“When values are in dispute”: Ethics dialogues to go beyond ethics frameworks?

IF 3 3区 管理学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Lucia Vesnic-Alujevic , Ângela Guimarães Pereira
{"title":"“When values are in dispute”: Ethics dialogues to go beyond ethics frameworks?","authors":"Lucia Vesnic-Alujevic ,&nbsp;Ângela Guimarães Pereira","doi":"10.1016/j.futures.2025.103545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article explores the concept of “ethics dialogues”, which was the methodological response the authors gave to existing expert-led ethics frameworks that examine technology in political institutions. The basic question that we wanted to tackle by opening up the discussion on ethical values embedded by technology and other everyday artefacts, was whether there is a need to extend values assessment to an “extended peer community”. Through 3 participatory cases studies that we conducted in the field of health (wearable sensors), mobility (connected and automated vehicles) and AI (insights obtained through a foresight study on the Future of Government 2030+) in the past 10 years, we realised that the invitation to dialogue has prompted critical thinking towards the values they embed in all cases. These ethics dialogues were implemented in different ways, but the core of the approach aims at imparting structured conversations about the technologies’ intended and actual uses (including dual), the promised usefulness implicit in the narratives that introduce those technologies and exploration of the values that the particular modes of life those technologies co-produce. For each case study, we will first describe implicit ethical values on the technologies’ narratives. We will then describe and report how these have been discussed by citizens to explore how and which values are portrayed by participants’ in the conversations. Finally, we reflect on the implications of implementation of ethics dialogues for participatory governance of future and emerging technologies and the possibilities of their inclusion in European policymaking as a way to negotiate decisions in a complex and uncertain world where <em>values</em> are recurrently <em>in dispute</em>.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48239,"journal":{"name":"Futures","volume":"166 ","pages":"Article 103545"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Futures","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328725000072","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article explores the concept of “ethics dialogues”, which was the methodological response the authors gave to existing expert-led ethics frameworks that examine technology in political institutions. The basic question that we wanted to tackle by opening up the discussion on ethical values embedded by technology and other everyday artefacts, was whether there is a need to extend values assessment to an “extended peer community”. Through 3 participatory cases studies that we conducted in the field of health (wearable sensors), mobility (connected and automated vehicles) and AI (insights obtained through a foresight study on the Future of Government 2030+) in the past 10 years, we realised that the invitation to dialogue has prompted critical thinking towards the values they embed in all cases. These ethics dialogues were implemented in different ways, but the core of the approach aims at imparting structured conversations about the technologies’ intended and actual uses (including dual), the promised usefulness implicit in the narratives that introduce those technologies and exploration of the values that the particular modes of life those technologies co-produce. For each case study, we will first describe implicit ethical values on the technologies’ narratives. We will then describe and report how these have been discussed by citizens to explore how and which values are portrayed by participants’ in the conversations. Finally, we reflect on the implications of implementation of ethics dialogues for participatory governance of future and emerging technologies and the possibilities of their inclusion in European policymaking as a way to negotiate decisions in a complex and uncertain world where values are recurrently in dispute.
“当价值有争议时”:超越伦理框架的伦理对话?
本文探讨了“伦理对话”的概念,这是作者对现有的专家主导的伦理框架的方法论回应,这些框架检查了政治制度中的技术。我们希望通过开放技术和其他日常人工制品所嵌入的道德价值观的讨论来解决的基本问题是,是否有必要将价值观评估扩展到“扩展的同伴社区”。在过去的10年里,我们在健康(可穿戴传感器)、移动(联网和自动驾驶汽车)和人工智能(通过对政府2030+未来的前瞻性研究获得的见解)领域进行了3次参与式案例研究,我们意识到,邀请对话促使人们对所有案例中嵌入的价值观进行批判性思考。这些伦理对话以不同的方式实现,但该方法的核心旨在传授有关技术预期和实际用途(包括双重用途)的结构化对话,介绍这些技术的叙述中隐含的承诺有用性,以及探索这些技术共同产生的特定生活模式的价值。对于每个案例研究,我们将首先描述技术叙事中隐含的伦理价值。然后,我们将描述和报告公民如何讨论这些问题,以探索参与者在对话中如何以及哪些价值观被描绘出来。最后,我们反思了实施伦理对话对未来和新兴技术的参与式治理的影响,以及将其纳入欧洲政策制定的可能性,作为在价值观反复存在争议的复杂和不确定世界中谈判决策的一种方式。
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
Futures
Futures Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
124
期刊介绍: Futures is an international, refereed, multidisciplinary journal concerned with medium and long-term futures of cultures and societies, science and technology, economics and politics, environment and the planet and individuals and humanity. Covering methods and practices of futures studies, the journal seeks to examine possible and alternative futures of all human endeavours. Futures seeks to promote divergent and pluralistic visions, ideas and opinions about the future. The editors do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the pages of Futures
×
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