# still to do - [x] still to do (tickbox) ✅ 2024-09-19 - [x] still to do (tickbox) ✅ 2024-09-19 - [x] still to do (tickbox) ✅ 2024-09-19 # [[Detailed Summary]] with Subheadings and [[Highlighted Sentences]] ## Introduction - Examining whether technological artifacts have values, in some sense - "Guns don't kill, [[people kill]]" - something right and something wrong about this - Guns don't do anything by themselves, but humans rarely kill with bare hands, so it's humans with guns that kill - Conclusion: People do the killing, not the gun, but guns are used to kill ## [[The Value Neutrality]] Thesis (VNT) - VNT states: "Technological artifacts do not have, have embedded in them, or contain values" - Authors like [[Langdon Winner]] argue technologies [[embody values]] of individuals/groups - Pitt wants to maintain that technologies cannot legitimately [[embody values]] - Values are things inanimate objects cannot possess/embody/have ## A [[Potential Dilemma]] - "From the start there arises an apparently insurmountable problem..." - To defend/deny VNT, we need an account of values - If values are things only humans have, then technologies cannot have values by definition - If values are things humans have, then all our technologies are "tainted by human values" - First horn of dilemma: Factors involved in deciding which technologies to make/employ - Second horn renders [[the value]] question trivial ## Defining "Values" - Lack of efforts by philosophers to define "value" - Proposed pragmatist account: "A value is an endorsement of a preferred state of affairs by an individual or group that motivates our actions" - Values differ from goals - goals are objectives to be obtained, values motivate actions - "Values, as action motivators, and goals can be rank ordered and those orders can change" ## [[The Spectre]] of [[Moral Relativism]] - Worry: If values can change, aren't we doomed to [[moral relativism]]? - Response: Moral behavior is about how we interact with others for their well-being - [[Endorses Aristotle]]'s view of achieving "The [[Good Life]]" for all, [[not just]] the individual - "By accepting the fact that values can be reprioritized...morals can be shifted around to accommodate difficulties" ## Values and States of Affairs - A preferred state of affairs is a goal to be achieved - "It is not enough to say...eliminating poverty is our goal. ...unless you do something to achieve that goal, it is merely empty rhetoric" - Endorsing the goal means acting to bring it about (pragmatism) ## Whose Value? - Difficult to determine whose value a particular artifact embodies - Example: Whose value does the Virginia Tech football stadium represent? - "All three of these values, however, are values of people. They may see the stadium as symbolizing their own values, but that doesn't mean the values are in the stadium" ## Artifacts Embodying Values - Examining what it would mean for an artifact to embody human values - Lack of empirical properties to identify/locate values in artifacts - Example of Langdon Winner's claim about Robert Moses' values in Long Island Expressway - "Where would we see them? ...What are they?" ## Technological Values as Sui Generis - Claim that artifacts embody "technological values" which are sui generis (their own kind) - But this is question-begging - just saying artifacts contain a new kind of value - "It is to say that technological objects contain technological values. Now if we only knew what technological values looked like..." ## Values and Consistency - Sets of values should be consistent and rank-orderable (with shifting priorities) - Consistent when values contribute to achieving "the Good Life" and don't undermine efforts - Example: Eliminating hunger is part of the Good Life, so using pollutants that decrease soil fertility is inconsistent ## Turn the Question Around - Why would anyone deny technologies are value neutral? Two reasons: 1) To escape responsibility for actions ("The machine made me do it") 2) Ideological reasons (conspiracy theories about power structures) - Both reasons are unsatisfactory excuses ## Many Values - "The truth is that while there are many values involved in the creation of an artifact, it does not follow that the artifact is value-laden in any interesting sense" - Too many decisions/values involved to identify one value an artifact embodies - Example of engineering design process with many decision points ## Decision-Making - All human decisions are value-laden - Structure of decision-making: Start with knowledge, values, goals -> Choose option -> Act -> Evaluate results - If failure, re-evaluate knowledge/values/goals in a feedback loop - Learning from experience by re-assessing values/goals based on outcomes ## A Plethora of Values - Detailed example of engineering design process with many decision points - "I propose that at no point can you point to the value that went into the object or that the object embodies because there are many" - Even if values could be in artifacts, there are too many to differentiate - Example of Robert Moses' alleged values in Long Island Expressway design ## Conclusions - Strong version of VNT: Values are not embedded in technological artifacts - Weaker version: Even if artifacts could embed values, there are too many involved to be significant - Third version: We don't know what values look like, so can't identify them in