No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 August 2019
In this article, we discuss the importance of emotions for ethical reflection on technological developments, as well as the role that art can play in this. We review literature that argues that emotions can and should play an important role in the assessment and acceptance of technological risk and in designing morally responsible technologies. We then investigate how technologically engaged art can contribute to critical, emotional-moral reflection on technological risks. The role of art that engages with technology is unexplored territory and gives rise to many fascinating philosophical questions that have not yet been sufficiently addressed in the literature.
2 Shrader-Frechette, K.S., ‘Risk and rationality: Philosophical foundations for populist reforms’ (Berkeley, CA etc.: University of California Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Hansson, Sven Ove, ‘Dimensions of Risk’, Risk Analysis 9 (1989): 107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hansson, Sven Ove, ‘A Panorama of the Philosophy of Risk’, in Roeser, Sabine, Hillerbrand, Rafaela, Peterson, Martin and Sandin, Per (eds), Handbook of Risk Theory (Springer, 2012), 27–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roeser, Sabine, ‘Ethical Intuitions about Risks’, Safety Science Monitor 11 (2007), 1–30Google Scholar; Roeser, S., Risk, technology, and moral emotions (New York: Routledge, 2018)Google Scholar; Asveld, Lotte and Roeser, Sabine (eds), The Ethics of Technological Risk (London: Routledge / Earthscan, 2009)Google Scholar; Roeser, Sabine, Hillerbrand, Rafaela, Peterson, Martin and Sandin, Per, Handbook of Risk Theory (Dordrecht: Springer, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Asveld, L. and Roeser, S. (eds), The Ethics of Technological Risk (London: Routledge, 2009)Google Scholar.
7 Sunstein, Cass R., Laws of Fear (Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sunstein, Cass R., ‘Moral Heuristics and Risk’ in Roeser, Sabine (ed.), Emotions and Risky Technologies (Dordrecht: Springer, 2010), 3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; On Dual Process Theory see Kahneman, Daniel, Thinking Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011)Google Scholar.
8 Frijda, N. H., The Emotions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Lazarus, R. S., Emotion and Adaptation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Nussbaum, Martha, Upheavals of Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Roberts, R. C., Emotions: An Essay in Aid of Moral Psychology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Hall, Cheryl, The Trouble with Passion: Political Theory Beyond the Reign of Reason (New York: Routledge, 2005)Google Scholar; Kingston, Rebecca, Public Passion: Rethinking the Grounds for Political Justice (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2011)Google Scholar; Staiger, Janet, Cvetkovich, Ann, Reynolds, Ann (eds), Political Emotions (Routledge, 2010)Google Scholar; Nussbaum, Martha, Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice (Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 2013)Google Scholar.
10 Roeser, Sabine, ‘The Role of Emotions in Judging the Moral Acceptability of Risks’, Safety Science 44 (2006): 689–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roeser, Sabine, ‘The Relation between Cognition and Affect in Moral Judgments about Risk’, in Asveld and Roeser (eds), The Ethics of Technological Risk (London: Earthscan, 2009), 182–201Google Scholar; S. Roeser, ‘Emotions and risky technologies’ (2010); Roeser, S., Risk, Technology, and Moral Emotions, (London: Routledge, 2018)Google Scholar.
11 Op. cit. note 7.
12 Mark Alfano and Nicole Huijts, ‘Trust and distrust in institutions and governance’, in J. Simon (ed.), Handbook of Trust and Philosophy, (London: Routledge, forthcoming).
13 Op. cit. note 2.
14 For the acceptance/ acceptability distinction see Taebi, Behnam, ‘Bridging the Gap between Social Acceptance and Ethical Acceptability’, Risk Analysis 37 (2017), 1817–1827CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. Further, it is important to note here that in environmental psychology, the notion ‘acceptability’ is often used in the way that we introduced acceptance here. For example, see Perlaviciute, G., Steg, L., Contzen, N., Roeser, S., & Huijts, N., ‘Emotional Responses to Energy Projects: Insights for Responsible Decision Making in a Sustainable Energy Transition’, Sustainability 10 (2018), 2526CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 van de Poel, Ibo, ‘Can we Design for Well-being?’, in Brey, Philip, Briggle, Adam, Spence, Edward (eds), Good Life in a Technological Age (Routledge, New York, 2012), 295–306Google Scholar.
16 Further distinctions and fine-grained elaborations of concepts related to acceptance are possible. For example, one can distinguish between the subject and object of acceptability, where the object of acceptability can be either the technical design or the institutional design. The subject of acceptability is either the community, the market or the general public. For this distinction see Künneke, R., Mehos, D. C., Hillerbrand, R., and Hemmes, K., ‘Understanding values embedded in offshore wind energy systems: Toward a purposeful institutional and technological design’, Environmental Science & Policy 53 (2015), 118–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21 Op. cit. note 8.
