Borgmann and the Non-Neutrality of Technology

T. Antonsen, E. Lundestad
{"title":"Borgmann and the Non-Neutrality of Technology","authors":"T. Antonsen, E. Lundestad","doi":"10.5840/TECHNE201951497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper focuses on Albert Borgmann’s philosophy of technology. We argue in support of Borgmann’s “Churchill principle” (“we shape our buildings, and afterwards they shape us”) as presented in Real American Ethics (RAE) (2006) by comparing it to findings within behavioral economics in general and to the “libertarian paternalism” of Cass R. Sunstein and Richard H. Thaler in particular. According to our interpretation of it, the Churchill principle implies that because our material environment in fact influences our choices, this environment can and should be rearranged so that we “automatically” will tend to make better decisions. Having defended the Churchill principle, we go on to discuss how this principle is related to Borgmann’s approach in Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life (TCCL) (1984). In this earlier work, Borgmann suggests we reform technology by making room for focal practices, that is, meaningful practices in which we develop our skills and excellences. We argue that while these two works have different basic approaches—rearranging the material environment in RAE and developing certain skills and excellences in TCCL—they can and ought to be seen, not as mutually excluding, but as supplementing one another. Together they form a highly salient critique of technology that takes into consideration questions of the good life without becoming overly paternalistic.","PeriodicalId":123735,"journal":{"name":"Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology","volume":"298 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/TECHNE201951497","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The paper focuses on Albert Borgmann’s philosophy of technology. We argue in support of Borgmann’s “Churchill principle” (“we shape our buildings, and afterwards they shape us”) as presented in Real American Ethics (RAE) (2006) by comparing it to findings within behavioral economics in general and to the “libertarian paternalism” of Cass R. Sunstein and Richard H. Thaler in particular. According to our interpretation of it, the Churchill principle implies that because our material environment in fact influences our choices, this environment can and should be rearranged so that we “automatically” will tend to make better decisions. Having defended the Churchill principle, we go on to discuss how this principle is related to Borgmann’s approach in Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life (TCCL) (1984). In this earlier work, Borgmann suggests we reform technology by making room for focal practices, that is, meaningful practices in which we develop our skills and excellences. We argue that while these two works have different basic approaches—rearranging the material environment in RAE and developing certain skills and excellences in TCCL—they can and ought to be seen, not as mutually excluding, but as supplementing one another. Together they form a highly salient critique of technology that takes into consideration questions of the good life without becoming overly paternalistic.
博格曼与技术的非中立性
本文主要研究阿尔伯特·博格曼的技术哲学。我们通过将博格曼的“丘吉尔原则”(“我们塑造我们的建筑,然后建筑塑造我们”)与一般行为经济学的发现进行比较,特别是与卡斯·r·桑斯坦和理查德·h·塞勒的“自由主义家长制”进行比较,来支持博格曼在《真实美国伦理》(RAE)(2006)中提出的“丘吉尔原则”(“我们塑造我们的建筑”)。根据我们对它的解释,丘吉尔原理意味着,因为我们的物质环境实际上影响着我们的选择,所以这个环境可以而且应该被重新安排,这样我们就会“自动”地倾向于做出更好的决定。在为丘吉尔原则辩护之后,我们继续讨论这个原则是如何与博格曼在《技术与当代生活的特征》(TCCL)(1984)中的方法联系起来的。在这个早期的工作中,博格曼建议我们通过为重点实践腾出空间来改革技术,即我们发展技能和卓越的有意义的实践。我们认为,虽然这两部作品有不同的基本方法——在RAE中重新安排物质环境和在tccl中发展某些技能和卓越——但它们可以而且应该被视为,而不是相互排斥,而是相互补充。他们共同形成了对技术的高度突出的批判,在不变得过于家长式的情况下,考虑到美好生活的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信