Intro to a Philosophy of Technology- Hans Jonas LYKE OMG
Continued...
Ethics of Technology, putting self interests aside for the common good (possible for the future?) You need to think long-term in order to evaluate and take control of technological development. Giving priority to long-term thinking becomes incredibly difficult (for example, forget environment people want jobs now!) Plato adopts idea of the 'Philosophy King', who is the most fit to rule the people? He concludes the philosopher is the most fit, because he has as his/her aim/goal purpose a knowledge of the good (while others like to secure interests of some minor group, but philosopher will use power for advancement of the good) Thus, a philosopher must become a king, or king become a philosopher. Philosopher is justified in createing 'noble lies' (telling stories that appease people, make them feel good about themselves/lives etc.) If you're going to sell the idea we need to think ecologically (long-term) you need good public relations (in political parties these techniques are still used for ex. Anti-Dion Ads from Conservative Party) Pretty much manipulation by the advertising industry (it happens all the time.. and do we mind it? We don't even notice most of the time) Unholy alliances, perhaps conspiracy! People seemed to be moved more closely to whats more proximate to them (If you want to move people to donate to a charity, one way to go is to provide a whole list of statistics * this amount die everyday, but this doesn't work peopel simply say oh that's horrible, it is easier to show one image to promote cause, because it is more resonating to people than abstract numbers because they are too detached, thus reason/truth doesn't persuade people as much) Jonas would argue that people's autonomy isn't respected, they need to be/are often pushed along because it is hard to trust people to make the right decisions (pretty much a form of coercion) The philosopher has to try and be optomositic although it might be a hopeless task.
Jumping ahead, Technology and Responsibility (a more detailed assessment of ethical problems we have to face)
1)What we call the human conditions is something permanent, stable, eternal, fixed, with variations across history of a same substantial condition. Really it is a kind of essentialism.
2)The nature of humans and nature was given once and for all (that they don't evolve, have a fixed character)
3)Human good on that basis was readily determinable. (because we are fixed, the idea we can have knowledge of what the human good is is a standard/straightforward thing) Ex. Aristotle, what establishes humans for animals is there reason, and what the good is for (happiness) To live a happy life you need to achieve a level of moral excellence, and live virtuous. You need to have a thirst for knowledge (contemplation) This is when human beings become closest to being divine. John Stewart Mill, Utilitarianism, no fixed human nature, it is something constantly transformed and modified, and because of this we can't say anymore what the human good is and it is something fundamentally elusive. Since we are unable to know what the good is, it changes everything. "It will be the burdon of my argument, that these (3) will no longer hold. A change for human ethics calls for a change for human nature as well! Emmanuel Kant, "Ought implies can" This means you can only be held morally responsible for the actions you take, (For ex what happened 1066 isn't our moral responsibility). Prof. Rose says responsibility is proportionate to power. Hans Jonas claims 'Technology is Power' Thus our sphere of responsibility has extended because of philosophy. Traditional ethics was that our responsibilities were limited to what individually we were obligated to do. Because of the power of technology, it is no longer our neighbour to be concerned with.. but the whole new scale (even what we buy.. has some moral responbility)Sophycles - Classical world, nature had an appointed balance. Human beings were in a bubble, where they did many things others couldn't but they were limited in a classical view. A principle of justice will put you back in your place, while in modern view everything becomes for human purpose and the bubble changes. Best thing to do is forcus on city-states. Nature has its own rules/principles while humans have theirs, although they are limited by this bubble. Classical mentality is variations on the fixed human being. Responsibility was limited to the sphere of the city, humans didn't have to take responsibility on nature, it was like affecting the Gods. Relationship to Ulysses/cleverness was relationship to nature. Traditional ethics are highly anthropocentric( human centred) Because of the role of technology, the context of our responsibility has dramatically shifted... anthroprocentric ways don't work anymore. Serres says human beings have met a point where we have become another force of nature (ex what you see from space at night (lights etc), you see power that has reached such a high impact..) Stop pg. 235
