Why the value of technology can’t be neutral (why technology and ethics are inextricably linked)

In this blog post, we’ll discuss why technology and ethics are inextricably linked and why the value of technology is neutral.

 

We’re often told that science is value-neutral, and I remember my middle school language arts textbook making this claim. The argument is that facts observed through scientific methodology are objective and therefore cannot be value-dependent. It’s a logical argument and one that many people agree with. But what about the value-neutrality of ‘technology’ as opposed to ‘science’? The words ‘technology’ and ‘science’ are often lumped together in the phrase ‘science and technology’, but they have very different meanings and properties. Wikipedia defines technology as “a body of knowledge or discipline about the process of developing and using tools, machines, materials, etc. for human needs. While it’s nearly impossible to define the broad and complex concept of technology in a simple way, it’s generally agreed that its essence involves “using scientific knowledge to make things”. Technology has the property of being a process of ‘making something’, so there must be ‘technologists’ who develop technology, and there are ‘artifacts’ that are the result of technology. Since both of these interact with society, technology is inevitably not value-neutral.
The discourse of value-neutrality of technology has been addressed from different perspectives in various fields such as philosophy of technology, history of science, and ethics. However, a more productive discussion would be possible if we could come to a concrete consensus on the meaning of such a nebulous concept as ‘technology’ or ‘value neutrality’. For the purposes of this article, we will use “technology” to mean “the use of scientific knowledge to create something,” as defined above, and “value-neutral” to mean that a technology or its developers cannot be held ethically responsible for the phenomena that occur as a result of its use in society. Based on these definitions, I will argue that technology developers are not ethically independent of the outside world, and that they should be held ethically responsible for the effects of their technologies.
In the modern world, technologists cannot be independent of the outside world. The beginnings of technology can be traced back to primitive humans, with flint, stone tools, and the wheel being the earliest forms of technology. These simple tools were adaptations of natural objects, and it’s hard to imagine that they were created by a single technologist or group of technologists with a lot of resources and effort. However, the development of technology in the modern world is completely different. Through the historical process of industrialization, the emergence of capitalist societies, and world wars, technology has become more sophisticated, and the handling of technology has fallen to a group of specialists called technologists. In addition, the scale of technology development research has become so large compared to the past that it cannot be carried out without external support. As a result, most technology development since the 20th century has been driven by companies or countries.
Think about the technologies we recognize. Smartphones, cars, the internet. Most of the technologies that come to mind were developed by companies, or by companies that commissioned outside engineers or groups of engineers. In some cases, technologies related to national defense or critical industries are developed by national governments. But why do companies develop technologies? The answer is the same as in any economics textbook: to maximize profits. In modern capitalist societies, technology development is skewed toward the pursuit of profit for individual companies, not human welfare or social prosperity. For example, drug development is dominated by pharmaceutical companies, which focus on developing “blockbuster drugs” that can make a lot of money, while rare diseases for a small number of people are rarely developed. Recently, a car company was caught in a huge controversy when it was discovered that it had manipulated its emissions. Because companies are economic entities that can easily make unethical choices, and in some cases break the law, in order to make a profit, the technologies they develop have the potential to create ethical problems. Even if a company wanted to build a car that exceeded emissions standards, the situation would not have arisen in the first place if the car’s engineers had felt ethically responsible and refused to develop the technology. Therefore, if the engineers knew that the technology they were developing would lead to illegal outcomes, they should bear some responsibility for the situation. If the engineers don’t feel responsible, and if they can’t be held accountable, then the second and third emissions cheating scandals will happen again.
Those who argue that technology is value-neutral point out that modern human society is an expert society. Technologists are the ones who should focus on developing technology, and studying the social problems that technology creates should be left to philosophers and ethicists. In this regard, it has been argued that if we stop developing a technology before it is even developed because we are concerned about its potential problems for society, we are preemptively blocking many of the benefits it could bring. However, this argument seems a bit complacent. The impact of technology on society is so uncertain and far-reaching that if indiscriminate development were allowed to continue, society could spiral out of control. Therefore, when developing any technology, we should analyze it carefully and be as cautious as possible, even if we cannot fully predict its potential impact. It’s great that philosophers and ethicists are studying technology and social issues, but technologists must also take an active role in this work. Technology has become so specialized in the modern era that it requires the expertise of technologists to properly assess its impact.
