So true Johan> I find that much of ethical debate at a societal level provokes a somewhat perverse tendency to whimsy.

We can debate the finer points of preimplantation testing of embryos, selling of gametes, body parts etc in some societies, while all the time these activites are flourishing and unregulated across the world (some of the countries which do ban these kinds of activities on ethical grounds also knowingly buy genetic material for research purposes from places which do not have the same regulatory environment ). You could say the same of much socio-political debate and (in)action: climate change, social justice, refugees, food production. a good deal of self interest, hypocrisy and inertia providing emotive camouflage for the facts. It is a game.

We have not reached any consensus on the patenting of living cells, genetic material of different kinds, or even biological processes. We do sometimes tend to justify our decisions after the fact, on the basis of ethics, and not any other relevant motivation or decision pressure, because the latter is often very complex and interwoven with vested interests. Relatively speaking, I'm not aware of a lot of ethical material which discusses empathy as distinct from altruism. Unfortunately I doubt there is much species survival value in empathy, let alone that nebulous quality "intelligence".. I would love to be shown that I am wrong in thinking such things.

So, I think John Harris's stand is probably the most realistic: we WILL continue to develop and use all kinds of technology somewhere or other, whether it is considered ethical or not in different places. Harris goes as far as to consider this an ethical obligation to improve ourselves. It may be that we ultimately diverge into two species: Homo Hedonis and Homo Abnegatis. We do this because we can, not because we understand even a meaningful part of what we are doing or any possible ramifications. Unfortunately the scope and depth of our ignorance is such that there is no way of estimating how much we dont know, or how soon we will know enough to be fairly sure of any unintended side effects.

We are "muddling through" this technological explosion, like idiots savants, hoping we wont fall irretrievably! Whether it is good or bad is kind of irrelevant, except at the level of personal decision and personal action. Yes, it is dangerous, and yes it is one of the many things we do that may in the end prove our downfall as a species, and possibly that of life on this planet, though that is unlikely given the track record of evolution. We are the mouse that roars...... maybe suicidal behaviour?

But on another level you sort of have to marvel at the sheer hubris. if we keep on extending our capabilties, - it also may paradoxically prove to be our salvation. Amoral and contextual enough?

It's a great debate and surely mi position may change as other arguments appear, but my first position would be that basic human values and ethics are deeply rooted in life (quoting Paul Ricoeur) and thus do not depend on technology, although technology and social appropiations of techonological innovations may have a deep influence of human relationships -but the basic structure of human ethics is more or less the same. However, one should confront this view with that of Richard Rorty according to which there is no basic nucleus of the human mind or individuality. So, are there basic human values? And what are their foundations? Those questions are under debate when you ask the question regarding the influence of technology on human values

I do think that, if the regular public could really have acknowledgement of the technological innovations, it could greatly influence their values and enhanced their ethics. .. The issue is , there is not enough public information available .

Not only human values are under question regarding the use of technology. Technology even questions the existence of man. Regarding to Merleau-Ponty one has to think about (assistive) technology from the point of view of being-in-the world. I am verry interested in this point of view and wonder if you have any expierience of reseach in that erea.

Of course they do!! Just think for example of cryo-conservation of embryos, what shall you do with them after some years, if nowbody claims for them??? Kill them? - And what about pre-implantation Diagnostics? Shall you eliminate damaged embryos? - Have a look on the new www.enciclopediadebioetica.com, it is in spanish, but perhaps you will understand it, there are several articles on your topic. It is edited by Universidad Católica de Cuyo, San Juan/Argentina. Ursula Ossa, San Juan/Argentina

Technological innovations do not seem to directly change human values. But they (depending on what aspects of human existence a particular technology affects) may provoke questions in our minds which then generate reflections that tend to question existing values

You can't separate 'values,' 'ethics,' and 'technology' - what happens in one will influence the others: thus, a technological advance is both informed by the ethics and values in place at the time of the advance and also influences future views about ethics and values. Health care is a great example of this: what was once viewed as playing God is now commonplace treatment.

