Science and Engineering Ethics最新文献

{"title":"A Case for End-Constrained Ethical Artificial Intelligence.","authors":"Tyler Cook","doi":"10.1007/s11948-025-00577-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-025-00577-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>One natural motivation for designing artificial intelligence (AI) with ethical capacities is to mitigate the risk that powerful AI systems will harm us. Against this idea, some authors have argued we do not need ethical AI in order to prevent harm to humans. We simply need safe AI. In this paper, I consider an argument of this type and raise objections to it. In particular, I argue that the goal of implementing safety features in AI systems is a much more complicated task than such authors have acknowledged, and moreover I maintain that merely safe AI could be ethically problematic in numerous ways. Then, I show that a certain kind of ethical AI, which I call end-autonomous ethical AI, would be especially dangerous since their autonomous capacities would make possible numerous risks. Finally, I motivate the case for a specific category of ethical AI, namely, end-constrained ethical AI. I describe these systems as possessing whatever capacities would be necessary for satisfying ethical aims beyond safety while lacking end-autonomy. In short, the goal of this paper is to establish that end-constrained ethical AI occupy a desirable middle ground between merely safe AI and end-autonomous ethical AI because they allow us to secure more ethical goods than just safety, and they are also not as risky as end-autonomous ethical AI.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12808250/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145821771","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Does a Smarter ChatGPT Become More Utilitarian?","authors":"Jürgen Pfeffer, Sebastian Krügel, Matthias Uhl","doi":"10.1007/s11948-025-00579-4","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-025-00579-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Hundreds of millions of users interact with large language models (LLMs) regularly to get advice on all aspects of life. The increase in LLMs' logical capabilities might be accompanied by unintended side effects with ethical implications. Focusing on recent model developments of ChatGPT, we can show clear evidence for a systematic shift in ethical stances that accompanied a leap in the models' logical capabilities. Specifically, as ChatGPT's capacity grows, it tends to give decisively more utilitarian answers to the two most famous dilemmas in ethics. Given the documented impact that LLMs have on users, we call for a research focus on the prevalence and dominance of ethical theories in LLMs as well as their potential shift over time. Moreover, our findings highlight the need for continuous monitoring and transparent public reporting of LLMs' moral reasoning to ensure their informed and responsible use.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12748100/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145812162","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Enhancing Soldiers for Future Warfare: Good Science; Bad Ethics?","authors":"Nicholas G Evans, Michael L Gross, Ryan Shandler","doi":"10.1007/s11948-025-00573-w","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-025-00573-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ethical concerns dog emerging technologies designed to enhance warfighter performance. Brain-computer interfaces, exoskeletons, and mind- or body-altering drugs raise fears about risky, invasive, and experimental medical procedures that offer armies physically and cognitively superior soldiers that will dictate and disrupt the course of future war. What counts as enhancement, however, has been subject to longstanding and passionate debate. This study aims to put an end to this dispute by employing a conjoint experimental design to survey a group of military and professional experts from across the world to explore how definitional perceptions of enhancement influence ethical acceptability. Two main findings emerge. First, we find that there already exists a broad agreement about what constitutes enhancement, and this consensus spans countries, discipline, political orientation, and age. Future policy may now be able to accommodate a definition of enhancement that is widely shared among members of the international community. Second, across the board, ethical acceptability diminishes as medical technologies aim for transhuman warfighting capabilities. Enhancement research and development for military purposes must navigate the conflicting ethical demands of medical experimentation and lawful war. Human enhancement is not morally unacceptable but ethically precarious, requiring regulation, oversight, and transparency.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12799693/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145764406","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Choosing Less Harmful Alternatives: The Ethics of Harm Reduction in Emerging Technologies.","authors":"Cody Turner","doi":"10.1007/s11948-025-00570-z","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-025-00570-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When are we obligated to choose less harmful alternatives to existing practices? This article addresses this deceptively simple question by developing the Principle of Choosing Less Harmful Alternatives (PCLHA), which holds that it is morally wrong to continue to engage in a practice that causes harm when an affordable, accessible, functionally equivalent, less harmful alternative exists. While PCLHA pertains to any practice for which its conditions are met, the principle is particularly valuable for contingent (rather than intrinsic) wrongs, delineating a sufficient condition for when technological or social progress renders once-permissible practices impermissible. I pressure-test PCLHA by applying it to emerging technologies across several domains, including food ethics (cultivated meat), transportation ethics (autonomous vehicles), and leisure ethics (virtual reality tourism and sex bots). Through these applications, I demonstrate that the principle faces two opposing challenges: it appears simultaneously too weak, by not requiring switches to less harmful alternatives when they fall short of full functional equivalence (e.g., allowing factory farming despite massive harm), and too strong by requiring switches to alternatives in cases where this feels intuitively overreaching (e.g., mandating virtual reality tourism). I address these challenges via complementary modifications to PCLHA: a ‘Sliding Scale Modification’ that allows the required degree of functional equivalence to vary with harm severity, and a ‘Threshold of Harm Qualification’ that limits PCLHA’s application to cases of significant harm.