平衡谨慎和改变的需要:一般的上下文完整性方法

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Elizabeth O’Neill
{"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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Philosophy and Technology
Philosophy and Technology Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
98
×
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