As Shakespeare once said, and I paraphrase, "Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Technological innovations abound, yet they may lurk in the shadows for quite a while, given the inertia for a start of the scientific community - Thomas S. Kuhn's "The structure of scientific revolutions" should be a salutory lesson on this as is equally Thomas Popper's take on it and their subsequent debates, but I digress. What has for example divorced the debate on ethics from technological innovations most recently is the attempt of the financial institutions to objectify a profoundly subjective thing such as economics using the power of mathematical "algorithms", by-passing the irrational nature of the so-called 'homo economicus', thanks to the mistaken belief that increasing complexity and how you technologically deal with it - using computers for example - actually means "progress". Some people are now beginning to realise that they based this complexity on the wrong premises - namely that there is such a thing as efficient markets, when left to their own; there isn't, it's just an unproven hypothesis. This only goes to show that it wasn't really the technology that made for the unethical behaviour of 'banksters' as The Economist calls them, but rather due to the total lack of ethics of these selfsame people, hiding behind technology to make a buck. Mind you, in my analysis of the media, normally purported to be the 4th pillar of democracy, there was hardly anyone flagging that up, and only in the last couple of days can we anecdotally - if anyone is doing the researchy on this, I'd like to hear from them - see a re-emergence of a morality framing, besides the usual conflict, responsibility, human interest and economic consequences frames - i.e. the ones that sell papers; so there's hope yet.

Is this part of a research project? is this a research question? what is the context of the question?

I agree; there is a basic intuition toward human dignity which is denied at our peril, I believe. This intuitive assignment of uniquely human dignity is lost (or displaced) only by being "educated" out of it, I believe. R. Rorty (died 2007) did not come to his postmodern ethic via the influence of technology but by that of philosophical thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche (died 1900). Existentialist thinkers like Rorty and Peter Singer (ethics professor at Princeton U) consistently push the envelope toward utilitarian and pragmatist values that deny this basic human dignity as an objective reality. Rather they ascribe this intuition to an emotional level that does not connect with the real world; so true human dignity can be voted out of existence by a democratic process (in that view). For example, Singer believes that a healthy pig has more (true, objective) value than an extremely handicapped human - or even than a six-month post-natal child. The confluence of amazing medical advancements and diverse, often dicey, ethics is very interesting, but I believe they have largely independent roots - technological vs. philosophical and cultural. It's best to avoid the ehical ragged edges that some technologies may present as potential (and highly theoretical) shortcuts to addressing certain disease states. Ethics, as common-sensically understood, should guide technology and not vice versa.

. Y'know, I think Shakespeare said a very true thing! I postulate that 'ethics" ( what makes a good life) and "dignity" are necessarily personal viewpoints which are not unchanging through one's life. I dont think that they can be "damaged" or removed by another party, or any event or change in the world, technological or otherwise.

They become convictions the more one applies them to how one lives and interacts with others, and this process is called integrity. One can lose one's integrity if one's acts do not reflect one's stated values, irrespective of the "morality" of those values. There is no logical reason why anything is intrinsically "good' or "bad". If someone treats another in an "undignified" way, the dignity that is changed is the perpetrator's, as the vitctim's dignity cannot be changed except by themselves.

I sort of think it's a tug of war, between abuse of technology and it's ability to control vs. the endless benefits it creates within a web community of peaceful people that are wiling to take the time to learn and share that knowledge.

I agree with the thought that the choice of a particular technology and its usage impinge upon human values and ethics. Technology is an application of certain scientific principles and laws and helps in the fulfillment of certain anthropological needs, but it is ethics and a code of human values that guide us whether that particular technology should be used or to what use it should be. Use or misuse of a particular technology has a great impact on human values and ethics, as it has created more ethical dilemmas for us, for instance, GM crops are a technological marvel but impact human values and ethics when it raises questions about human health and farmer's autonomy. In order to emerge from the dilemma and take decision, a training in the methods of ethical inquiry is required. Another question that arises is that are ethics/morals/human values universal or context dependent?

Who decides what is an "anthropological need"? Autonomy is frequently conflicted - one person or group's autonomy often restricts another's. Beneficent sociological changes often constrict personal autonomy, and the necessary compromises will be dynamic, changing with context. It is the boundaries which are subject to debate and are never final. Why are human values / rights more important than other species? Even the concept of a web community of peaceful people is subject to many qualifications, and is not likely to be common in a world that is facing overpopulation, climate change and worsening mal-distribution of wealth. How do we know what is good for us if we dont even understand the earth's ecosystem? I dont know of any values which are not context dependent. Does anyone?