For example, when the automobile became widespread in the early 20th century, people had high hopes that it would solve pollution from horse manure because it would replace horses. But who knew that automobile exhaust would become a new source of pollution? When Freon gas was first created, it was touted as a clean, non-polluting gas. No one realized at the time that it was the main culprit in the destruction of the ozone layer, as we now know. Such are the side effects of technological advances. But they weren’t unforeseeable; they could have been predicted with the knowledge of the time, if we had the will. It is not easy to predict all the effects of technology on individuals and society, or the problems it will cause to the natural environment, and technologists with specialized knowledge must be involved to analyze the consequences of technology as closely as possible and carefully set the direction of development. Furthermore, if technology developers neglect to do this, they are not fulfilling their responsibilities and should be held ethically accountable.
The reason why this is so important is that once a technology is developed, it can have so much impact and momentum that it is very difficult to reverse. The atomic bomb is a prime example of this. First developed during World War II, the atomic bomb is a weapon of mass destruction that can paralyze or devastate a city depending on its power. Their very existence is a clear threat to humanity, and there are thousands of them in the world today. While their development may have been unavoidable in the midst of a world war, there is no need for humanity to have so many nuclear weapons today. In an ideal world, all countries would destroy their nuclear arsenals, but political and diplomatic interests would never allow that to happen, and the great powers would compete to build up their armaments, resulting in more and more nuclear weapons. Once a technology appears and becomes widespread in society, it is no longer controllable, and it is difficult to go back to the way things were before it appeared.
Technology is value-dependent in that it has a profound effect on public perceptions. The world around us, which we call “the world,” is a collection of technologies, and we naturally accept them as inherent to our lives without realizing it, and form ideas about them accordingly. While the public seems to be actively picking and choosing the technologies that make up society, the truth is that most of us unknowingly accept the artifacts of technology as a natural part of our lives. It’s not surprising that we drive cars and talk on cell phones. It’s just the way life has been since we were children. However, the older generation of adults who are living in the same era are unfamiliar with the society that technology has transformed. This unfamiliarity is not only due to the fact that society has changed, but also to the fact that the idea of human society has changed. It’s important to note that technology doesn’t just change the way people live, it changes the way they think about themselves, the world, and human society.
For example, in the past, when there were no cars and people traveled by horse and foot, Busan was perceived as too far away from Seoul. But now, Seoul and Busan are not perceived as far apart as before. The idea of “far and near” has changed due to technology. Whereas we used to perceive someone as close to us if we saw them every few days, we now perceive someone as close to us if we talk to them on our phones several times a day. This is where the “strangeness” of adults comes in. Technology has changed the idea of intimacy. But let’s look at a technology that is more closely related to ethical issues. If a technology that can clone humans is developed and commercialized, it will certainly have a huge impact on the public’s perception of life, whether they like it or not. If the impact is bad, it could be pro-life, or if the impact is good, it could be pro-life. The specific direction is, as mentioned above, very difficult to predict. However, technologists are certainly responsible for the impact of their technology on human society, and it is their ethical responsibility to do their best to ensure that the technology has the right impact.
Because science and technology are inextricably linked to society, they cannot be objective or value-neutral; rather, they are closely tied to values, or the ethical realm. Therefore, technologists need to internalize their responsibility for the social problems created by technology and be careful in their choices. Otherwise, if reckless technological development continues, society will soon become unstable and chaotic. In modern capitalist societies, technological development is primarily driven by the pursuit of corporate profits, and the effects of these technologies are unpredictable and far-reaching, changing human perceptions, ideas, and lives. Therefore, scientists and engineers should have a higher sense of ethics and responsibility.