Technological design is usually considered as a process of stipulating target functions. Technological artifacts are, however, not determined entirely by the intent of the engineers who designed them: they unavoidably contain unpredictable and uncertain characters that transcend engineers’ intent, and they cannot be understood purely from a functionalist perspective. In aviation, for example, the smooth implementation of a flight is ensured by a system that includes pilots interacting with each other and with a suite of technological devices. Emphasizing the human aspect of technological designs, this article presents a theoretical framework that takes socio-cultural aspects of technology as the primary for a philosophical, ethical analysis. An analysis of the acceptability of risks shows that the reliability of a technology is determined by the reliability of the technological decisions, eventually the existence of a reliable technological culture. So the task of the ethics of risks is to provide ways to reform our technology culture.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Bainbridge, L., 1987, Ironies of automation, in: New Technology and Human Error, J. Rasmussen, K. Duncan, and J. Leplat, eds., Wiley, Chichester.
Birsch, D., 1994, Product safety, cost‐benefit‐analysis, and the Ford Pinto case, in: The Ford Pinto Case, D. Birsch and J. H. Fielder, eds., SUNY Press, Albany, NY.
Cassirer, E., 1985, Form und Technik, in: Symbol, Technik, Sprache, W. Orth, ed., Felix Meiner, Verlag, Hamburg (originally published in 1933).
Collins, H., and Pinch, T., 1998, The Golem at Large, Cambridge UP, Cambridge.
Davis, M., 1989, Explaining wrongdoing, J. of Social Phil. 20(1&2):74-90.
De George, R. T., 1994, Ethical responsibilities of engineers in large organizations: The Pinto case, in: The Ford Pinto Case, D. Birsch and J. H. Fielder, eds., SUNY Press, Albany, NY.
Ferguson, E. S., 1992, Engineering and the Mind's Eye, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Harris, C., Pritchard, M., and Rabins, M., 1995, Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Hutchins, E., 1995, How a cockpit remember its speed?, Cogn. Sci. 19(2):265-283.
Ihde, D., 1999, Technology and prognostic predicaments, AI & Soc. 13:44-51.
Norman, D. A., 1993, Things that Make us Smart, Perseus Books, Reading, MA.
Renn, O., Jaeger, C. C., Rosa, E. A., and Webler, T., 2001, The rational actor paradigm in risk theories, in: Risk in the Modern Age, M. J. Cohen, ed., Palgrave, London.
Reason, J., 1997, Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents, Ashgate, Hampshire.
Saito, N., 2005, What is Techno‐Literacy? (in Japanese), Kodansha, Tokyo.
Schutz, A., 1970, Reflections on the Problem of Relevance, R. M. Zaner, ed., Yale UP, New Haven.
Shrader‐Frechette, K., 1994, Ethics of Scientific Research, Rowman & Littlefield, Boston.
Tenner, E., 1996, Why Things Bite Back, Vintage Books, New York.
Velasquez, M. G., 2005, The ethics of consumer production, in: Business Ethics, Vol. 3, F. Allhoff and A. Vaidya, eds., SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Vaughan, D., 1996, The Challenger Launch Decision, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Winner, L., 1986, The Whale and the Reactor, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Naoe, K. (2008). Design Culture and Acceptable Risk. In: Philosophy and Design. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6591-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6591-0_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-6590-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-6591-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)