26 van den Hoven, Jeroen, Doorn, Neelke, Siwerstra, Tsjalling, Koops, Bert-Jaap and Rmijn, Henny (eds) Responsible Innovation (Dordrecht: Springer, 2014)Google Scholar.
29 Op. cit. note 1.
30 Hoven, J. van den ‘ICT and value sensitive design’, in Goujon, P., Lavelle, S., Duquenoy, P., Kimppa, K., and Laurent, V. (eds), The Information Society: Innovation, Legitimacy, Ethics and Democracy (Boston: Springer, 2007)Google Scholar; van den Hoven, Jeroen, Vermaas, Pieter E., van de Poel, Ibo (eds), Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains, (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
31 Friedman, B., ‘Value sensitive design’, in Bainbridge, W. S. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction (Berkshire: Great Barrington, 2004), 769–774Google Scholar.
32 It needs to be noted here that what values are is subject to debate and that VSD has been criticized for not having a developed notion of value. For this critique see Manders-Huits, Noëmi, ‘What Values in Design? The Challenge of Incorporating Moral Values into Design’, Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (2011), 271–287CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. Suffice it to say here that values in VSD are commonly taken to mean things that people consider important to their live. For the notion of value in VSD see Cummings, Mary L., ‘Integrating ethics in design through the value-sensitive design approach’, Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (2006), 701–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
33 For the methods of VSD see Friedman, B., Kahn, P.H. Jr, Borning, A., ‘Value sensitive design and information systems’, in Zhang, P., Galletta, D. (eds), Human-Computer Interaction in Management Information Systems: Foundations (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 2006), 348–372Google Scholar, and also B. Friedman, P. Kahn and A. Borning, ‘Value Sensitive Design: Theory and Methods’, UW Computer Science and Engineering Technical Report (2002).
34 Hoven, J. Van den, ‘Value Sensitive Design and Responsible Innovation’, in Owen, R., Bessant, J. and Heintz, M. (eds), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society (Hoboken: Wiley 2013)Google Scholar.
37 Desmet, P. M. A., Roeser, and S., ‘Emotions in Design for Values’, in van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P. E., van de Poel, I. (eds), Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design, (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2015), 208Google Scholar.
39 Ozkaramanli, Deger, Desmet, Pieter, ‘I know I shouldn't, yet I did it again! Emotion-driven design as a means to subjective wellbeing’, International Journal of Design 6 (2012), 27–39Google Scholar.
40 Desmet, Pieter, ‘Faces of Product Pleasure: 25 Positive Emotions in Human-Product Interactions’, International Journal of Design 6 (2012), 1–29Google Scholar.
42 Hutchinson, Alisa and Tracey, Monica, ‘Designers’ own emotions and the practice of designing: a literature review and preliminary research agenda’, Journal of Design Research 15 (2017), 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Biagioli, Monica, Grimaldi, Silvia and Ali, Hena, ‘Designer's emotions in the design process’, in Design Research Society 2018: Catalyst, 25–28 (June 2018, Limerick, Ireland)Google Scholar.
44 Op. cit. note 10, 190.
45 Roeser, Sabine, ‘Intuitions, Emotions and Gut Feelings in Decisions about Risks: Towards a Different Interpretation of “Neuroethics”’, The Journal of Risk Research 13 (2010), 175–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roeser, Sabine, ‘Emotional Reflection about Risks’, in Roeser, S. (ed.) Emotions and Risky Technologies (Springer, 2010), 231–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roeser, Sabine, Moral Emotions and Intuitions (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
46 Kahan, Dan, ‘Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk’, in Roeser, Sabine, Hillerbrand, Rafaela, Peterson, Martin and Sandin, Per (eds) Handbook of Risk Theory (Dordrecht: Springer, 2012), 725–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Greene, J.D., Moral Tribes (New York: Penguin, 2013)Google Scholar; Haidt, Jonathan, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York: Vintage Books, 2012)Google Scholar.
47 Levinson, Jerrold (ed.), Aesthetics and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carroll, Noel, Beyond Aesthetics: Philosophical Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nussbaum, Martha, Upheavals of Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gaut, Berys, Art, Emotion and Ethics (Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Bermúdez, José Luis and Gardner, Sebastian (eds), Art and Morality (London: Routledge, 2006)Google Scholar.
48 Adorno, Theodor, Benjamin, Walter, Bloch, Ernst, Brecht, Bertold, Lukacs, Georg, Aesthetics and Politics (New York: Verso, 1980)Google Scholar; Rorty, Richard, Irony, Contingency, and Solidarity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Groys, Boris, Art Power (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bleiker, Roland, Aesthetics and World Politics (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kingston, Rebecca, Public Passion: Rethinking the Grounds for Political Justice (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2011)Google Scholar; Kompridis, Nikolas (ed.), The Aesthetic Turn in Political Thought (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014)Google Scholar; Macneill, Paul (ed.), Ethics and the Arts (Dordrecht: Springer, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
49 Slovic, Scott and Slovic, Paul (eds) Numbers and Nerves: Information, Emotion, and Meaning in a World of Data (Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press, 2015)Google Scholar.