I agree with Lyn. With regards to the context dependency of values, "Culture, Leadership and Organizations; the GLOBE-project" by House et al. for example demonstrates how "Culture" dependent values can be - and that's only one context. Does nanotechnology influence our ethics and values? It depends whom you ask. The Messenger project - done by the Social Issues Research Centre in Oxford among others - looked at how scientific journalists in the media in the UK, France, Germany and Italy covered nanotechnology (and biotechnology as well for that matter) and the debates around them and came to the conclusion that they were each time framed differently according to the country of origin. Italy taking more often than the others a "morality" framing. So, go figure!

Here's an interesting article on opinion formation with regards to emergent technologies: "Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions about emergent technologies." James N. Druckman & Toby Bolsen. Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 659 - 688.This article tackles nanotechnology and biotechnology by the way. A key insight from this is that once people have formed an initial opinion about an emergent technology - not hindered by any factual knowledge - they then "process new factual information in a biased manner. Specifically, they view information consistent with their prior opinions as relatively stronger and they view neutral facts as consistent with their existing disposition." I leave it to you to draw conclusions.

So true Johan> I find that much of ethical debate at a societal level provokes a somewhat perverse tendency to whimsy.

We can debate the finer points of preimplantation testing of embryos, selling of gametes, body parts etc in some societies, while all the time these activites are flourishing and unregulated across the world (some of the countries which do ban these kinds of activities on ethical grounds also knowingly buy genetic material for research purposes from places which do not have the same regulatory environment ). You could say the same of much socio-political debate and (in)action: climate change, social justice, refugees, food production. a good deal of self interest, hypocrisy and inertia providing emotive camouflage for the facts. It is a game.

We have not reached any consensus on the patenting of living cells, genetic material of different kinds, or even biological processes. We do sometimes tend to justify our decisions after the fact, on the basis of ethics, and not any other relevant motivation or decision pressure, because the latter is often very complex and interwoven with vested interests. Relatively speaking, I'm not aware of a lot of ethical material which discusses empathy as distinct from altruism. Unfortunately I doubt there is much species survival value in empathy, let alone that nebulous quality "intelligence".. I would love to be shown that I am wrong in thinking such things.

So, I think John Harris's stand is probably the most realistic: we WILL continue to develop and use all kinds of technology somewhere or other, whether it is considered ethical or not in different places. Harris goes as far as to consider this an ethical obligation to improve ourselves. It may be that we ultimately diverge into two species: Homo Hedonis and Homo Abnegatis. We do this because we can, not because we understand even a meaningful part of what we are doing or any possible ramifications. Unfortunately the scope and depth of our ignorance is such that there is no way of estimating how much we dont know, or how soon we will know enough to be fairly sure of any unintended side effects.

We are "muddling through" this technological explosion, like idiots savants, hoping we wont fall irretrievably! Whether it is good or bad is kind of irrelevant, except at the level of personal decision and personal action. Yes, it is dangerous, and yes it is one of the many things we do that may in the end prove our downfall as a species, and possibly that of life on this planet, though that is unlikely given the track record of evolution. We are the mouse that roars...... maybe suicidal behaviour?

But on another level you sort of have to marvel at the sheer hubris. if we keep on extending our capabilties, - it also may paradoxically prove to be our salvation. Amoral and contextual enough?

The question of whether technological innovations influence human values and ethics makes the assumption that human values and ethics can change. Certainly people value different things at different times, and human societies’ have changed their minds about ethical matters more than once. But that’s a bit like asking if science has changed. It is true that our best picture of the laws of physics that run this universe have changed, but the laws themselves have not changed. Similarly, objective ethics do not change. For example, the evolution of cooperation shows that the value of altruism is built into the mathematical structure of this universe. Therefore, ephemeral individual and social opinions regarding ethics are no more important than the history of science. What is of crucial importance, however, is how we can best discover and live up to an objective ethical standard.

For example, it is not just inappropriate or ill-advised to intentionally slaughter the innocent—it is objectively wrong. Otherwise there is no ethical defense for genocide, only one based on raw power—the same raw power exhibited by genocidal tyrants.

The only technology that could possibly change the ethical constraint against murder might be a resurrection machine that makes death meaningless—an invention about as likely in this universe as time machines and reality editors. So murder is murder, whether the victim is a rich aristocrat or an old slave, whether the murder weapon is a large rock or a robotic drone, and whether the killer is a powerful politician or a homeless alcoholic.

Given that ethics are objectively real in the same way that mathematics is real, it becomes obvious that technology cannot change ethics. However, since technology magnifies our power to reify choices, it can certainly magnify the lethality of our disobedience of objectively true ethics. Unfortunately, human ethics fall short of the objectively true ideal because of our knowledge is limited, our upbringing is dysfunctional, and our wills are easily tempted. Therefore technology can be a source of greater evil than ever before—or it can also be a source of great good.