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12789246/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145670412","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Horizon Scan of Emerging Issues at the Intersection of National Security, Artificial Intelligence, and Human Performance Enhancement.","authors":"Blake Hereth, Gérard de Boisboissel, Martin Cm Bricknell, Maria Brincker, William Casebeer, Jovana Davidovic, Jeremy Davis, Jacob Earl, Nir Eisikovits, Daniel Feldman, Lucas França Garcia, Frédéric Gilbert, Vincent Guérin, Adam Henschke, James Hughes, Dominique Lambert, Sahar Latheef, Jonathan D Moreno, Ian Shane Peebles, Michelle T Pham, Shira Pindyck, Ilya Rudyak, Nariyoshi Shinomiya, Neil D Shortland, Robert Sparrow, Joseph Stramondo, Laure Tabouy, Paul Tubig, David Whetham, Nicholas G Evans","doi":"10.1007/s11948-025-00546-z","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-025-00546-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Horizon scanning is intended to identify opportunities and threats associated with technology, regulatory, and social change. Here, we report the results of a new horizon scan based on inputs of an international group of 33 participants, focusing on future issues arising from the military use of artificial intelligence (AI) for augmenting human performance. The final list of 12 issues includes topics spanning from the political (educating and training individuals to accept and work with AI), to the regulatory (issues of consent to human-AI teaming and hybridization), to security (the hackability of neural devices that connect to AI), to philosophical (the nature and phenomenology of brain-to-brain interfaces). The early identification of such issues is relevant to researchers, policymakers, military practitioners, and the wider public.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12783173/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145670554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rethinking Geoengineering Governance Utilizing the Playing God Argument: Considerations of Knowledge, Control, and Benevolence.","authors":"Julian Dreiman, Brian Patrick Green","doi":"10.1007/s11948-025-00569-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-025-00569-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Because greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow, it is increasingly challenging to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius. As such, there is a growing debate on whether or not to deploy geoengineering to reduce warming. Geoengineering is controversial, and many arguments have been raised against it, including the “playing God” critique. When understood through the philosopher Moti Mizrahi’s reinterpretation, the playing God critique does not eliminate the possibility of using geoengineering, but rather informs how its governance can be improved. We use Mizrahi’s interpretation of the playing God critique to claim that the existing governance literature lacks sufficiently actionable proposals which duly incorporate three components of effective governance: control, knowledge, and benevolence. We then go on to suggest some actionable governance mechanisms aimed at supporting the benevolent use of geoengineering. We believe that a three legged approach to geoengineering governance can both respond to the playing God critique and encourage the development of a more robust, well rounded governance regime.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12779705/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145649322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Societal Readiness Thinking Process 2.0: Incorporating Epistemic Reflexivity for Responsible Innovation.","authors":"Robert Braun, Michael J Bernstein, Arnab Chakraborty, Johannes Starkbaum, Florian Winkler","doi":"10.1007/s11948-025-00568-7","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-025-00568-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Frameworks for ascertaining the societal dimensions of research and innovation (R&I), such as the Societal Readiness Thinking Tool (SRTT), have supported reflection on ethics and responsibility but often risk reducing reflexivity to procedural checklists or impact assessments. This paper develops an enhanced version, the reflexive SRTT 2.0 process, by incorporating concepts of epistemic reflexivity and ethnomethodological sensitivity. We introduce the concept of reflexive societal readiness, which understands readiness as a situated, ongoing accomplishment shaped by both local practices and institutional \"relations of ruling.\" Drawing on ethnomethodological observations, reflexive questionnaires, and an initial workshop in the Horizon Europe project AGRO4AGRI, we examined how researchers engaged with reflexivity in practice. Our findings reveal three recurring patterns: reflexivity was often deflected through reliance on methodological safeguards, outsourced to societal impact experts or stakeholders, and substituted with compliance to regulatory frameworks or dominant imaginaries of sustainability and competitiveness. These practices uphold internal project orders and limit the potential for interdisciplinary learning and critical engagement. To address these obstacles, SRTT 2.0 proposes a reflexive process combining (a) observation of situated practices, (b) reflexive questioning that foregrounds individual positionalities, and (c) workshops that foster collaborative and institutional learning. This design enables researchers to critically interrogate their