Exploring Responsibility Rationales in Research and Development (R&D)

被引:24
作者
Doorn, Neelke [1 ]
机构
[1] Delft Univ Technol, Dept Technol Policy & Management, Ctr Eth & Technol 3TU, NL-2600 GA Delft, Netherlands
关键词
ethics; expertise; methodologies; responsibility distribution; Wide Reflective Equilibrium; Rawls; collective cooperation; REFLECTIVE EQUILIBRIUM; TECHNOLOGY-ASSESSMENT; STAKEHOLDER; CONSENSUS; MORALITY; IDEALISM; FUTURE;
D O I
10.1177/0162243911405344
中图分类号
D58 [社会生活与社会问题]; C913 [社会生活与社会问题];
学科分类号
摘要
The present article explores the rationales of scientists and engineers for distributing moral responsibilities related technology development. On the basis of a qualitative case study, it was investigated how the actors within a research network distribute responsibilities for these issues. Rawls' Wide Reflective Equilibrium model was used as a descriptive framework. This study indicates that there is a correlation between the actors' ethics position and their responsibility rationale. When discussing how to address ethical issues or how to distribute the responsibility for addressing them, actors with similar normative background theories referred to the same type of normative arguments. It was found that these deliberative processes could best be interpreted in terms of an interplay between different layers of morality. The case suggests that people seek coherence between these layers rather than work through them one-directionally. By distinguishing between rationales for distributing responsibilities and the actual distributions, possible sources of misunderstanding can be identified. The benefit from acknowledging these different rationales is that it enables actors to recognize the legitimacy of other people's opinions, ultimately contributing to a responsibility distribution that is both complete and accepted by all as justified.
引用
收藏
页码:180 / 209
页数:30
相关论文
共 54 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], GLOBAL ENVIRON CHANG
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1999, THEORY JUSTICE
[3]  
Bovens M. A., 1998, QUEST RESPONSIBILITY
[4]   Consistency, common morality, and reflective equilibrium [J].
Brand-Ballard, J .
KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF ETHICS JOURNAL, 2003, 13 (03) :231-258
[5]  
Cohen SJ., 1997, ENVIRON MODEL ASSESS, V2, P281, DOI DOI 10.1023/A:1019077814917
[6]   Stakeholder learning dialogues: How to preserve ethical responsibility in networks [J].
Daboub, AJ ;
Calton, JM .
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, 2002, 41 (1-2) :85-98
[7]  
Dancy J., 2004, Ethics Without Principles
[8]   WIDE REFLECTIVE EQUILIBRIUM AND THEORY ACCEPTANCE IN ETHICS [J].
DANIELS, N .
JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY, 1979, 76 (05) :256-282
[9]  
Daniels N., 1996, Justice and Justification
[10]   The ethical cycle [J].
de Poel, I. van ;
Royakkers, L. .
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, 2007, 71 (01) :1-13