The Form Is Never Neutral
tinyletter.com
tinyletter.com
> I'd describe what I'm doing as wrestling with the question of the meaning of technology as way of getting at the moral significance of our tools.
Tools have no moral (as in morality) significance, I'd be prone to say; at least not any more than other organs.
The moral significance of a tool may be complicated, multi-faceted, highly controversial, or heavily dependent on subtle specifics of the context. In the midst of such complexity, I think it is very tempting to say that the tool itself has no bearing on the conflict and all that matters is the humans who wield it. But I don't think we can get away with this simplification.
So what then? How should we treat our tools? How _can_ we treat them? It seems this thread goes quite deep... Sigh, I should really get into the habit of trying to write out my thoughts in a personal notebook.
I object to this kind of reasoning.
Does a rock have moral significance?
Isn't it illegal to hit someone with a rock and kill them? So by giving thought to that possibility, I have shown that a rock does have moral significance?
Tools simply enhance a users ability to affect the world around them. And fundamentally something that only enhances cannot be be morally bad because it can simply not be used.
> Tools simply enhance a users ability to affect the world around them.
Some tools are very general. It's hard to imagine faulting the tool, as it is so useful that it isn't an serious option to abandon it, even if some people use it for bad purposes.
Other tools are not so general. A straight-forward example may be high-explosives. They can used for good, but those situations are very specific and easily recognizable. If high-explosives are found outside of those contexts, the moral significance is obvious. There is a decent chance that someone has bad intentions. A very clear and compelling explanation would be needed to resolve the matter.
Most tools are fairly benign. Or the beneficial usage significantly outnumbers any malicious examples, especially in common contexts. But I don't think means that all tools are by default neutral.
At risk of belaboring the point, here are two more examples:
* Utility knife: (1) When camping: good (2) In an elementary school: bad
* Cameras: (1) 99% of the time: good (2) In the public showers or changing room: bad
In the above "bad" scenarios, I would say the tool itself takes on a negative moral significance. Obviously, there can be caveats -- e.g. you might be filming a movie -- but you get the idea. I'm curious what you think of this.