Conceptual Disruption

@article{Hopster2025,

title = {Conceptual Mediation in Technomoral Change: Reply to Danaher and Sætra},

author = {Jeroen K.G. Hopster and Jon Rueda and Robin Hillenbrink},

doi = {10.1007/s10677-025-10481-4},

issn = {1572-8447},

year  = {2025},

date = {2025-01-27},

urldate = {2025-01-27},

journal = {Ethic Theory Moral Prac},

publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC},

abstract = {Philosophers of technology have identified various mechanisms through which technology can change moral norms, values, beliefs and practices. Danaher and Sætra (2023) offer a useful systematization of these mechanisms, with no claim to being exhaustive. We contribute to their work by analyzing how the mediating role of moral concepts fits into this scheme. First, we point out that concepts mediate the moral effects of technological changes, a process we call conceptual mediation. We illustrate this with the concepts of ‘brain death’ and ‘reproductive autonomy’, whose moral implications crystallized in the interplay with new medical technologies. Subsequently, we argue that conceptual mediation is best understood as a type of second-order mediation, which channels the moral implications of the first-order technological mediations identified by Danaher and Sætra (decisional, relational, perceptual). We conclude that second-order mediation plays a central and underappreciated role in processes of technomoral change.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Pregent2025,

title = {Why you Should not use CI to Evaluate Socially Disruptive Technology},

author = {Alexandra Pregent},

url = {https://www.esdit.nl/wp-content/uploads/s13347-025-00838-z.pdf},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-025-00838-z},

year  = {2025},

date = {2025-01-14},

urldate = {2025-01-14},

journal = {Philosophy & Technology},

volume = {38},

number = {6},

pages = {19},

abstract = {Contextual Integrity (CI) is built to assess potential privacy violations of new sociotechnical systems and practices. It does so by evaluating their respect for the context-relative informational norms at play in a given context. But can CI evaluate new sociotechnical systems that severely disrupt established social practices? In this paper, I argue that, while CI claims to be able to assess privacy violations of all sociotechnical systems and practices, it cannot assess the ones that cause severe changes and disruptions in the norms and values of a given context. These types of technology are known as socially disruptive technologies (SDTs) and this paper argues that they are beyond CI’s scope. It follows that at best, a privacy assessment of those technologies by CI would be useless and, at worst, lead to potential harm, including failure to identify privacy violations and unwarranted legitimisation of privacy-threatening technology. Government actors, policymakers, and academics should refrain from relying on CI to assess this type of technology.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Veluwenkamp2024,

title = {Socially Disruptive Technologies and Conceptual Engineering},

author = {Herman Veluwenkamp and Jeroen Hopster and Sebastian Köhler and Guido Löhr},

doi = {10.1007/s10676-024-09804-3},

issn = {1572-8439},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-12-00},

urldate = {2024-12-00},

journal = {Ethics Inf Technol},

volume = {26},

number = {4},

publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC},

abstract = {In this special issue, we focus on the connection between conceptual engineering and the philosophy of technology. Conceptual engineering is the enterprise of introducing, eliminating, or revising words and concepts. The philosophy of technology examines the nature and significance of technology. We investigate how technologies such as AI and genetic engineering (so-called “socially disruptive technologies”) disrupt our practices and concepts, and how conceptual engineering can address these disruptions. We also consider how conceptual engineering can enhance the practice of ethical design. The issue features seven articles that discuss a range of topics, including trust in blockchain applications and the evolving concept of nature. These articles highlight that as technology changes the world and our concepts, conceptual engineering provides invaluable tools and frameworks to reflect on these changes and adapt accordingly.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Behrensen2024,

title = {Technology and pronouns: disrupting the ‘Natural Attitude about Gender’},

author = {Maren Behrensen},

doi = {10.1007/s10676-024-09780-8},

issn = {1572-8439},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-09-00},

urldate = {2024-09-00},

journal = {Ethics Inf Technol},

volume = {26},

number = {3},

publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC},

abstract = {I consider how video conferencing platforms have changed practices of pronoun sharing, how this development fits into recent philosophical work on conceptual and social disruption, and how it might be an effective tool to disrupt the ‘natural attitude about gender’.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}