{"title":"平衡谨慎和改变的需要:一般的上下文完整性方法","authors":"Elizabeth O’Neill","doi":"10.1007/s13347-023-00671-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this reply to van de Poel’s ( Philosophy & Technology , 35 (3), 82, 2022) commentary on O’Neill ( Philosophy & Technology , 35 (79), 2022), I discuss two worries about the general contextual integrity approach to evaluating technological change. First, I address van de Poel’s concern that the general contextual integrity approach will not supply the right guidance in cases where morally problematic technological change poses no threat to contextual integrity. Second, I elaborate on how the approach supplies mechanisms for balancing caution with the need for change.","PeriodicalId":39065,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy and Technology","volume":"274-275 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Balancing Caution and the Need for Change: The General Contextual Integrity Approach\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth O’Neill\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13347-023-00671-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In this reply to van de Poel’s ( Philosophy & Technology , 35 (3), 82, 2022) commentary on O’Neill ( Philosophy & Technology , 35 (79), 2022), I discuss two worries about the general contextual integrity approach to evaluating technological change. First, I address van de Poel’s concern that the general contextual integrity approach will not supply the right guidance in cases where morally problematic technological change poses no threat to contextual integrity. Second, I elaborate on how the approach supplies mechanisms for balancing caution with the need for change.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy and Technology\",\"volume\":\"274-275 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00671-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00671-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文是对范德普尔《哲学》一书的回应。科技,35 (3),82,2022)技术,35(79),2022),我讨论了关于评估技术变革的一般情境完整性方法的两个担忧。首先,我要解决van de Poel的担忧,即在存在道德问题的技术变革不会对情境完整性构成威胁的情况下,一般情境完整性方法不会提供正确的指导。其次,我详细阐述了该方法如何提供平衡谨慎与变革需求的机制。
Balancing Caution and the Need for Change: The General Contextual Integrity Approach
Abstract In this reply to van de Poel’s ( Philosophy & Technology , 35 (3), 82, 2022) commentary on O’Neill ( Philosophy & Technology , 35 (79), 2022), I discuss two worries about the general contextual integrity approach to evaluating technological change. First, I address van de Poel’s concern that the general contextual integrity approach will not supply the right guidance in cases where morally problematic technological change poses no threat to contextual integrity. Second, I elaborate on how the approach supplies mechanisms for balancing caution with the need for change.