Philip Nickel
Ethics and Philosophy of Technology, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Andreas Spahn
Ethics and Philosophy of Technology, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Download article
Published in: Persuasive Technology: Design for Health and Safety; The 7th International Conference on Persuasive Technology; PERSUASIVE 2012; Linköping; Sweden; June 6-8; Adjunct Proceedings
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 68:10, p. 37-40
Published: 2012-06-06
ISBN:
ISSN: 1650-3686 (print), 1650-3740 (online)
In this paper we analyze the role trust plays in an ethical evaluation of PT. We distinguish between trust in PT itself; and trust in those humans who design; produce and deploy it and draw on Discourse Ethics to further distinguish two types of communication embodied in PTs: asymmetrical and symmetrical communication.
1. Spahn; A. PT and the Ethics of Communication; Science and Engineering Ethics; forthcoming.
2. Habermas; J. The theory of communicative Action; Boston: Beacon Press 1984.
3. Apel; K.-O.: Transformation der Philosophie. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1973.
4. Kuhlmann; W. Reflexive Letztbegründung. Freiburg/München: Alber; 1985.
5. Berdichevsky; D.; Neuenschwander; E. Toward an ethics of persuasive technology. Communications of the ACM 42; 51-58; 1999
6. Nickel; P. Trust in technological systems. de Vries; et al: (eds.); Norms and the artificial: moral and non-moral norms in technology. Springer; forthcoming
7. Hardin; R. Trust. Polity; 2006.
8. McLeod; C. Self-trust and reproductive autonomy. MIT Press; 2002.
9. Nickel; P. Trust and obligation-ascription. Ethical theory and moral practice 10; 309-319; 2007.
10. Davis; J. Gernerating Directions for Persuasive Technology Design with Inspiration Card
Workshops; T. Ploug; et al (eds.); Persuasive Technology. Berlin et al: Springer; 262-274; 2010.
