↓ Skip to main content

Moral Responsibility, Technology, and Experiences of the Tragic: From Kierkegaard to Offshore Engineering

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Moral Responsibility, Technology, and Experiences of the Tragic: From Kierkegaard to Offshore Engineering
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2010
DOI 10.1007/s11948-010-9233-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark Coeckelbergh

Abstract

The standard response to engineering disasters like the Deepwater Horizon case is to ascribe full moral responsibility to individuals and to collectives treated as individuals. However, this approach is inappropriate since concrete action and experience in engineering contexts seldom meets the criteria of our traditional moral theories. Technological action is often distributed rather than individual or collective, we lack full control of the technology and its consequences, and we lack knowledge and are uncertain about these consequences. In this paper, I analyse these problems by employing Kierkegaardian notions of tragedy and moral responsibility in order to account for experiences of the tragic in technological action. I argue that ascription of responsibility in engineering contexts should be sensitive to personal experiences of lack of control, uncertainty, role conflicts, social dependence, and tragic choice. I conclude that this does not justify evading individual and corporate responsibility, but inspires practices of responsibility ascription that are less 'harsh' on those directly involved in technological action, that listen to their personal experiences, and that encourage them to gain more knowledge about what they are doing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 5%
Unknown 59 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 27%
Student > Master 11 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Researcher 4 6%
Professor 3 5%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 10 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 13%
Philosophy 8 13%
Computer Science 7 11%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 9 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 March 2012.
All research outputs
#16,223,992
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#726
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,902
of 99,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 99,943 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.