While the claim that science is value-neutral is widely accepted, there is a need to debate whether “technology,” which uses scientific knowledge to impact society, can be value-neutral. Technology faces corporate and state influence in its development, ethical responsibilities and choices of its developers, and its impact changes public perceptions and lives. Therefore, technologists must internalize their responsibility for social issues and conduct technology development carefully.
We are often told that science is value-neutral, and I remember coming across a middle school language arts textbook that claimed to be value-neutral. The argument is that the facts observed through the scientific method are objective and therefore cannot depend on values. This is a logical argument, and many people agree with it. But what about the value-neutrality of ‘technology’ as opposed to ‘science’? ‘Technology’ and ‘science’ are often lumped together in the term ‘science and technology’, but they have very different meanings and properties. Wikipedia defines technology as “a body of knowledge or discipline about the process of developing and using tools, machines, materials, etc. for human needs. While technology is a complex and broad concept that is difficult to define in a simple way, we can agree that its essence is the process of using scientific knowledge to create something. Since technology has the property of “creating something,” there must be a “technologist” who develops it, and there must be an “artifact” that is the result of the technology. Since both of these interact with society, technology is not necessarily value-neutral.
The discourse on the value-neutrality of technology is discussed in various fields such as philosophy of technology, history of science, and ethics. However, a more productive discussion would be possible if we could come to a concrete consensus on the meaning of such an unclear concept as ‘technology’ or ‘value neutrality’. For the purposes of this article, we will use ‘technology’ as defined above as ‘the use of scientific knowledge to create something’. We will also understand the claim that technology is “value-neutral” to mean that neither a particular technology nor its developers are ethically responsible for the consequences of its use in society. Using these definitions, we will argue that technology developers are not ethically independent of society and should be held ethically accountable for the effects of their technologies.
In the modern world, technologists cannot be independent of the outside world. Primitive humans used early technologies, such as stone tools, lithic tools, and wheelbarrows, which were adaptations of natural objects, and were not created by a specific technologist or group of technologists with a lot of resources and effort. However, with industrialization, capitalism, and world wars, technology became more sophisticated, and the role of manipulating it fell to a group of professionals known as technologists. Today, the scale of technological development research has grown to the point where it is difficult to do without external support, and as a result, most technological developments since the 20th century have been driven by companies or countries.
Most of the technologies we are familiar with, such as smartphones, cars, and the internet, were developed by companies or outsourced to outside engineers or groups of engineers. In some cases, technologies related to national defense or critical industries are developed by the state. So why do companies develop technologies? As any economics textbook will tell you, it’s to “maximize profits. In modern capitalist societies, technology development is not about “human welfare” or “societal prosperity,” but rather the pursuit of profit for individual companies. For example, drug development is dominated by pharmaceutical companies, which focus on developing “blockbuster drugs” and neglect treatments for rare diseases. A recent example is the controversial case of an automobile company manipulating emissions. In the interest of profit, companies are likely to make choices that are unethical and sometimes even illegal. For example, if a company tried to build a car that exceeded emissions standards, it wouldn’t have happened if automotive engineers recognized their ethical responsibilities and refused to develop the technology. If the technology they develop leads to an illegal outcome, they must be held accountable for it, or the second and third emissions cheating scandals will be repeated.
Those who argue that technology is value-neutral point out that modern society is an expert society, and that technologists should focus on developing technology and philosophers and ethicists should study the social problems that technology creates. They also argue that stopping development in advance because of the potential problems that technology may cause to society is a way of blocking the benefits that technology can bring. But there’s a dangerous blind spot in these arguments. The impacts of technology on society are uncertain and far-reaching, and allowing unchecked development of technology can lead to unpredictable outcomes. Therefore, even if we can’t fully predict the potential impact of a technology, we should analyze it as closely as possible and exercise caution when developing it. While it’s important for philosophers and ethicists to study the social issues of technology, technologists should also be actively involved in this process. In the modern world, where technology has become increasingly specialized, it’s difficult to assess its impact without the expertise of technologists.
For example, when cars became widespread in the early 20th century, people expected them to replace horses and reduce pollution from horse manure, but no one expected car exhaust to become a new source of pollution. When freon gas was first developed, it was touted as a clean, non-polluting gas, but now it’s known to be a major contributor to ozone depletion. As you can see, the side effects of technological advancements often manifest themselves in unexpected ways. But they are also problems that could have been predicted with the knowledge available at the time. It’s impossible to predict all the effects of technology on individuals and society, or the problems it will cause for the natural environment, and it’s important that technologists with specialized knowledge are involved to analyze the consequences as best they can and carefully guide development. If technology developers neglect to do this, they should be considered to have failed to fulfill their ethical responsibilities.
Careful technology development is important because once a technology is developed, its impact and momentum can be too great to reverse. A classic example is the atomic bomb. First developed during World War II, the atomic bomb is a weapon of mass destruction capable of wiping out an entire city with a single blast. Today, there are thousands of them around the world, and the threat is the same as it was when they were developed. Even if we couldn’t stop their development because we were at war, there is no need for humanity to have so many nuclear weapons today. Ideally, all nuclear weapons would be abolished, but political and diplomatic interests have not allowed this to happen. Once a technology enters a society, it is difficult to control it, and it is difficult to return it to the state it was in before it appeared.
Technology is value-dependent in that it has a profound impact on public perceptions and ideas. The “world” around us is a collection of different technologies, and we accept them as a natural part of life and form ideas about them accordingly. The public accepts the artifacts of technology as part of their lives, and their perceptions change based on this. Riding in a car and talking on a cell phone are commonplace now, but they were alien to older generations who were not familiar with technology. It’s worth noting that technology changes not only people’s lives, but also their ideas about themselves, the world, and society.
In the days of horseback travel, Seoul to Busan was considered a very long distance, but today it doesn’t seem as far as it used to. Technology has changed the notion of “far and near.” Also, if we used to consider someone close to us if we saw them every few days, we now consider someone close to us if we talk to them several times a day. This process of technology changing our perceptions is deeply embedded in our daily lives. If human cloning technology is developed and commercialized, the impact will be profoundly transformative. This could be negative, leading to a disregard for life, or positive, leading to a pro-life attitude. Whatever the outcome, technologists are responsible for the impact of technology on society, and it is their ethical responsibility to endeavor to ensure that the impact is positive.
Because science and technology are so closely tied to society, they cannot be objective or value-neutral, but rather are tied to ethical values. Therefore, technologists need to take responsibility for the social problems that technology will cause and choose carefully. If technological development continues unchecked, society can spiral into uncontrollable chaos. This is because in modern capitalist societies, technological development is primarily driven by the pursuit of corporate profits, and these technologies change human perceptions and lives in unpredictable ways. Scientists and engineers will be required to have a high sense of ethics and responsibility.
