The Philosophy of Technology
1) What is Philosophy of Technology?
The philosophy of technology is a branch of philosophy that focuses on the nature of technology and its social implications. Technology-related issues have been the subject of philosophical debate since the very beginning of Western philosophy. Technology of philosophy has several branches, some of which concentrate on the political implications of technology, the ethics of technology, the relationships between science and technology, or the relationships between people and technology.
In the second half of the 19th century, philosophy of technology evolved as a distinct area of philosophical study. It now encompasses as many viewpoints as there are philosophical traditions. Some are more “applied,” while others are more “theoretical.” Some concentrate more on theorising and assessing the social and cultural aspects of technology. Some of them concentrate more on honing the concepts with which we can understand technology. The field had a “empirical turn” in the final decades of the 20th century. Instead of examining “technology” as a general phenomena, it redirected its attention to researching real technologies in depth in connection to the sciences, to people, and to society.
Philosophy of technology began using current technologies as a starting point for philosophical inquiry as opposed to creating ideas about technology in general. Technologies put philosophical ideas and theories to the test. Our conceptions of ethics are put to the test when, for example, medical diagnostic technology are used in our ethical choices. Is ethics something that only humans can do, or can technologies play a role in ethics?
2) Ethics of technology:
Technology ethics is the application of moral principles to real-world technological issues. Technology ethics are becoming increasingly important because new technologies provide us greater freedom to act, which forces us to make decisions we didn’t have to previously. With so much technical power, we must learn to be deliberately restricted by our judgment—ourethics—instead of being involuntarily constrained by our frailty as in the past.
For instance, advances in the fields of medicine, communications, and weapons technology have given rise to a number of new ethical issues over the last few decades. In the past, there was no need for brain death criteria because we lacked the technological capacity to even consider the possibility that a person already has passed away when their brain ceases to function.
But as artificial methods for sustaining circulation and breathing emerged, this issue became more important. The recent issues with fake news show how easily things can go wrong on social media if malicious actors have access to the general public. In a similar vein, we are still learning how to act when we have access to so many people and so much information.
Similar to nuclear weapons, before their invention we didn’t need to ask how to prevent a nuclear war that would destroy civilization because it was simply not possible. However, once those weapons were invented we did need to ask that question and provide an answer because we were – and still are – at risk for a global catastrophe.We should consider whether we believe that these changes are worthwhile because we do have a choice in the technology we create and rely upon.
These changes undoubtedly carry some significant hazards. Laws, rules, and other agreements can be used to control our technological advancements. We should be asking the following profoundly ethical concerns about new technologies: What should we be doing with these capacities now that we have developed them? What are we attempting to accomplish? How can technology either benefit or damage people? What does a decent, complete life entail? We must assess what is right and wrong, good and evil, as we attempt to navigate this new environment.
People are investigating technology fields like artificial intelligence as an example in order to understand the world better. In a sense, AI has an ethical component that is intrinsically ethical because we want to make sense of the world so that we can make better decisions.
However, we must be careful not to confuse efficiency with morality in this case. Just because something is more efficient does not imply that it is ethically superior, even though efficiency frequently has a significant positive impact on mankind. People can create weapons that are more effective at killing people and destroying things, for instance, but it does not imply that they are good or that they will be used for good. Whether a weapon is ever used or not, it will ultimately reflect some sort of harm to the general good (because its cost could have been spent on something better).
Going back to AI, many businesses are investigating it for a purpose that may not be the ideal one for everyone. Whether it’s bettering advertising or making sense of huge datasets, they’re looking for anything worthwhile. However, is that really the best application for the technology? Could we potentially use technology to address social problems like the best way to organise an economy or how to enhance human flourishing? There are many beneficial applications of AI, but are we really aiming for these applications or are we striving for inferior goods?
In addition, we are now so strong that we not only have the capacity to kill ourselves but also to alter ourselves. We can choose to genetically alter humans using CRISPR and synthetic biology, and we can alter how we think and operate by implanting biomedical devices in our bodies and brains. The majority of medical treatments are currently performed for therapeutic purposes, but in the future, we’ll also need to think about augmentation. We could even be able to change human nature at some point. That is a huge power, one that needs to be paired with thoughtful consideration of ethical concepts like respect for others, justice, and the common good. We need to resist the temptation to abuse authority without regard for morality more than ever. Being strong without goodness makes one unsafe and capable of doing incredibly bad things. Such a destructive force may even self-destruct, possibly taking countless innocent lives along with it.
Technology ethics will persist as long as there is technological advancement; in fact, the significance of these issues will only increase. We shall decide what kind of future we create as we proceed down this path into the future together. If we want to live in a better future rather than a terrible one, we must pay increasing attention to ethics in light of our expanding technological might.
3) Heidegger’s position on technology:
The idea that technology is “a means to an end” or “a human activity” is something that Heidegger firmly rejects. These two definitional approaches, which Heidegger refers to as “instrumental” and “anthropological,” respectively, are “right,” but, in his words, they are not yet “true.” Heidegger emphasises that while technological items are unquestionably tools for achieving specific goals and are created and maintained by people, the true nature of technology is something altogether else. Heidegger notes that just as the essence of a tree is not a tree itself, so is the essence of technology anything but technological.
If technology is neither a means to an end nor a human activity, what is it then? Heidegger argues that technology must be viewed as “a way of revealing” (Heidegger 1977, 12). One of the words Heidegger created himself, “revealing,” allows us to think about things that, in his opinion, can no longer be thought about. Alètheuein, which means “to discover” or “to expose what was covered over,” is the Greek term he used to translate it. The independent noun alètheia, which is related to this verb, is typically rendered as “truth,” while Heidegger maintains that “un-concealment” would be a more accurate translation.”Reality” is not something that people can ever know to be all-encompassing; rather, it is relative in the strictest meaning of the word, existing only through relationships. As a result, humans cannot access reality “in itself.” It ceases to be “in itself” once we notice or attempt to understand it and becomes “reality for us.”
All of our perceptions, thoughts, and interactions “emerge out of concealment into unconcealment,” as Heidegger put it, as a result. Reality is “revealed” in a particular way by entering into a certain relation with it. And this is where technology enters the picture, as it is the method of revelation that best represents our period. Technology represents a particular way of revealing the world in which humans exert control over reality. As Heidegger explains through analysing old writings, the ancient Greeks understood the act of “making” something as “enabling something to come into being,” but modern technology is more like “forcing into being.” The world is revealed by technology as a raw material that can be produced and altered.
Heidegger believed that there was something wrong with the contemporary, technological culture. Reality can only be present in our “age of technology” as a raw material. Humans did not cause this state of events, and they did not choose the technological method of revelation. Instead, as time passes, so does our perception of the world, of “being,” and of what it is “to be.” Being today resembles a technical “framework” through which people view the world in a dominant and controlling manner. According to Heidegger, the greatest threat is represented by this modern notion of “being.”
First, there’s the risk that people will see themselves as nothing more than raw materials. Please take note that we are currently discussing “human resources”! But more significantly, there is no escape from the technological drive to power. We would manipulate our manipulation, exercising control over our means of exercising power, if we wanted to advance toward a different understanding of what being is. And this would only support the way that technology views being. Every time we try to escape technology, it pulls us back in.
For Heidegger, “the will not to will” is the only escape route. We must consider the idea of relying on technologies without becoming dependent on them and by viewing them as expressions of a conceptualisation of reality.
