Shifting the moral responsibility from the human/user/corporation to the technology itself seems illogical.
Democratization might work, but isn't there a risk for the user to corrupt its intended purpose due to the inherent darkness of human nature?
Ex: Initial intents of democratizing knowledge (Google) or social networks (Facebook) both ultimately ended up corroding society with misinformation, fueled by human greed in the ad industry.
What do you say of missiles, and as extension, nuclear weapons? Do you want dictatorships to have them as well? They will ultimately, but we cannot control their use for deterrence or destruction (MAD policy).
> Shifting the moral responsibility from the human/user/corporation to the technology itself seems illogical.
Sure, it is people who make decisions, and so they have moral responsibility (at least in my model of the world and in yours.) Consider our examples; whether it's ships and guns leading to the colonization of the US, nuclear weapons leading to the threat of nuclear destruction, or TCPIP, HTTP, HTML, etc leading to the societal effects of Google and Facebook, there are unintended consequences that wouldn't be present if the technology were absent.
> Democratization might work, but isn't there a risk for the user to corrupt its intended purpose due to the inherent darkness of human nature?
> What do you say of missiles, and as extension, nuclear weapons? Do you want dictatorships to have them as well?
So, again from our examples, in your view, 'we' (the ones with the technology) are the 'good guys', and 'they' (the ones without the technology) are the 'bad guys.' Is there something besides the technology that actually makes us morally superior, or are all humans created equal? I don't see how you can have it both ways. To me, it looks like technology is the difference, making its case for neutrality suspect IMO.
>To me, it looks like technology is the difference, making its case for neutrality suspect IMO.
I'm not convinced this follows. It's seems like what the OP is saying is that technology has the ability to amplify the morals of those wielding it. That technology is the difference is exactly the point. It's amoral and when owned by the "good guys" (whatever your definition), it amplifies those morals and ethics and vice versa for the "bad guys".
In other words, it's not the technology but the morals of those who own it that is the root of good/evil. Unless your point is that a neutrality requirement is that technology must be incapable of being used for either good or ill, the neutrality claim is valid. (Personally, I prefer the term 'amoral' to neutral but I suspect the OP meant the same thing).
> It's amoral and when owned by the "good guys" (whatever your definition), it amplifies those morals and ethics and vice versa for the "bad guys".
I think my main point is that it is the technology-wielding side that prevails, independent of morality. Which means that technology has a moral impact, in reshaping what would otherwise be a fairer fight. Having won, the tech-wielders claim they are the good guys, independent of the actual morality of the situation. "Might makes right." "History is written by the victors."
Ok, I get what you’re saying now. So you’re saying that technology, by is ability to select the winners of conflict, shapes/influences the nature of society’s moral compass.
That’s an interesting systematic perspective if you can get to the view that morals/ethics are subjective and a response to social standing. Almost sounds as a Nietzche-ian perspective
> So you’re saying that technology, by is ability to select the winners of conflict, shapes/influences the nature of society’s moral compass.
Maybe more like we bend the compass to see what we want to see in it.
I'm reminded of a line from the title assassin in 'Grosse Point Blank'...
"When I left, I joined the army, and when I took the service exam my psych profile fit a certain... moral flexibility would be the only way to describe it... and I was loaned out to a CIA-sponsored program, and we sort of found each other. That's how it works."
Democratization might work, but isn't there a risk for the user to corrupt its intended purpose due to the inherent darkness of human nature?
Ex: Initial intents of democratizing knowledge (Google) or social networks (Facebook) both ultimately ended up corroding society with misinformation, fueled by human greed in the ad industry.
What do you say of missiles, and as extension, nuclear weapons? Do you want dictatorships to have them as well? They will ultimately, but we cannot control their use for deterrence or destruction (MAD policy).