Cargando…

Tragic Choices and the Virtue of Techno-Responsibility Gaps

There is a concern that the widespread deployment of autonomous machines will open up a number of ‘responsibility gaps’ throughout society. Various articulations of such techno-responsibility gaps have been proposed over the years, along with several potential solutions. Most of these solutions focu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Danaher, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8967079/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35378903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00519-1
_version_ 1784678762207510528
author Danaher, John
author_facet Danaher, John
author_sort Danaher, John
collection PubMed
description There is a concern that the widespread deployment of autonomous machines will open up a number of ‘responsibility gaps’ throughout society. Various articulations of such techno-responsibility gaps have been proposed over the years, along with several potential solutions. Most of these solutions focus on ‘plugging’ or ‘dissolving’ the gaps. This paper offers an alternative perspective. It argues that techno-responsibility gaps are, sometimes, to be welcomed and that one of the advantages of autonomous machines is that they enable us to embrace certain kinds of responsibility gap. The argument is based on the idea that human morality is often tragic. We frequently confront situations in which competing moral considerations pull in different directions and it is impossible to perfectly balance these considerations. This heightens the burden of responsibility associated with our choices. We cope with the tragedy of moral choice in different ways. Sometimes we delude ourselves into thinking the choices we make were not tragic (illusionism); sometimes we delegate the tragic choice to others (delegation); sometimes we make the choice ourselves and bear the psychological consequences (responsibilisation). Each of these strategies has its benefits and costs. One potential advantage of autonomous machines is that they enable a reduced cost form of delegation. However, we only gain the advantage of this reduced cost if we accept that some techno-responsibility gaps are virtuous.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8967079
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89670792022-03-31 Tragic Choices and the Virtue of Techno-Responsibility Gaps Danaher, John Philos Technol Research Article There is a concern that the widespread deployment of autonomous machines will open up a number of ‘responsibility gaps’ throughout society. Various articulations of such techno-responsibility gaps have been proposed over the years, along with several potential solutions. Most of these solutions focus on ‘plugging’ or ‘dissolving’ the gaps. This paper offers an alternative perspective. It argues that techno-responsibility gaps are, sometimes, to be welcomed and that one of the advantages of autonomous machines is that they enable us to embrace certain kinds of responsibility gap. The argument is based on the idea that human morality is often tragic. We frequently confront situations in which competing moral considerations pull in different directions and it is impossible to perfectly balance these considerations. This heightens the burden of responsibility associated with our choices. We cope with the tragedy of moral choice in different ways. Sometimes we delude ourselves into thinking the choices we make were not tragic (illusionism); sometimes we delegate the tragic choice to others (delegation); sometimes we make the choice ourselves and bear the psychological consequences (responsibilisation). Each of these strategies has its benefits and costs. One potential advantage of autonomous machines is that they enable a reduced cost form of delegation. However, we only gain the advantage of this reduced cost if we accept that some techno-responsibility gaps are virtuous. Springer Netherlands 2022-03-30 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8967079/ /pubmed/35378903 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00519-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research Article
Danaher, John
Tragic Choices and the Virtue of Techno-Responsibility Gaps
title Tragic Choices and the Virtue of Techno-Responsibility Gaps
title_full Tragic Choices and the Virtue of Techno-Responsibility Gaps
title_fullStr Tragic Choices and the Virtue of Techno-Responsibility Gaps
title_full_unstemmed Tragic Choices and the Virtue of Techno-Responsibility Gaps
title_short Tragic Choices and the Virtue of Techno-Responsibility Gaps
title_sort tragic choices and the virtue of techno-responsibility gaps
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8967079/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35378903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00519-1
work_keys_str_mv AT danaherjohn tragicchoicesandthevirtueoftechnoresponsibilitygaps