2025
Hermann, Julia
Moral certainty, deep disagreement, and disruption Journal Article
In: Synthese, vol. 205, no. 103, 2025.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Conceptual disruption, Deep disagreement, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Moral certainty, Moral progress, Technology
@article{nokey,
title = {Moral certainty, deep disagreement, and disruption},
author = {Julia Hermann},
url = {https://www.esdit.nl/wp-content/uploads/s11229-025-04948-1-1.pdf},
doi = { https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-025-04948-1},
year = {2025},
date = {2025-02-21},
urldate = {2025-02-21},
journal = {Synthese},
volume = {205},
number = {103},
abstract = {Wittgenstein’s On Certainty has been a source of inspiration for philosophers concerned with the notion of deep disagreement (see Fogelin in Informal Logic 25(1):3–11, 2005; Pritchard in Topoi 40:1117–1125, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-018-9612-y). While Wittgenstein’s examples of certainties do not include moral certainties, some philosophers have argued that an analogy can be drawn between certainty regarding the empirical world and moral certainty (Goodman in Metaphilosophy 13:138–148,1982; Hermann in On moral certainty, justification, and practice: A Wittgensteinian perspective, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2015; Pleasants in Inquiry 51(3):241–267, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201740802120673). Moral certainty manifests itself in our fundamental ways of feeling, thinking, and acting morally. It is closely related to an “agreement in form of life” (Wittgenstein in Philosophical investigations, Translated by G.E.M. Anscombe. Third ed., Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1968, § 241.), which makes moral disagreements possible in the first place. In this paper, I aim to shed light on the phenomenon of moral deep disagreement by relating it not only to the notion of moral certainty but also to the concept of deep disruption as it is currently developed and discussed in the philosophy of technology. I argue that certainty, deep disagreement, and deep disruption are all located at the level of “bedrock practices” (Williams in Wittgenstein, mind and meaning, Routledge, Milton Park, 1999, p. 198), and that the fundamentality of their objects should be understood in terms of relationality and interconnectedness. Deep disagreements can occur through deep technology-induced disruption and can take the form of a disruption of deep conceptual agreement. Conceptual common ground can be re-established by continuous interaction and a collective process of moral articulation. Deep disruption and moral deep disagreement can lead to moral progress, for instance in the form of recognising and correcting an epistemic injustice.},
keywords = {Conceptual disruption, Deep disagreement, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Moral certainty, Moral progress, Technology},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Wittgenstein’s On Certainty has been a source of inspiration for philosophers concerned with the notion of deep disagreement (see Fogelin in Informal Logic 25(1):3–11, 2005; Pritchard in Topoi 40:1117–1125, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-018-9612-y). While Wittgenstein’s examples of certainties do not include moral certainties, some philosophers have argued that an analogy can be drawn between certainty regarding the empirical world and moral certainty (Goodman in Metaphilosophy 13:138–148,1982; Hermann in On moral certainty, justification, and practice: A Wittgensteinian perspective, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2015; Pleasants in Inquiry 51(3):241–267, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201740802120673). Moral certainty manifests itself in our fundamental ways of feeling, thinking, and acting morally. It is closely related to an “agreement in form of life” (Wittgenstein in Philosophical investigations, Translated by G.E.M. Anscombe. Third ed., Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1968, § 241.), which makes moral disagreements possible in the first place. In this paper, I aim to shed light on the phenomenon of moral deep disagreement by relating it not only to the notion of moral certainty but also to the concept of deep disruption as it is currently developed and discussed in the philosophy of technology. I argue that certainty, deep disagreement, and deep disruption are all located at the level of “bedrock practices” (Williams in Wittgenstein, mind and meaning, Routledge, Milton Park, 1999, p. 198), and that the fundamentality of their objects should be understood in terms of relationality and interconnectedness. Deep disagreements can occur through deep technology-induced disruption and can take the form of a disruption of deep conceptual agreement. Conceptual common ground can be re-established by continuous interaction and a collective process of moral articulation. Deep disruption and moral deep disagreement can lead to moral progress, for instance in the form of recognising and correcting an epistemic injustice.
2022
Hermann, Julia
Socially Disruptive Technologies and Moral Certainty Book Chapter
In: Eriksen, Cecilie; Hermann, Julia; O'Hara, Neil; Pleasants, Nigel (Ed.): pp. 19-34, Routledge, 1, 2022.
