Three Perspectives For Ascribing Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility Ascriptions in Technology Development and Engineering: Three Perspectives

Doorn

2009

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Responsibility-as-virtue: being a responsible person In the literature on moral responsibility, the discussion is often about the third sense of responsibility: responsibilityas-blameworthiness. Because moral responsibility, in this sense, is related to the reactions of praise and blame (Fischer & Ravizza, 1993;Miller, 2004;Strawson, 1974), the ascription of responsibility is only warranted if the person is an appropriate candidate for reactive attitudes, that is, if the accompanying reactive attitudes and their consequences are merited or deserved (see Eshleman, 2008;Magill, 2000;Wallace, 1994;Watson, 1996;Zimmerman, 1988). For this reason, responsibility is only ascribed when certain conditions are met.…”

Section: Holding Responsible Versus Assuming Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility in Engineering: Toward a New Role for Engineering Ethicists

Doorn

Fahlquist

2010

Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, the management of technology has focused on the stages before or after development of technology. In this approach the technology itself is conceived as the result of a deterministic enterprise; a result that is to be either rejected or embraced. However, recent insights from Science and Technology Studies (STS) have shown that there is ample room to modulate technology during development. This requires technology managers and engineering ethicists to become more involved in the technological research rather than assessing it from an outsider perspective. Instead of focusing on the question whether or not to authorize, approve, or adopt a certain technology or on the question of who is to blame for potential mistakes, the guiding question in this new approach is how research is to be carried out.

show abstract

Blaming, Understanding and Justification

Cited by 2 publications

References 3 publications

Responsibility Ascriptions in Technology Development and Engineering: Three Perspectives

Responsibility Ascriptions in Technology Development and Engineering: Three Perspectives

Responsibility in Engineering: Toward a New Role for Engineering Ethicists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About