The power of technology forces us to understand ethics better, because if we don’t, the painful price will become increasingly high. This will come to a critical point in the next decade or two as productive nanosystems give us precise control over all matter (including our bodies) to the extent allowed by the laws of physics and our scientific understanding of it. I hope that our understanding of ethics enables us to handle that kind of power.

I would suggest an interesting book wrote by Hans Jonas, The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age, 1985, University of Chicago Press. In this book he rethinks the foundations of ethics in light of the transformations wrought by modern technology: the threat of nuclear war, ecological ravage, genetic engineering, and the like. Though informed by a deep reverence for human life, Jonas's ethics is grounded not in religion but in metaphysics, in a secular doctrine that makes explicit man's duties toward himself, his posterity, and the environment. Jonas offers an assessment of practical goals under present circumstances, ending with a critique of modern utopianism.

Because of technical limitations of distribution of the organs available to the patients who need kidney, hart, or some other organ transplant, an entire system for fair allocation of transplant material in medicine exists. Indeed, there are technical limitations to almost everything what we do. The reasons are multiple. For example, we either do not have appropriate technologies or the technology even exists but is scarce. Second, fulfillment of our desires and tendencies involves not only technological limitations but also other people have their own desires, tendencies, intentions or interests. Advancement of technology would have some effects on techniques that are used (obviously!) and on people involved, in various ways. To simplify, let us examine an extreme example: imagine we managed, in one million of years, to master technology “completely”, so we can do anything we wish, it does not cost anything, we can do all we want in a split of a second. Well, entire “professional ethics” would then probably completely disappear or would look very much different. In medical ethics, for example, the medical interventions would not be limited by the shortage of material, techniques, money, by competing interests of the others involved in it, resources, problem of allocation, distribution or may be even personnel shortages, all these would vanish. For example, the esthetic surgery would be performed almost without limits. The limits would be not costs, available time of the surgeon, competing interests of other patients and shortage of resources of any kind. The limits would be imposed only by some “other”, may be new ethical concepts or everyday morality and may be, by some new concept of happiness, freedom and number of other factors now impossible to imagine. The future will be different, we know this. How different, this we even could not guess. So ethics of the future will not be the same as ethics of today. Our ethics is shaped (also) by non-moral values, and they will change.

All misery in this age come from the application of technology without ethics. Technology always need ethics in guiding of the application of technology. How could technology affect the concept of ethics whereas ethics in professional context become "commander" for decision making in implementing technology. Almost more than 50% application of technology have had dilemma of ethics such as Nuclear bomb for peace or war

Effect of technology on ethics has been known for a long time. According to studies, technology is having a profound affect on ethics . One study found that nearly half of those polled said they had engaged in some sort of unethical action related to new technology within the last year(1). Technology is also making the definition of ethical behavior even more unclear. A second study found that one out of every six Americans believes traditional ideas of right and wrong have been made obsolete by new technologies (2).

1-McDonald, G.“Increase in Unethical Practices in the Workplace”.(July 28, 1998).[online]Available at http://www.pcworld.com

2-Semas, J.“The Technology Ethics Gap: New Rules Aren't Yet Clear”.(1998).[online]Available at http://www.hightechcareers.com/doc598/ethics598.html

Ethics mean the logic of good or bad deeds including deontology, teleological and virtue ethics. Technology contributed only to teleological ethics i.e. utilitarianism and pragmatism

My above given comment was too long and unclear. Let me try again. If morality would not depend at all on how the non moral world is, then (and this will be a tautology to state that -) the influence of technology on morality would be uncertain. We could even imagine that the morality would NOT be influenced by the development of technology. But since I strongly believe that the non moral values (values that would reside in technology for example) are strongly linked with our moral judgments (our intrinsic moral concepts), I do not doubt that our present moral judgments would strongly differ from those in the future. The extreme example in my comment above, where I tried to push the technological development to the extreme shows that inevitably we would, in medical ethics, certainly have very different opinions about the issues for which we may believe today to have crystal clear opinion. And it will be so not only in medical ethics but it will be similar in the other fields. If our predictive power would with technological development substantially increase, I would be even inclined to accept consequential strategies which, for the time being, I believe to be disastrous.