Abstract | BibTeX | Tags: Moral certainty, Technosocial disruption
@inbook{nokey,
title = {Socially Disruptive Technologies and Moral Certainty},
author = {Julia Hermann},
editor = {Cecilie Eriksen and Julia Hermann and Neil O'Hara and Nigel Pleasants},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-12-30},
urldate = {2022-12-30},
pages = {19-34},
publisher = {Routledge},
edition = {1},
abstract = {The work of Wittgenstein has so far received little attention from scholars working in the philosophy of technology. In this chapter, I relate my Wittgenstein-inspired account of moral certainty, which conceives of moral certainty as the certainty of morally competent agents, to recent work on socially disruptive technologies and the phenomenon of technosocial disruption. In a complex interplay with other factors, technologies such as artificially intelligent systems and robots challenge norms, practices, and concepts that play a fundamental role in human life. I argue that technosocial disruption involves the disruption of moral certainty, and that we should refine our notion of moral certainty by integrating the idea of technological mediation. In our technological world, technology mediates how something acquires the role of a moral certainty or loses it, and how moral certainty is manifested in different contexts. I discuss two examples of contexts in which technological developments challenge moral agency at the level of moral certainty: the introduction of robots in elderly care practices and the potential use of ectogestative technology for foetal development.},
keywords = {Moral certainty, Technosocial disruption},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
The work of Wittgenstein has so far received little attention from scholars working in the philosophy of technology. In this chapter, I relate my Wittgenstein-inspired account of moral certainty, which conceives of moral certainty as the certainty of morally competent agents, to recent work on socially disruptive technologies and the phenomenon of technosocial disruption. In a complex interplay with other factors, technologies such as artificially intelligent systems and robots challenge norms, practices, and concepts that play a fundamental role in human life. I argue that technosocial disruption involves the disruption of moral certainty, and that we should refine our notion of moral certainty by integrating the idea of technological mediation. In our technological world, technology mediates how something acquires the role of a moral certainty or loses it, and how moral certainty is manifested in different contexts. I discuss two examples of contexts in which technological developments challenge moral agency at the level of moral certainty: the introduction of robots in elderly care practices and the potential use of ectogestative technology for foetal development.
O'Hara, Neil; Eriksen, Cecilie; Hermann, Julia; Pleasants, Nigel
Introduction on Moral Certainty Book Chapter
In: Eriksen, Cecilie; Hermann, Julia; O'Hara, Neil; Pleasants, Nigel (Ed.): pp. 1-18, Routledge, 1, 2022.
Abstract | BibTeX | Tags: Moral certainty, Technosocial disruption
@inbook{nokey,
title = {Introduction on Moral Certainty},
author = {Neil O'Hara and Cecilie Eriksen and Julia Hermann and Nigel Pleasants },
editor = {Cecilie Eriksen and Julia Hermann and Neil O'Hara and Nigel Pleasants},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-12-30},
urldate = {2022-12-30},
pages = {1-18},
publisher = {Routledge},
edition = {1},
abstract = {The work of Wittgenstein has so far received little attention from scholars working in the philosophy of technology. In this chapter, I relate my Wittgenstein-inspired account of moral certainty, which conceives of moral certainty as the certainty of morally competent agents, to recent work on socially disruptive technologies and the phenomenon of technosocial disruption. In a complex interplay with other factors, technologies such as artificially intelligent systems and robots challenge norms, practices, and concepts that play a fundamental role in human life. I argue that technosocial disruption involves the disruption of moral certainty, and that we should refine our notion of moral certainty by integrating the idea of technological mediation. In our technological world, technology mediates how something acquires the role of a moral certainty or loses it, and how moral certainty is manifested in different contexts. I discuss two examples of contexts in which technological developments challenge moral agency at the level of moral certainty: the introduction of robots in elderly care practices and the potential use of ectogestative technology for foetal development.},
keywords = {Moral certainty, Technosocial disruption},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
The work of Wittgenstein has so far received little attention from scholars working in the philosophy of technology. In this chapter, I relate my Wittgenstein-inspired account of moral certainty, which conceives of moral certainty as the certainty of morally competent agents, to recent work on socially disruptive technologies and the phenomenon of technosocial disruption. In a complex interplay with other factors, technologies such as artificially intelligent systems and robots challenge norms, practices, and concepts that play a fundamental role in human life. I argue that technosocial disruption involves the disruption of moral certainty, and that we should refine our notion of moral certainty by integrating the idea of technological mediation. In our technological world, technology mediates how something acquires the role of a moral certainty or loses it, and how moral certainty is manifested in different contexts. I discuss two examples of contexts in which technological developments challenge moral agency at the level of moral certainty: the introduction of robots in elderly care practices and the potential use of ectogestative technology for foetal development.