| ... |
... |
@@ -1,26
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-All inquiry starts with a purpose - the ultimate end of thought is the production of belief and the satisfaction of doubt. Ethics is thus aimed at practical ends. |
| 2 |
|
-C. S. Peirce. “How to Make Our Ideas Clear (1878).” The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings. Volume 1 (1867-1893. Edited by Nathan Houser and Christian Kloesel. Indian University Press. 124-142 |
| 3 |
|
-The principles set |
| 4 |
|
-AND |
| 5 |
|
-of the object. |
| 6 |
|
- |
| 7 |
|
-All fields of knowledge, including moral knowledge, are still constrained by the general procedure of pragmatic inquiry. |
| 8 |
|
-John Dewey 1. “The Problem of Logical Subject Matter.” 1938 From Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. The Essential Dewey: Ethics, Logic, Psychology. Volume 2. Edited by Hickman and Alexander. Indian University Press. 157-169. |
| 9 |
|
-The word knowledge |
| 10 |
|
-AND |
| 11 |
|
-in further inquiry. |
| 12 |
|
- |
| 13 |
|
- |
| 14 |
|
-Thus, the standard is consistency with the methodological constraints of social inquiry. Impact calculus: a. the standard is not util – it does not say that we only care about the consequences of a certain action, rather it’s a theory of how certain consequences relate to our notion of truth. The rules of scientific inquiry are a constraint on our pursuit of certain consequences, b. non-absolutism is key to finding truth – the pragmatic solution to a given problem varies based on situation. |
| 15 |
|
- |
| 16 |
|
-Understanding nuclear energy from the standpoint of social experimentation is inconsistent with the logic of a ‘ban.’ The very notion of banning the technology miss-frames the debate in a way incompatible with pragmatic social experimentation. |
| 17 |
|
-Van de Poel 15. The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice, and Democracy in the post-Fukushima Era. Ibo van de Poel. (Ibo van de Poel is Anthoni van Leeuwenhoek Professor in Ethics and Technology at Delft University of Technology. His research focuses on new technologies as social experiments, values in engineering design, moral responsibility, responsible innovation, engineering ethics, risk ethics, and the ethics of newly emerging technologies like nanotechnology. He is co-editor of theHandbook of Philosophy of Technology and the Engineering Sciences (Elsevier, 2009), Philosophy and Engineering (Springer, 2010), Moral Responsibility. Beyond Free Will And Determinism (Springer, 2011) and co-author of Ethics, Engineering and Technology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011). He is also a co-editor of the Springer book series in the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology. |
| 18 |
|
-Shifting the moral |
| 19 |
|
-AND |
| 20 |
|
-with nuclear energy. |
| 21 |
|
- |
| 22 |
|
-And this experimental attitude is necessary to reconcile with the philosophical tradition of pragmatism. The changing landscape around energy renders absolutist solutions, such as a ban, this early in our technological understanding utterly misplaced as a form of social decision making methodology. |
| 23 |
|
-Van de Poel 15. The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice, and Democracy in the post-Fukushima Era. Ibo van de Poel. (Ibo van de Poel is Anthoni van Leeuwenhoek Professor in Ethics and Technology at Delft University of Technology. His research focuses on new technologies as social experiments, values in engineering design, moral responsibility, responsible innovation, engineering ethics, risk ethics, and the ethics of newly emerging technologies like nanotechnology. He is co-editor of theHandbook of Philosophy of Technology and the Engineering Sciences (Elsevier, 2009), Philosophy and Engineering (Springer, 2010), Moral Responsibility. Beyond Free Will And Determinism (Springer, 2011) and co-author of Ethics, Engineering and Technology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011). He is also a co-editor of the Springer book series in the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology. |
| 24 |
|
-Moral learning and |
| 25 |
|
-AND |
| 26 |
|
-the moral debate. |