How does it come that a tiny, technical detail like the choice of the Bluetooth version, which at first glance looks as the incarnation of technological neutrality, raises mayor ethical concern? Why is it that the actors individually were not able to discern the discrimination of an AI app, but only in the collaborative act, facilitated by a reflection tool? In my contribution, I would like to show that this is precisely where the so-called principles-to-practice gap closes.

The question of ownership has not been addressed enough in discussions about the politics of design of digital technologies. Whereas many approaches to design practice have recognised unfair decision-making processes, oppressive power-dynamics, and several instances of structural injustice, most of them fail to propose a political-economic alternative that addresses the ways in which the processes are owned. This has rendered many designers incapable of futuring digital technologies outside of the self-fulfilling prophecies professed by the different neoliberal capitalist institutions.

This paper critically addresses current debates on the digital transformation of the public sphere. It responds to two contrasting responses to this transformation: the school of destruction, which expresses pessimism about the design of social media, and the school of restoration, which advocates for the redesign of social media to align with normative conceptions of the public sphere. However, so far these responses have omitted an explicit philosophical reflection on the relationship between politics, technology and design.

Real-world experimentation is an important strategy for developing robust and responsible emerging technologies such as AI, robotics, and smart city applications. While real-world experimentation might benefit the development of responsible digital technologies or help solve ‘grand challenges,’ attention should be paid to conducting these experiments responsibly. However, the moral responsibilities of this real-world experimentation are often left unaddressed and unregulated.

The main problem that the paper presentation will concentrate on concerns the place of ethics in the current European Union (EU) efforts to steer the hectically advancing realm of science and technology (S&T) towards breakthrough and disruptive innovation. It will attempt to reveal how the change in the EU research and innovation (R&I) policy impacts the role of ethics in the overall governance of the sector.

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) is a comprehensive approach that integrates ethical, social, and environmental considerations into the research and innovation process. It prioritizes collaboration, transparency, and active stakeholder engagement to ensure that technological advancements align with societal values and needs. While RRI has predominantly focused on consumer-oriented innovations within the free market, there remains a significant gap in addressing the ethical and societal implications of large-scale infrastructures.

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a complicated system of systems that require a layered pluralistic ethical analysis. This paper beings by noting that the IoT cyber-physical system – it exists in both the physical and informational realms, and in order to give a comprehensive ethical analysis of the IoT, we have to be pluralistic in considering both physical and informational aspects. However, the paper will also suggest that the IoT requires a layered analysis.

One of the problems of science and technology policy is the entanglement of normative and factual questions. Empirical sciences identify social problems (climate change, antibiotic resistance, etc.) and develop ways to overcome them (vaccinations, risk assessments, etc.). However, they cannot answer normative questions just on the basis of empirical facts. One goal of science communication is to enable political actors to make informed decisions about science and technology. It also has to consider normative aspects, which are also called moralizations. 

Piloting and pilots are a key element in innovation policy. The European Union innovation policy steers funding for projects leaning on piloting through its research and innovation programmes, and the experimental approach is also embedded in its policies on emerging technologies. At the same time, all research and innovation funding through the EU mechanisms subscribe to the principles of Responsible Research and Innovation that guide practises concerning co-creation and transdisciplinary interaction. 

This paper presents a reflective case study in conceptual engineering by considering whether and how the concept of ‘control’ might need revision My primary aim is not to propose a new concept of ‘control but rather to learn about (the process of) conceptual engineering.

Throughout the history of moral philosophy, the theoretical postures have been privileged. Modern ethics is no exception and is indeed characterized by the predominance of voluntarist and universalist frameworks (Maesschalck, 2010), which are primarily concerned with the actions of the moral agent, with no real regard for the conditions of possibility necessary for the effective realization of moral actions (Fletcher, 1966).

The recent successes and promises of artificial intelligence (AI) have given rise to a debate about the so-called ‘future of work’. Within this debate, economists discuss the likelihood that AI automates so many jobs that there will be structural unemployment. Ethicists discuss the moral implications of working with AI or losing one’s job to AI. Two moral issues are at the heart of this debate: the socio-economic impact and the existential impact of automation.