Ethics of Technology, putting self interests aside for the common good (possible for the future?) You need to think long-term in order to evaluate and take control of technological development. Giving priority to long-term thinking becomes incredibly difficult (for example, forget environment people want jobs now!) Plato adopts idea of the 'Philosophy King', who is the most fit to rule the people? He concludes the philosopher is the most fit, because he has as his/her aim/goal purpose a knowledge of the good (while others like to secure interests of some minor group, but philosopher will use power for advancement of the good) Thus, a philosopher must become a king, or king become a philosopher. Philosopher is justified in createing 'noble lies' (telling stories that appease people, make them feel good about themselves/lives etc.) If you're going to sell the idea we need to think ecologically (long-term) you need good public relations (in political parties these techniques are still used for ex. Anti-Dion Ads from Conservative Party) Pretty much manipulation by the advertising industry (it happens all the time.. and do we mind it? We don't even notice most of the time) Unholy alliances, perhaps conspiracy! People seemed to be moved more closely to whats more proximate to them (If you want to move people to donate to a charity, one way to go is to provide a whole list of statistics * this amount die everyday, but this doesn't work peopel simply say oh that's horrible, it is easier to show one image to promote cause, because it is more resonating to people than abstract numbers because they are too detached, thus reason/truth doesn't persuade people as much) Jonas would argue that people's autonomy isn't respected, they need to be/are often pushed along because it is hard to trust people to make the right decisions (pretty much a form of coercion) The philosopher has to try and be optomositic although it might be a hopeless task.
Jumping ahead, Technology and Responsibility (a more detailed assessment of ethical problems we have to face)
1)What we call the human conditions is something permanent, stable, eternal, fixed, with variations across history of a same substantial condition. Really it is a kind of essentialism.
2)The nature of humans and nature was given once and for all (that they don't evolve, have a fixed character)
3)Human good on that basis was readily determinable. (because we are fixed, the idea we can have knowledge of what the human good is is a standard/straightforward thing) Ex. Aristotle, what establishes humans for animals is there reason, and what the good is for (happiness) To live a happy life you need to achieve a level of moral excellence, and live virtuous. You need to have a thirst for knowledge (contemplation) This is when human beings become closest to being divine. John Stewart Mill, Utilitarianism, no fixed human nature, it is something constantly transformed and modified, and because of this we can't say anymore what the human good is and it is something fundamentally elusive. Since we are unable to know what the good is, it changes everything. "It will be the burdon of my argument, that these (3) will no longer hold. A change for human ethics calls for a change for human nature as well! Emmanuel Kant, "Ought implies can" This means you can only be held morally responsible for the actions you take, (For ex what happened 1066 isn't our moral responsibility). Prof. Rose says responsibility is proportionate to power. Hans Jonas claims 'Technology is Power' Thus our sphere of responsibility has extended because of philosophy. Traditional ethics was that our responsibilities were limited to what individually we were obligated to do. Because of the power of technology, it is no longer our neighbour to be concerned with.. but the whole new scale (even what we buy.. has some moral responbility)Sophycles - Classical world, nature had an appointed balance. Human beings were in a bubble, where they did many things others couldn't but they were limited in a classical view. A principle of justice will put you back in your place, while in modern view everything becomes for human purpose and the bubble changes. Best thing to do is forcus on city-states. Nature has its own rules/principles while humans have theirs, although they are limited by this bubble. Classical mentality is variations on the fixed human being. Responsibility was limited to the sphere of the city, humans didn't have to take responsibility on nature, it was like affecting the Gods. Relationship to Ulysses/cleverness was relationship to nature. Traditional ethics are highly anthropocentric( human centred) Because of the role of technology, the context of our responsibility has dramatically shifted... anthroprocentric ways don't work anymore. Serres says human beings have met a point where we have become another force of nature (ex what you see from space at night (lights etc), you see power that has reached such a high impact..) Stop pg. 235