artifacts - Defending the weaker version: Since artifacts result from value-laden decisions by many people, saying they embed values adds nothing ## "Guns Don't Kill, People Kill" - Final thoughts on the motivating slogan - Trades on desire for simple answers by forcing a false choice - Better: "Guns don't kill, people kill using guns, knives, etc." - the culprit is people # PowerPoint Slide Content ## Slide 1: Introduction - Examining if technological artifacts have values - "Guns don't kill, people kill" - right and wrong aspects - Conclusion: People kill, not guns, but guns are used ## Slide 2: The Value Neutrality Thesis (VNT) - VNT: Technological artifacts do not have/contain values - Authors like Winner argue technologies embody values - Pitt: Technologies cannot legitimately embody values ## Slide 3: A Potential Dilemma - Need account of values to defend/deny VNT - If values are only for humans, technologies can't have them - If values are human, then all technologies are "value-tainted" ## Slide 4: Defining "Values" - Lack of philosophical definitions for "value" - Pragmatist account: Values motivate preferred states of affairs - Values differ from goals, can be rank-ordered ## Slide 5: The Spectre of Moral Relativism - Worry: Changing values leads to moral relativism? - Response: Moral behavior is about interaction/wellbeing - Aristotle's view: Achieving "The Good Life" for all ## Slide 6: Values and States of Affairs - Preferred states are goals to be achieved - Not enough to state goal, must act to endorse it - Pragmatic element: Acting to bring about goal ## Slide 7: Whose Value? - Difficult to determine artifact's embodied value - Example: Whose values in VT football stadium? - Stadium symbolizes people's values, not its own ## Slide 8: Artifacts Embodying Values - What would it mean for artifact to embody values? - Lack of empirical properties to identify values - Example: Moses' alleged values in LIE design ## Slide 9: Technological Values as Sui Generis - Claim artifacts have "technological values" (new kind) - But this begs the question - "If we only knew what technological values looked like..." ## Slide 10: Values and Consistency - Value sets should be consistent for "The Good Life" - Consistent when values don't undermine goals - Example: Eliminating hunger vs. decreasing soil fertility ## Slide 11: Turn the Question Around - Reasons to deny value neutrality: 1) Escape responsibility ("machine made me") 2) Ideological reasons (conspiracy theories) - Both reasons are unsatisfactory excuses ## Slide 12: Many Values - Many values in creating an artifact - But does not mean artifact is value-laden - Too many to identify one embodied value - Example: Engineering design process ## Slide 13: Decision-Making - All human decisions are value-laden - Structure: Knowledge -> Values -> Goals -> Choose -> Act -> Evaluate - Learning by feedback loop re-assessing values/goals ## Slide 14: A Plethora of Values - Many decision points in design/production - Can't point to single embodied value - Too many values to differentiate if possible - Example: Moses' values in LIE design ## Slide 15: Conclusions - Strong VNT: Values not embedded in artifacts - Weak VNT: Too many values to be significant if possible - Third view: Don't know what values "look" like - Defending weak version: Many value-laden decisions, so claim is trivial ## Slide 16: "Guns Don't Kill, People Kill" - Trades on desire for simple answers - Forces false choice of guns vs. people - Better: "People kill using guns, knives, etc." # Speaker's Notes ## Slide 1: - We're examining a key question in philosophy of technology - whether technological artifacts can have or embody values in some sense - The saying "Guns don't kill, people kill" points to something correct (guns are inanimate objects) but also something incorrect (people use guns as instruments to kill) - Ultimately, the conclusion is that while guns facilitate killing, it is people who make the choice to kill - the agency lies with humans, not the technology itself ## Slide 2: - The Value Neutrality Thesis (VNT) states that technological artifacts fundamentally do not and cannot have values embedded within them - Authors like Langdon Winner have argued that certain technologies do embody the values of their designers/creators or power structures - Pitt wants to defend the view that technologies themselves cannot legitimately be said to embody human values - values reside in people, not objects ## Slide 3: - There's an apparent dilemma in grappling with the VNT - to defend or deny it, we need to have an account of what values are - If we say values are things only humans can have, then by definition technologies cannot have values - But if values are things humans have, then all our technologies would be "tainted" or influenced by the human values behind their creation - The first horn raises questions about decision-making for technologies; the second seems to trivialize the value question ## Slide 4: - Defining precisely what we mean by "value" is a key issue, since philosophers have made few efforts to rigorously define the term - Pitt proposes a pragmatist account: A value is an endorsement of a preferred state of affairs that motivates an individual's or group's actions - Values differ from goals, which are objectives to be obtained - values serve as ongoing motivators, and can be rank-ordered with