| Title |
Can Technological Artefacts Be Moral Agents?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, October 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-010-9241-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin Peterson, Andreas Spahn |
| Abstract |
In this paper we discuss the hypothesis that, 'moral agency is distributed over both humans and technological artefacts', recently proposed by Peter-Paul Verbeek. We present some arguments for thinking that Verbeek is mistaken. We argue that artefacts such as bridges, word processors, or bombs can never be (part of) moral agents. After having discussed some possible responses, as well as a moderate view proposed by Illies and Meijers, we conclude that technological artefacts are neutral tools that are at most bearers of instrumental value. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 62 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 26% |
| Unknown | 12 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 19 | 29% |
| Arts and Humanities | 10 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 August 2023.
All research outputs
#2,245,152
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#175
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,220
of 109,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 109,109 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them