The ethical acceptability of human enhancement technologies: A cross-country Q-study of the perception of insideables

{"title":"The ethical acceptability of human enhancement technologies: A cross-country Q-study of the perception of insideables","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper aims to identify the ethical considerations driving the acceptance of and resistance to the use of insideable technology for human enhancement purposes, which are crucial to understand for the development of the cyborg technology market and businesses. While the literature privileges quantitative approaches, investigations focused on a strand of ethical theory or a specific value, this study adopts a qualitative and holistic approach. Based on prior interview data and a literature review, 33 items representing various ethical considerations of interest are identified. A qualitative Q-study was conducted, in which 55 individuals in three different countries expressed their points of view on insideables regarding these items. Hence, four different views are presented, highlighting drivers of acceptance of human enhancement technologies, conditional acceptance, and mere rejection. These views reveal the trade-offs between values made by respondents, shedding light on the ethical bricolage at play. The role of ethical concerns and theories in models to study the acceptance of human enhancement technologies and their potential business implications are discussed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100324,"journal":{"name":"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949882124000525","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper aims to identify the ethical considerations driving the acceptance of and resistance to the use of insideable technology for human enhancement purposes, which are crucial to understand for the development of the cyborg technology market and businesses. While the literature privileges quantitative approaches, investigations focused on a strand of ethical theory or a specific value, this study adopts a qualitative and holistic approach. Based on prior interview data and a literature review, 33 items representing various ethical considerations of interest are identified. A qualitative Q-study was conducted, in which 55 individuals in three different countries expressed their points of view on insideables regarding these items. Hence, four different views are presented, highlighting drivers of acceptance of human enhancement technologies, conditional acceptance, and mere rejection. These views reveal the trade-offs between values made by respondents, shedding light on the ethical bricolage at play. The role of ethical concerns and theories in models to study the acceptance of human enhancement technologies and their potential business implications are discussed.
人类增强技术的伦理可接受性:一项关于内部人员看法的跨国 Q 研究
本文旨在找出促使人们接受和抵制将可植入技术用于增强人类功能的伦理因素,这对于了解半机械人技术市场和企业的发展至关重要。文献中多采用定量研究方法,调查重点集中在某一伦理理论或特定价值观上,而本研究则采用定性和整体研究方法。根据先前的访谈数据和文献综述,确定了 33 个代表各种伦理考虑因素的项目。我们进行了一项定性问答研究,来自三个不同国家的 55 人就这些项目表达了他们的内部观点。因此,我们提出了四种不同的观点,分别强调了接受人类增强技术的驱动因素、有条件的接受和单纯的拒绝。这些观点揭示了受访者在各种价值观之间所做的权衡,揭示了正在发生作用的伦理混杂问题。讨论了伦理问题和理论在研究人类增强技术接受度的模型中的作用及其潜在的商业影响。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信