Suppr超能文献

悲剧性选择与技术责任差距之美德

Tragic Choices and the Virtue of Techno-Responsibility Gaps.

作者信息

Danaher John

机构信息

School of Law, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.

出版信息

Philos Technol. 2022;35(2):26. doi: 10.1007/s13347-022-00519-1. Epub 2022 Mar 30.

Abstract

There is a concern that the widespread deployment of autonomous machines will open up a number of 'responsibility gaps' throughout society. Various articulations of such techno-responsibility gaps have been proposed over the years, along with several potential solutions. Most of these solutions focus on 'plugging' or 'dissolving' the gaps. This paper offers an alternative perspective. It argues that techno-responsibility gaps are, sometimes, to be welcomed and that one of the advantages of autonomous machines is that they enable us to embrace certain kinds of responsibility gap. The argument is based on the idea that human morality is often tragic. We frequently confront situations in which competing moral considerations pull in different directions and it is impossible to perfectly balance these considerations. This heightens the burden of responsibility associated with our choices. We cope with the tragedy of moral choice in different ways. Sometimes we delude ourselves into thinking the choices we make were not tragic (illusionism); sometimes we delegate the tragic choice to others (delegation); sometimes we make the choice ourselves and bear the psychological consequences (responsibilisation). Each of these strategies has its benefits and costs. One potential advantage of autonomous machines is that they enable a reduced cost form of delegation. However, we only gain the advantage of this reduced cost if we accept that some techno-responsibility gaps are virtuous.

摘要

人们担心自主机器的广泛应用会在全社会造成一系列“责任缺口”。多年来,针对此类技术责任缺口提出了各种阐述以及一些潜在解决方案。这些解决方案大多侧重于“填补”或“消除”这些缺口。本文提供了另一种观点。文章认为,技术责任缺口有时是值得欢迎的,自主机器的优势之一在于它们使我们能够接受某些类型的责任缺口。这一论点基于人类道德往往具有悲剧性的观点。我们经常面临相互冲突的道德考量朝不同方向拉扯的情况,而且不可能完美地平衡这些考量。这加重了与我们的选择相关的责任负担。我们以不同方式应对道德选择的悲剧性。有时我们自欺欺人地认为自己做出的选择并非悲剧性的(幻觉主义);有时我们将悲剧性的选择委托给他人(委托);有时我们自己做出选择并承担心理后果(责任化)。这些策略各有其利弊。自主机器的一个潜在优势在于它们能实现成本更低的委托形式。然而,只有当我们承认某些技术责任缺口是有益的时候,我们才能获得这种成本降低的优势。

相似文献

1
Tragic Choices and the Virtue of Techno-Responsibility Gaps.悲剧性选择与技术责任差距之美德
Philos Technol. 2022;35(2):26. doi: 10.1007/s13347-022-00519-1. Epub 2022 Mar 30.
4
Responsibility and the limits of patient choice.责任与患者选择的界限。
Bioethics. 2020 Jun;34(5):459-466. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12693. Epub 2019 Nov 26.
8
Delegation: developing the habit.授权:养成习惯。
Radiol Manage. 2001 Jul-Aug;23(4):16-20, 22, 24.
10
Tragedy in moral case deliberation.道德案例审议中的悲剧
Med Health Care Philos. 2017 Sep;20(3):321-333. doi: 10.1007/s11019-016-9749-7.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

2
Debunking (the) Retribution (Gap).破除(报应)差距。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Jun;26(3):1315-1328. doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00148-6. Epub 2019 Oct 16.
3
The Moral Machine experiment.道德机器实验。
Nature. 2018 Nov;563(7729):59-64. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6. Epub 2018 Oct 24.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验