flexible priorities ## Slide 5: - One objection is that if values can change and be re-prioritized, does this lead to a problematic moral relativism with no fixed ethical guidelines? - Pitt responds that moral behavior is fundamentally about how we treat others and promote collective well-being - He endorses Aristotle's view of ethics aimed at achieving "The Good Life" not just for oneself but for all people - By accepting value re-prioritization based on circumstances, ethics can flexibly respond while still promoting overall human welfare ## Slide 6: - A key aspect of the pragmatist view is that values relate to desired "states of affairs" that we aim to bring about through our actions - It's not enough to merely state a goal like "eliminating poverty" - unless we take concrete actions to realize that goal, it remains empty rhetoric - Genuinely endorsing and living by a value means actively working to bring about the preferred state of affairs it envisions ## Slide 7: - A fundamental issue is determining whose values might be embodied in a given technological artifact - Using the example of Virginia Tech's football stadium, Pitt notes there are multiple potential value perspectives at play - Ultimately, the stadium may symbolize people's values (university pride, football ambitions), but it doesn't contain values itself ## Slide 8: - More broadly, what would it even mean for an artifact to somehow embody human values within its structure or design? - There seems to be a lack of empirical criteria that could identify or locate values as properties within a technological object - Pitt questions how we could find Robert Moses' alleged values of segregation within the design plans or physical overpasses of the Long Island Expressway ## Slide 9: - One perspective is that artifacts may not embody human values, but instead have their own distinct "technological values" - However, Pitt argues this is a form of circular reasoning or begging the question - Just declaring a new category of "technological value" doesn't illuminate what those values might consist of or how we could identify them ## Slide 10: - For a set of values to be coherent and ethically consistent in promoting "The Good Life", Pitt argues they must not fundamentally contradict each other - Values should contribute to overarching goals of human wellbeing and not undermine or obstruct those efforts - An example of an inconsistent value would be using fertilizers that pollute and decrease soil fertility, undermining goals of eliminating hunger ## Slide 11: - Pitt considers two potential reasons why someone might deny that technologies are value neutral: 1) To avoid taking responsibility for their actions ("The machine made me do it") 2) For ideological reasons pushing a conspiracy theory about power structures - However, he dismisses both of these as unsatisfactory excuses or rationalizations ## Slide 12: - The core argument is that while there are many human values involved in the creation of any technological artifact, this does not automatically make the artifact itself "value-laden" - With so many people's values and decisions involved in design/production, it becomes impossible to single out one coherent set of values embodied in the final product - An example would be the numerous decisions and value priorities involved in an engineering design process ## Slide 13: - More broadly, Pitt argues that all human decision-making is fundamentally infused with values at every step - The general structure is: Start with existing knowledge, values, and goals -> Pick best option -> Take action -> Evaluate results - When outcomes fail to align with goals, the human rational process is to re-assess knowledge, values, and goals in a feedback loop to improve ## Slide 14: - Returning to technological artifacts, the development process involves a plethora of value-laden decisions by many stakeholders - From conceptual design, to production plans, to marketing - each step has people prioritizing values that guide their choices - Pitt argues you can never definitively point to one set of values embodied by the final artifact because there are so many interwoven value influences - Even the Long Island Expressway example involves imprints from Moses as well as many other decision-makers ## Slide 15: - In conclusion, Pitt considers three perspectives on values and artifacts: 1) Strong VNT - Values fundamentally cannot be embedded in technological artifacts 2) Weak VNT - Even if values could be embedded, there are so many involved that the claim is trivial 3) Epistemological view - We don't know what properties values would have, so can't identify them empirically - He argues for defending the "weak" second view - that artifacts arise from so many value-laden decisions that suggesting they contain singular values adds no insight ## Slide 16: - Circling back to the opening "Guns don't kill, people kill" slogan that motivated the discussion: - Pitt argues it trades on an oversimplified, false dichotomy by forcing a choice between guns or people as the root cause - A more accurate framing is: "Guns don't kill, people kill using guns, knives, and any other instruments" - pinpointing humans as the locus of agency and responsibility #### Main Topic 1 ##### Sub-topic #### Main Topic 2 ##### Sub-topic #### Main Topic 3 ##### Sub-topic #### Main Topic 4 ##### Sub-topic # In Class Notes