assumptions, engage more meaningfully with inclusion, and question the sociotechnical imaginaries shaping their work. We argue that embedding such reflexive processes into project lifecycles can extend and strengthen Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) frameworks by cultivating collaborative, empathetic, and institutional learning. While challenges remain, SRTT 2.0 offers a transferable pathway for fostering more reflexive and responsible innovation practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":"31 6","pages":"42"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12657569/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145607155","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Addressing Autonomy Risks in Generative Chatbots with the Socratic Method.","authors":"Wencheng Lu, Zhenni Hu","doi":"10.1007/s11948-025-00567-8","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-025-00567-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Autonomy is a fundamental ethical principle in artificial intelligence (AI) ethics. Current discussions regarding autonomy-related risks in human-AI interaction, as well as potential mitigation strategies, have mainly focused on recommendation systems and algorithmic decision-making systems. However, systematic analyses of the autonomy issues posed by newly emerging generative AI or chatbots (such as ChatGPT) remain scarce. This paper aims to bridge this gap and proposes a Socratic method-based chatbot, herein designated SocrAI, as a potential countermeasure informed by recent technological advancements. We identify two primary forms of autonomy risk associated with generative chatbots-false mental states and cognitive deskilling-and, through an examination of their underlying causes, argue that the Socratic method offers a plausible means of mitigation. The paper further assesses the feasibility of employing the Socratic method within generative chatbots to preserve and support users' autonomy and outlines the prospective implementation of SocrAI together with directions for future work. SocrAI represents a novel attempt to strengthen human agency, one that encourages users to become self-initiating inquirers who, with the assistance of AI, actively engage their abilities in the pursuit of answers.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":"31 6","pages":"41"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12657563/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145607121","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Mele's Digital Zygote: Developer Responsibility for Neural Networks.","authors":"Anders Søgaard, Filippos Stamatiou","doi":"10.1007/s11948-025-00566-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-025-00566-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Should developers be held responsible for the predictions of their neural networks-and if not, does that introduce a responsibility gap? The claim that neural networks introduce a responsibility gap has seen significant pushback, with philosophers arguing that the gap can be bridged, or did not exist in the first place. We show how the responsibility gap turns on whether we can distinguish between foreseeable and unforeseeable neural network predictions. Empirical facts about neural networks tell us we cannot, which seems to force developers to either assume full responsibility or no responsibility at all, introducing a responsibility gap-unless, of course, the same empirical facts hold true of humans, in which case there is no gap, but the trouble is simply with the classical notion of responsibility. We revisit and revise Mele's Zygote, as well as the famous Palsgraf case, and argue that in fact, what complicates responsibility assignment for neural networks also complicates responsibility assignment for humans, and humans seem to confront us with the same all-or-nothing dilemma. Thus, we agree there is no technology-induced responsibility gap (there was no gap in the first place), but for slightly different reasons than our predecessors.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":"31 6","pages":"40"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12657523/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145607095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Promoting User Involvement to Foster Technological Citizenship in the Digitizing Healthcare Domain.","authors":"Anne Marte Gardenier, Iris Cramer, Rinie van Est","doi":"10.1007/s11948-025-00565-w","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11948-025-00565-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Artificial intelligence (AI) is playing an increasingly prominent role in healthcare technology, particularly in patient monitoring and diagnosis. While AI offers significant benefits, it raises concerns about the patient-provider relationship and key care values. To mitigate these risks and align technology with societal values, experts stress the importance of user involvement in technology development. However, input from patients or nurses during AI development remains uncommon. The rapidly digitizing healthcare thus demonstrates a context where technological citizenship is not yet thriving, underscoring the need for improvement in this area. This article examines a case study where nurses contributed to the development of an AI-driven monitoring camera for the cardiothoracic surgery department. Based on interview data, our study shows that involving users, particularly nurses, can lead to the improved innovation of a socio-technical care practice, greater recognition of the importance of user involvement among technology developers, and increased empowerment of nurses with regards to the technology that impacts their work practice. To promote technological citizenship in the evolving healthcare landscape, this article offers recommendations for fostering greater user involvement during the development and implementation of new technologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":"31 6","pages":"39"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12634806/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145565995","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}