50 For extensive overviews see: Reichle, Ingeborg, Art in the Age of Technoscience: Genetic Engineering, Robotics, and Artificial Life in Contemporary Art (Vienna, New York: Springer, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilson, Stephen, Art + Science Now: How scientific research and technological innovation are becoming key to 21st-century aesthetics (London: Thames and Hudson, 2010)Google Scholar; Myers, William, Bio Art: Altered Realities (London: Thames and Hudson, 2015)Google Scholar.
52 Future of Life Institute (2015) ‘Research Priorities for Robust and beneficial artificial intelligence’ http://futureoflife.org/ai-open-letter/
53 A collection of essays on Stelarc can be found in Zylinska, , Joanna, (ed.), The Cyborg Experiments: The Extensions of the Body in the Media Age (Continuum, 2002)Google Scholar.
58 Sabine Roeser (2012), ‘Risk Communication, Public Engagement, and Climate Change: A Role for Emotions’, Risk Analysis 32, 1033–1040
60 Zwijnenberg, Robert, ‘Biotechnology, Human Dignity and the Importance of Art’, Teoria: Revista di Filosofia (2014), 131–148Google Scholar; Reichle, Ingeborg, Art in the Age of Technoscience: Genetic Engineering, Robotics, and Artificial Life in Contemporary Art (Vienna, New York: Springer, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gessert, George, ‘Notes on the Art of Plant Breeding’, in L'Art Biotech Catalogue (exhibition catalog, Nantes: Le Lieu Unique, 2003), 47Google Scholar.
61 Sleenhoff, Susanne, ‘The Potential of 2.6g 329m/s for Public Engagement with Safety through Biotechnology’, in Essaidi, Jalila (ed.) Bulletproof skin; Exploring Boundaries by Piercing Barriers (Edition: 9789081995702, Publisher: Jalila Essaidi, 2012), 72–79Google Scholar.
62 Roeser, Sabine, Alfano, Veronica & Nevejan, Caroline, ‘The Role of Art in Emotional-Moral Reflection on Risky and Controversial Technologies: The Case of BNCI’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21 (2018): 275–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roeser, Sabine ‘Socially extended moral deliberation about risks: a role for emotions and art’, in Carter, J. Adam, Clark, Andy, Kallestrup, Jesper, Palermos, S. Orestis, and Pritchard, Duncan, Socially Extended Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University, Press 2018)Google Scholar.
63 One of the few philosophers who have published on these topics is Robert Zwijnenberg (cf. Zwijnenberg, R., ‘Preface’, in Reichle, Ingeborg (2009), Art in the Age of Technoscience: Genetic Engineering, Robotics, and Artificial Life in Contemporary Art (Vienna, New York: Springer, 2009), xiii–xxix. Scholars from other disciplines such as cultural studies and media studies have published on what we call ‘techno-art’, but as we argue here, this topic also requires philosophical research. These are some relevant publications from other disciplines: Da Costa, Beatriz and Philip, Kavita (eds), Tactical Biopolitics: Art, Activism, and Technoscience (Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ede, Sian, (ed.), Strange and Charmed. Science and the Contemporary Visual Arts, preface by Byatt, A.S. (London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 2000)Google Scholar; Mehnert, Antonia, Climate Change Fictions (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Munster, Anna, An Aesthesia of Networks: Conjunctive Experience in Art and Technology (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2013)Google Scholar; Weichman, John C. (ed.), The Aesthetics of Risk (Zurich: JRP|Ringier books, 2008)Google Scholar; Wilson, Stephen, lnformation Arts: Intersections of Art, Science, and Technology (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2002)Google Scholar.
67 Noë, Alva, Strange Tools: Art and Human Nature (New York: Hill and Wang, 2015), 102Google Scholar.
69 Davies, Stephen, ‘Artists’ intentions and artwork meanings: Some complications’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (2013), 138–39CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Livingston, Paisley, Art and Intention: A Philosophical Study (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tompkins, Jane P., (ed.), Reader-response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-structuralism (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980)Google Scholar.
74 Op. cit. note 62, 4.
75 van de Poel, I. and Doorn, N. ‘Ethical Parallel Research: A Network Approach for Moral Evaluation’, in Doorn, N., Schuurbiers, D., van de Poel, I., Gorman, M. (eds) Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory (Dordrecht: Springer, 2013)Google Scholar.
76 Work for this article has been funded by the project ‘Developing socially responsible innovations: The role of values and moral emotions’ funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), programme Responsible Innovation; project number: MVI-14-048.
No CrossRef data available.