Bioethics that declared by UNESCO is one of the preventive way to reduce disaster by technology. But too much dilemma of ethics caused by technology usage

Valentina

In the mid 40s of last century Wiener developed the so-called cybernetic conception of the human nature. According to him, human nature is a metaphysical universe whose code is designed as a combination of matter, energy and information. Using the language of Wiener, human beings can define as "information objects of countless energy processing (reasoning, estimating, calculating, deciding ...) certainly within his physical nature. Actually, Wiener tries to assimilate the new paradigms of eligible cases by changing the existing code of laws, rules and practices. He says that the structure of the machine or structure of the organism is a kind of index of achievement that can be expected from them. In this context, although we, humans, are only small puddles in the river that is constantly flowing, at the same time, according to Wiener, we are the models that are immortalized. Back in 1976 Maner noted that the emergence of computers generated entirely new ethical problems that would not exist if the computers would not have been invented. Johnson thought that computers only transform the old ethical problems, but creates entirely new ethical situations that have never been seen. For these reasons, according to her, we are forced to apply traditional ethical norms in the new, unfamiliar area. Finaly, according to Moore, computers are reasonably adaptable and can be programmed for any activity. That means you cannot avoid the ethical responsibility of those who programmed them. Moreover, Moore argues that the logical adjustment of computers enable people to make a number of things that they previously were not able to do. And because nobody could do them before, they could not know about some negative consequences of their activity. Also, previously there was no need to establish any laws or standards of good practice, i.e. specific ethical rules that will govern them. This conceptual and ethical entanglement, produced by the new information technology, Moore called "legal vacuum".

Technology is at its peak; it has given us speed, but has also made our life complex.

According to Einstein - the fundamental problem of the modern people is that they get obsessed with means to the neglect of the ends. This cripples the art of living.

The question may be considered as incomplete. Of course does technology influence value, behaviour and ethics. Why not? The normative value is that counts. Ethics is not a thing, it is a feature invented and assigned by human to some behaviour. I agree with Johan that not the technology but human's behaviour norms. Technology does help to make our lives more comfortable and beat others in survivaling the fittest. Unstoppable and ceasing - if ever existing - values and ethics regarding the altruïstisme of human.

@ K Pieters: We are constantly beating humans in our environment for the best place in the arena, i.e. best view, best food and best chances for survival. Is it reasonable to question if we 'should' beat them? Or is it inevitable that we attempt? Technology is our tool. Or, are our altruïstic features beating our selfish genes? Technology is our blessing.

In fact, by making sublime technology you have - in primitive sense - advantage in having access to basic needs as energy, water and food. I would not affirm but rather suppose that some people do have altruïstic meaning in producing products or services - only and if they are not in basic needs of goods as mentioned before. Maybe they - in your environment will not inmediately beat you but would rather use you or steal from you, to be in that advantaged position. Yes, feature of 'short term' thinking, very common in nature.

@Alexia, @Kees.

I think that there are two questions. One is whether the advancement of technology would change our moral concepts. My answer was yes. The other question, that you two discuss, is whether the possession of goods (advanced technology is one also) will produce more unfair competition or even influence our moral concepts. This second question of how wealth influences moral concepts is not new, it has been discussed since Aristotle and concerns more human psychology then ethics itself.

can I widen the focus of the argument a little? I would argue that for a number of centuries now we have lived within a socio-political framework that has maximized economic prosperity against a backdrop of a minimalist morality. So, we have gradually come to see a disconnection of political life from the moral concerns and priorities that define 'real' life. All technology exist in context - its scope, objectives, agenda, means and successes are shaped by a hierarchy of priorities that come from the a political world, which is predominantly characterized by the interests of privileged few, and from a generally amoral business world. Good technology could save us all, but who pays for its development? Who pays scientists' salaries?

Meanwhile we could state that technology itself and its inevitable development has a very high rate to influence human values and ethics. Which is a not normative conception: nor good or bad for us and society if values and ethics change. Then, we state that technology urges coorperation to succeed, so working together instead of beating eachother is meaningful. Does the meaning of development of technology remodel our ethics in dealing with eachother?

