Waarom ‘Pokémon Go als goed of fout’ bestempelen de echte vraag mist

Shannon Vallor, hoogleraar ethiek voor emerging technology, beschrijft in haar nieuwste boek ‘Technology and the Virtues: A Philosophical Guide to a Future Worth Wanting’ (2016) dat het échte probleem bij snel opkomende tech is, dat ze niet zo makkelijk te beoordelen is als goed/fout.

goedfout

Emerging technology presenteert ons namelijk met 1. nieuwe problemen van collectieve moraliteit, 2. hebben evenveel of zelfs meer impact op toekomstige personen, groepen en systemen dan op de huidige stakeholders en 3. hebben consequenties die vanuit de huidige technologie en ontwikkeling uit het verleden niet te voorspellen zijn: waar de technologie zich naartoe ontwikkeld is nog mistig.

“But notice that it does not actually help things to reform our questions in action-terms such as, “Is tweeting wrong?” or “Is it wrong to develop a social robot?” The asymmetry is of a different nature. It is not even that one set of problems involves technology and another does not; after all, technology is heavily implicated in modern practices of abortion and capital punishment. The problem is that emerging technologies like social networking software, social robotics, global surveillance networks, and biomedical human enhancement are not yet sufficiently developed to be assignable to specific practices with clear consequences for definite stakeholders. They present open developmental possibilities for human culture as a whole, rather than fixed options from which to choose. The kind of deliberation they require, then, is entirely different from the kind of deliberation involved in the former set of problems.”

 

“Yet it remains the case that very often, the answers for which questions about emerging technology beg are simply not of the ‘yes/no’ or ‘right/wrong’ sort. Instead, they are questions of this sort: ‘How might interacting with social robots help, hurt, or change us?’; ‘What can tweeting do to, or for, our capacities to enjoy and benefit from information and discourse?’; ‘What would count as a ‘better,’ ‘enhanced’ human being?’”