Experimental Philosophy of Technology

Kraaijeveld, Steven R.

doi:10.1007/s13347-021-00447-6

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, there is next to no experimental philosophy of technology (Kraaijeveld, 2021). There is, however, a small yet growing literature exploring how humans judge artificial agents (be they robots, or nonembodied AI-driven systems).…”

Section: Moral Judgment In Human-robot Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility Gaps and Retributive Dispositions: Evidence from the US, Japan and Germany

Kneer

Christen

2023

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Moral Judgment In Human-robot Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility Gaps and Retributive Dispositions: Evidence from the US, Japan and Germany

Kneer

Christen

2023

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We have just argued that voluntarily vouching for a robot-visibly and in advance of its deployment-is sufficient for assigning responsibility to a human in the event that the robot harms people. This blank check proposal, which was originally conceived for military contexts (Champagne & Tonkens, 2015), has received a lot of attention (see most recently Kiener, 2022; as well as Behdadi &, Munthe, 2020;Bernáth, 2021;Cernea, 2017;Chandler, 2018;Chomanski, 2021;Di Nucci, 2018;Gerdes, 2018;Hew, 2014;Köhler et al, 2018;Kraaijeveld, 2021;Kühler, 2020;Lima et al, 2021;Oimann, 2023;Restivo, 2017;Royakkers & Olsthoorn, 2018;Smith & Vickers, 2021;Taddeo & Blanchard, 2022;Tigard, 2021a;Tollon, 2021). However, Stenseke has recently expressed worries that, because the people involved in these debates often come from different fields, differing disciplinary assumptions "can serve to cement incommensurable visions and perspectives of the near-and long-term challenges of AI" (2022a, p. 2).…”

Section: Mapping and Evaluating Five Possible Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative Defense of Self-initiated Prospective Moral Answerability for Autonomous Robot harm

Champagne

Tonkens

2023

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As artificial intelligence becomes more sophisticated and robots approach autonomous decision-making, debates about how to assign moral responsibility have gained importance, urgency, and sophistication. Answering Stenseke's (2022a) call for scaffolds that can help us classify views and commitments, we think the current debate space can be represented hierarchically, as answers to key questions. We use the resulting taxonomy of five stances to differentiate-and defend-what is known as the "blank check" proposal. According to this proposal, a person activating a robot could willingly make themselves answerable for whatever events ensue, even if those events stem from the robot's autonomous decision(s). This blank check solution was originally proposed in the context of automated warfare (Champagne & Tonkens, 2015), but we extend it to cover all robots. We argue that, because moral answerability in the blank check is accepted voluntarily and before bad outcomes are known, it proves superior to alternative ways of assigning blame. We end by highlighting how, in addition to being just, this self-initiated and prospective moral answerability for robot harm provides deterrence that the four other stances cannot match.

show abstract

“… 13 A potentially fruitful way of studying (mis)moralization and technology would be through an experimental philosophical approach (see Kraaijeveld 2021c ). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Moralization and Mismoralization in Public Health

Kraaijeveld

Jamrozik

2022

Med Health Care and Philos

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moralization is a social-psychological process through which morally neutral issues take on moral significance. Often linked to health and disease, moralization may sometimes lead to good outcomes; yet moralization is often detrimental to individuals and to society as a whole. It is therefore important to be able to identify when moralization is inappropriate. In this paper, we offer a systematic normative approach to the evaluation of moralization. We introduce and develop the concept of ‘mismoralization’, which is when moralization is metaethically unjustified. In order to identify mismoralization, we argue that one must engage in metaethical analysis of moralization processes while paying close attention to the relevant facts. We briefly discuss one historical example (tuberculosis) and two contemporary cases related to COVID-19 (infection and vaccination status) that we contend to have been mismoralized in public health. We propose a remedy of de-moralization that begins by identifying mismoralization and that proceeds by neutralizing inapt moral content. De-moralization calls for epistemic and moral humility. It should lead us to pull away from our tendency to moralize—as individuals and as social groups—whenever and wherever moralization is unjustified.

show abstract

Experimental Philosophy of Technology

Cited by 12 publications

References 62 publications

Responsibility Gaps and Retributive Dispositions: Evidence from the US, Japan and Germany

Responsibility Gaps and Retributive Dispositions: Evidence from the US, Japan and Germany

A Comparative Defense of Self-initiated Prospective Moral Answerability for Autonomous Robot harm

Moralization and Mismoralization in Public Health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About