Knife is good in hand of chef but dangerous in hand of robber. Technology is good in hand of pious person/ wise human. Also technology of the gun, the important is who is the man behind the gun ?. Knife and gun is only analogy of the technology in general. In special condition, good person or wise human need to use sharp knife to slaughter cow. In term of moral, technology will be needed to remove pain in slaughtering. So Technology help us for make action much more comfortable and convenience to achieve the best moral choice but remain depend on the heart of the person (intention). Technology provide much more choice in selecting the best action in term of morality but not changed the concept of morality. What we need regarding the advancement of technology is how to make the best decision making by prima facie and other method for upholding humanity value. The concept of Honest is still remain same for all the time either in traditional era and modern era with high technology. But the problem is at what time honest become the main principle to defeat other principle. By technology we get assistance for make prima facie to put honest as the first value. The presence of lie detector is for example for this to answer prima facie when we need lie detector

I wish to consider the present RG question according to the perspective on complexity of systems. It shows how technological advances and their consequences interact in a global socio-cultural system that possess its own meaning , purpose and values which must be integrated .

These features are essential because they reveal the interactions of the specific system of technology with global socio- cultural systems for the existence and development of which ethics is an essential dimension.

The systemic scheme represents a positive innovation by considering technological advances and ethics as sub-systems, open and adaptive , in a permanent relations with each other and with the global socio-cultural organization. Therefore, such sub-systems require a constant coordination and mutual tuning, since each of their significance is critical for the whole structure.

The systemic proposal is significant but at the same time rises problems stemming from our restricted, temporary and supposed knowledge on systems, and the risk of considering the overall interdependencies coercive for all subjects involved.

The ‘technological sub-system’ is in control of the development of projects and their implementation, consistent with the ethical and social requests.

On its side, the functions of the 'ethical sub-system' focus on the development of a ranking of purposes, meanings, values, norms and principles that regulate the existence and evolution of the system. In fact, ethics rests on the analysis, evaluation, fundamental values and meanings of human actions, being mindful that new technologies are even deemed to have effects on the modes of expression of moral judgments.

This last reflection evokes the theme of 'objectivity’ of ethical judgments whereby they are objective to the extent that they reflect a certain moral reality independent of the subject that is evaluating. There are facts or states of affairs that make ethical judgment true. In a summary way, the theories that characterize ethical realism as a semantic proposition are accompanied by epistemological ones whereby ethical judgments can be a vehicle of knowledge or the thesis according to which practical reasoning is used to track or discover moral truths independent of the appraiser.

The alternative approach is usually characterized by the denial of all realist and cognitivist theses. From the semantic point of view, ethical judgments are not statements susceptible to be true or false. As of the epistemological perspective, they are not a means for knowledge; their aspiration to objectivity is deceptive and the practical reasoning is used to persuade, to express their own approaches and to change the attitudes of others. These theories classify a certain family of ethical theories under the name of non-cognitivism. Such a group of schemes denies the possibility of knowing the ethical values . Non-cognitivists argue that the fundamental moral judgments that are at the basis of all moral assertions cannot be the result of a cognitive process, or that it is impossible to say anything about it, because the consistency of such knowledge cannot be verified.

Having touched only what it appeared to me instrumental for my observations related to the main structure of objectivity of ethical judgments, for shortage of space it may seem that some of my comments assume the characteristic of an apodictic truth which is outside of my intentions So, reflecting on the previous considerations, in my opinion there is no doubt that an important point is reached whereby no time should be spent in claiming that objective moral values exist. The consequence of this remark is the universality of moral value, as ethics retains its objectivity in the presence of the consciousness of each individual. Pluralism, instead, leads to a relativistic conception of ethics for which the various positions assume a contingent meaning depending on the elements that motivate it. Under this aspect, illustrative is the attitude of subjectivism, based on the experiences of individual beliefs, i.e. without any form of verifiable control. Man becomes the ‘norm of himself’, an isle disconnected from everything else, overlooking the detail that knowledge and morality must be consistent and also objective in order to become values.

Hence, as far as the present question is concerned, pluralism of moral principles is more or less related to the arbitrary will of the evaluating subject and anything that is technologically feasible is to be considered morally permissible. This kind of ethical relativism, which reaches its peak in erasing the fundamental principles of the natural moral law, does not only have impact at the theoretical level, but has also implications at a practical one. There is an incentive to develop a personal ethical model in complete autonomy, as it would be possible to choose freely from an imaginary set of preferences.

@ Kees,

Let me explain that I have tackled the discussion of the RG question from my standpoint of a micro-economist having in mind some issues related to the ethical outlook and the role played in it by technological innovations. This is to frame my participation in the debate and to agree with you that it is necessary to think long and hard over the subject matter. Here are a number of additional considerations to what I have previously expressed in light of some hints provided by your observations.

