technology
philosophy
The moral question concerning technology
Founder, Wingify
Founder, Ralston College
1
0
Genesis
Response
Penultimate
Finale
October 26th, 2021
Many thinkers argue that technology has made our world a better place. They point to important statistics (such as life expectancy and per capita income) that have seen incredible improvements in the last century.
Other thinkers, however, argue exactly the opposite. While acknowledging the benefits of technology, they consider its negatives to far outweigh the positives. We all know what they highlight - climate change, biodiversity loss, increased surveillance, nuclear war threat, and pandemics.
The fact that we have equally bright thinkers taking polar opposite sides indicates that we need to look at this issue from a different angle. Perhaps the question that we need to debate isn't whether technological progress is a good thing or not, but rather what exactly do we mean by "good" in the context of our society?
If we first don't debate and settle on a collective vision for a moral and fair society, how do we even decide whether the technology that we're inventing is helping us progress or not?
This lack of consensus about morality is the fundamental reason that people have differing views on technology's role in our society. Having everyone agree on the specifics is going to be difficult, but at least we can advocate for a meta-ethical consensus on the fundamental principles that help judge specific moral situations. For example, my personal moral framework considers the reduction in suffering as the primary vector for moral progress. I focus on suffering because while happiness is transient due to hedonic adaptation, suffering and pain are longer lasting (ask anyone suffering from poverty or chronic migraines). I also define suffering broadly so that it includes all conscious beings capable of feeling suffering (science currently includes humans, mammals, birds, fish, and even insects).
I don't expect everyone to agree with my particular moral framework. But if we have individuals or groups of people write down their own moral frameworks, a clear set of non-negotiables (such as no slavery of any conscious being) can emerge that ultimately demarcate the boundary between what is morally good and what is not.
Then, rather than debating post facto whether a new technology is good or bad, we can use our moral framework to guide us on which areas need us to advance our technology. Governments can provide incentives for making technological progress in those specific dimensions while making sure non-negotiables are truly off-limits (via legal enforcement or trade sanctions).
I'm arguing for a shift in focus away from technology and towards defining moral dimensions because innovation is the only way we will eliminate evolution-powered suffering for conscious beings.
Nature is brutal. The answer to our woes is not giving up on technology. We need our penicillins and internet browsers. We also don't want people who don't understand technology to regulate it as that kills the incentive to invent and innovate.
The slogan I'm advocating for is this: debate morality, define vectors of progress, incentivize innovation, and regulate the non-negotiables.
0 Comments
Follow Us
