{"title":"彼得森对杜鲁门和炸弹的误解","authors":"J. O'day","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2020.1848196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Martin B. Peterson argues that the social experiment analysis improperly shifts our focus onto the rhetorical dimension of debates over technology, which is ‘clearly irrelevant’ to the ‘traditional’ question: is this a morally acceptable technology? By invoking Harry Truman and the atom bomb in his counterargument, however, Peterson exemplifies the important role that rhetoric plays in our assessment and acceptance of certain technologies. Peterson’s account of The Bomb is an unfortunate byproduct of American nationalist dogma, but the social experiment analysis is well equipped to neutralize its obfuscating effect. Philosophers should further investigate its utility in light of this analytical strength.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"21 1","pages":"69 - 75"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Peterson Gets Wrong about Truman and The Bomb\",\"authors\":\"J. O'day\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21550085.2020.1848196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Martin B. Peterson argues that the social experiment analysis improperly shifts our focus onto the rhetorical dimension of debates over technology, which is ‘clearly irrelevant’ to the ‘traditional’ question: is this a morally acceptable technology? By invoking Harry Truman and the atom bomb in his counterargument, however, Peterson exemplifies the important role that rhetoric plays in our assessment and acceptance of certain technologies. Peterson’s account of The Bomb is an unfortunate byproduct of American nationalist dogma, but the social experiment analysis is well equipped to neutralize its obfuscating effect. Philosophers should further investigate its utility in light of this analytical strength.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics Policy & Environment\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"69 - 75\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics Policy & Environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2020.1848196\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics Policy & Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2020.1848196","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
Martin B. Peterson认为,社会实验分析不恰当地将我们的注意力转移到技术辩论的修辞维度上,这与“传统”问题“显然无关”:这是一种道德上可接受的技术吗?然而,通过在他的反驳中引用哈里·杜鲁门和原子弹,彼得森举例说明了修辞在我们评估和接受某些技术时所起的重要作用。彼得森对《炸弹》的描述是美国民族主义教条的不幸副产品,但社会实验分析很好地抵消了其令人困惑的影响。哲学家应该根据这种分析的力量进一步研究它的效用。
What Peterson Gets Wrong about Truman and The Bomb
ABSTRACT Martin B. Peterson argues that the social experiment analysis improperly shifts our focus onto the rhetorical dimension of debates over technology, which is ‘clearly irrelevant’ to the ‘traditional’ question: is this a morally acceptable technology? By invoking Harry Truman and the atom bomb in his counterargument, however, Peterson exemplifies the important role that rhetoric plays in our assessment and acceptance of certain technologies. Peterson’s account of The Bomb is an unfortunate byproduct of American nationalist dogma, but the social experiment analysis is well equipped to neutralize its obfuscating effect. Philosophers should further investigate its utility in light of this analytical strength.