Contrary to what the post-modernists argue, I believe that the social world is not without any fixed points. Consequently, I’ll begin by focusing my attention on social relations that aim to objectivity, thinking as an example to the instruments of recording and archiving, such as those that are made available to us by technology as the iPad.

From my point of view, I'm not the only one to observe that the present condition of our world is dominated by insecurity, uncertainty and individualism. The development of new technologies is to be edged within this status of affairs. Now, I trust that we should consider post-modernism as characterized by its ‘fragmented’ structure among the many features that it presents. Everything is associated with subdivision, imminence, promptness, precariousness and uncertainty. For instance, the postmodern concept of truth is characterized by infrequency, giving rise to relativism, namely to the position that by asserting the plurality of truths any subject is bound to his/her arbitrariness and then to subjectivism. In this way any individual gives the impression of wishing to produce truth by himself/herself.

In this context, several factors indicate that it is not easy to manage the complexity of the ethical issues of science, because of the presence of opposing views: ‘ethics of truth’, ‘stringent value-free science’, ‘ability to understand without judging’. These considerations prompts me to say that it is essential to reflect again on objectivity, on the complexity of the scientific language and on the difficulty of translating scientific experience in culturally understandable terms.

I take this opportunity to say that - as a collateral subject of reflection about ‘fragmentation’ - I see that transdisciplinarity deserves to be taken into account as a creditable step in removing the sub-division of knowledge and therefore the break-up of the human being. It could show a new image of reality if it can stand an open discussion, an entire ‘co-occurrence’ between the various disciplines, and if it will deal with issues associated to the aim and meaning of the ordinary actuality and - more generally - to the ethical and even metaphysical issues linked to the basic foundations of existence.

After this accompanying consideration, I’ll return to the main items of my comments by saying that it appears to me that cultures are now controlled exclusively by material interests and if I am right, the need arises for a search of more ‘solid’ ethics, based on truth and human dignity. Since science and technology pop up to be increasingly unable to prevent the negative consequences of their development, such as the destruction of the environment, the waste of resources, the threats to human survival, it is appropriate that more reflection should be given to the socio-cultural forces that address these difficulties and - in general - to all activities designed to heal these emergencies.

Moreover, I keep in mind that we need a scientific knowledge that can enhance several achievements: the awareness of the relationship between science and society; the overcoming of the scientistic dogma on truth, objectivity, neutrality, openness to dialogue with the different types of knowledge, eg. philosophy and ethics. By accepting these solicitations, the old scientific rationality would be replaced by a new scientific reason, sensible to moral principles and human values.

Since it was considered hardly possible to obtain complete objectivity when studying social phenomena, several scholars have totally dropped the prerequisite of objectivity, with the consequence of blending science with ideology. In my opinion, this tendency to subjectivism is dangerous for science due to the threat of falling into scientism. In the occasion of a RG question devoted to the analysis of the speed of the scientific activity to slip into the various forms of scientism: physicalism, technicism, biologism, I discussed the parallel ‘disposal’ of the role of philosophy, ethics and the refusal of the dialogue on purpose, meanings and values. All that had among the most important consequences the hindrance of a critical epistemology to check the reliability, accuracy and validity of knowledge.

Now, I can link those observations to my arguments previously expressed while commenting the issue of the capacity of technological innovations to influence human values and ethics. My conclusion is that I will stand for objectivity, especially when contentious ideological events be manifest.

No doubt that technological advancement has adverse effects on the values in societies... To prove this notion a comparative analysis can be done.. world before the technological advancement and after that... Communication/Information technology has played the most vital role in this regard.

The basic value of the world is always changing. Changing becoming a must event by any kind of factor including technology and science but there is a constant factor to handle well the changing that is ETHICS based on religion (guidance/ethics norm.)

Living always four component i.e. material, information, energy and Guidance using religion (include ethics as part of religion). Technology can make our life easy in utilizing material, information and energy. Today we had ignorance to the guidance (norm) of ethics from the God to utilize all material, information, and energy properly or with wisdom.

Think of the dramatic revolutions in ethics. As hunter-gatherers and proto-agriculturalists, we started with intra-species kill rates comparable to the kill rates of the other great intra-species killers, wolves and chimpanzees (Wrangham in "Killer Species" in Daedalus). Now our rates are much lower according to both Wrangham and Pinker (the latter in "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined."

We're now on the verge of a global ethics as codified in the UN Declarations of Universal Human Rights.

Those revolutions derive directly from technological prowess starting with the agricultural techniques that made large populations with discretionary time possible.

Two dramatic examples are on the cutting edge of revolutions in ethics right now. The first is fluctuating attitudes toward capital punishment. Without the economic advances made possible by technology, no one would think twice about killing a miscreant who threatens survival and well-being in significant ways. Now capital punishment becomes a significant moral issue.

Another example is even more heated. Infanticide was a virtually universal practice, motivated by food scarcity, unusual births (twins or albinos), gender preferences and the like. With the advent of safe abortions, infanticide is now virtually universally illegal--though still practiced in unusual cultural circumstances.

When birth control becomes 100% effective and culturally palatable through technological advances, abortion will begin to be regarded as morally unacceptable.

Both examples are driven by the extraordinary human capacity for empathy.

That same capacity drives radical ethical movements like biocentrism and ecocentrism that claim moral standing for life forms other than human and the planet's inorganic features--rivers, mountains, plains, lakes and oceans.

To a certain extent, we are what our technologies have made us. The danger is the set of cumulative technologies that threaten humanity's survival through global climate change or more advanced weapons of mass destruction than those we currently deploy.

There are too many Holidays right now for a long answers. Whether Pinker is right - is hard to say. It is too early to conclude, I think. In the last 100 years we had wars and killings permanently. In my life time, killing has become justified by radical application of consequentialist ideas. I had an impression that in the last century to kill a human being was problematic but was often done in spite of this. Now, some killings are justified on moral grounds.

In the context of medicine, which is my speciality, I would argue that thoughtfully designed and

carefully introduced technologies can improve healthcare outcomes [1]. Also the ethical behaviour

of trainees can be favourably impacted by the introduction of appropriate technology [2]. Confining my response to the field of medicine I would conclude that appropriate technology can influence human values and ethics and will, in the right circumstances improve both [3, 4].

1. Chaudry, B., et al., Systematic Review: Impact of Health Information Technology on Quality, Efficiency and Costs of Medical Care. Ann Intern Med, 2006. 144(10): p. E12-E22.

2. Bolsin, S., T. Faunce, and J. Oakley, Practical virtue ethics: healthcare whistleblowing and portable digital technology. J Med Ethics, 2005. 31(10): p. 612-618.

3. Bolsin, S., et al., New technology to enable personal monitoring and incident reporting can transform professional culture: the potential to favourably impact the future of health care. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2005. 11(5): p. 499-506.

4. Bolsin, S.N. and L. Freestone, Report Cards and Performance Monitoring, in Informed Consent and Clinician Accountability, S. Clarke and J. Oakley, Editors. 2007, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. p. 91-105.

I think technological innovations shape our value system and also get shaped by our value system.

Innovations(its spread and depth) is also dependent on the culture and context within which these are evolved.

These innovations may not be value neutral and we need to take a balanced view.

Dear Prasanta, thank you for the valuable question Are technological innovations greatly influencing human values and ethics?", and for the important contributions made ​​by our colleagues.

I beliee  the gap between the poor and developed nations cannot be bridged unless human valuesin engineering programs  are incorporated in the curriculum / Pakistan ranks high among corrupted countries . I have recently written a big artticle on this subject , highlightning that no engineering program can be succeful without cultivating human values . There is no appreciation and understanding of this topic herte . Can my expert colleagues help me, dr [email protected]. I am redy to send a copy of my first paper.

The Technology has bridge the gap of kilometers, boundaries, culture and nations. But on the other hand we make a gap from our neighbours, society, and nearby people. This distance leads us to do unethical (sometimes) work or only self centered work. Inclusion of ethics and human values in the school and college curriculum is need of hour

Totally agree

With the greatest respect to the very well-founded answers that disagree.

I believe that the influence of technological innovations on human ethics is notorious.

The technology modifies habitual behaviors, simplifies them.

Social networks are an example.

Is it ethical to establish a conversation with someone without a prior presentation? However, it happens

In our knowledge society, time is short, compliments and formalities are ignored, we are going to the point more and more.

Is this modification unique to the digital world?

I have read commentaries in Reseach Gate, that report from different latitudes the professional dissatisfaction with the students that increasingly take refuge in this practice: go more and more to the point.

Technology has ruined the actual social lilfe of humanbeing. Man is social only on internet or with the people beyond the boundaries. He/She is social/ethical/good citizen in pictures/videos only.