In this blog post, we examine whether technology can be free from social and ethical responsibility, based on the difference between science and technology.
We’ve often heard that science is value-neutral. I recall encountering texts in middle school Korean textbooks that asserted science’s value-neutrality. The argument is that facts observed through scientific methodology are objective and therefore cannot depend on values. This is a valid point to some extent, and many people agree with it. But what about the value neutrality of ‘technology’ as opposed to ‘science’? ‘Technology’ and ‘science’ are often grouped together under the term ‘science and technology’, but they have distinctly different meanings and attributes. Wikipedia defines technology as “a body of knowledge or discipline concerning the process of developing and using tools, machines, materials, etc., according to human needs.” While it’s difficult to simply define the complex and broad concept of technology, most would agree its essence lies in “the process of creating something using scientific knowledge.” Because technology possesses the attribute of ‘creating something,’ there must be an ‘engineer’ as the entity developing it, and the ‘artifact’ resulting from the technology must necessarily exist. As both interact with society, technology cannot be inherently value-neutral.
Discourse on the value neutrality of technology is being discussed from various angles across diverse fields such as philosophy of technology, history of science, and ethics. However, more productive discussion will only be possible once concrete agreement is reached on concepts with unclear substance, such as ‘technology’ or ‘value neutrality’. In this article, ‘technology’ is used as defined earlier: ‘the creation of something using scientific knowledge’. Furthermore, the claim that technology is ‘value-neutral’ will be understood to mean that specific technologies or their developers bear no ethical responsibility for the consequences arising from their use in society. Based on this definition, we will argue that technology developers are not ethically detached from society and must bear ethical responsibility for the ripple effects of technology.
In modern society, technologists cannot be independent from external influences. Primitive humans used early technologies like chipped stone tools, polished stone tools, and the wheel. These were tools created by slightly modifying natural materials, not developed by specific technologists or groups investing significant resources and effort. However, through industrialization, capitalism, and world wars, technology became highly sophisticated, and the role of managing it fell to a specialized group called ‘technologists’.
In modern times, the scale of technological development research has grown so large that it is difficult to achieve without external support. Consequently, since the 20th century, most technological development has been led by corporations or nations. Technologies we are familiar with, such as smartphones, automobiles, and the internet, were mostly developed either led by corporations or outsourced to external engineers or engineering groups. Occasionally, technologies related to national defense or key industries are developed under state leadership. So, why do corporations develop technology?
As economics textbooks state, it is for ‘profit maximization’. In modern capitalist society, technological development aims not at ‘human welfare’ or ‘social prosperity’, but at the pursuit of profit by individual companies. For example, pharmaceutical development is primarily carried out by drug companies, which focus on developing ‘blockbuster drugs’ while neglecting treatments for rare diseases. A recent case involved a car company manipulating emissions data, sparking controversy. Thus, companies are highly likely to make choices disregarding ethical imperatives for profit, sometimes even committing illegal acts. For instance, if automotive engineers had recognized their ethical responsibility and refused to develop technology enabling cars to exceed emissions standards, the scandal might never have occurred. If the technology developed by engineers leads to outcomes that are illegal, they must bear some responsibility for the situation. Otherwise, a second or third emissions scandal will inevitably recur.
Those who argue that technology is value-neutral point to modern society being a society of experts, claiming that engineers should focus solely on technological development, while the social problems technology causes should be studied by philosophers or ethicists. They also argue that halting development out of preemptive concern for technology’s potential societal problems blocks the benefits technology could bring. However, this argument contains a dangerous blind spot. The impact of technology on society is uncertain and far-reaching; allowing indiscriminate technological development risks steering society in unpredictable directions. Therefore, while it may be impossible to perfectly predict all potential impacts during development, they must be analyzed as thoroughly as possible and approached with caution. While it is important for philosophers and ethicists to study the social problems of technology, engineers must also actively participate in this process. In modern society, where technological expertise has become highly specialized, it is difficult to properly assess the ripple effects of technology without the specialized knowledge of engineers.
For example, when automobiles became widespread in the early 20th century, people expected them to replace horses and reduce pollution caused by horse manure. However, no one anticipated that automobile exhaust would become a new source of pollution. When Freon gas was first developed, it was hailed as a clean gas causing no pollution, but it is now known as a primary culprit in ozone layer depletion. In this way, the side effects of technological advancement can manifest in unforeseen ways. Yet, these are also problems that could have been sufficiently predicted with the knowledge available at the time, had the will existed. Predicting all the impacts technology will have on individuals, society, and the natural environment is never easy. Technologists with specialized knowledge must participate to analyze the potential outcomes as thoroughly as possible and carefully set the direction for development. If technology developers neglect this work, they should be considered to have failed in their ethical responsibility.
The reason cautious technological development is crucial is that once developed, the ripple effects and momentum of technology become too great to reverse. A prime example is the atomic bomb. Developed during World War II, it was the first weapon of mass destruction capable of obliterating an entire city with a single device. Today, thousands of these bombs exist worldwide, and their threat remains as significant as when they were first developed. Even if their development couldn’t be stopped during wartime, humanity today has no need to possess such vast numbers of nuclear weapons. The ideal solution would be the complete elimination of all nuclear weapons, but political and diplomatic interests have not permitted this. Once technology is disseminated throughout society, controlling it becomes difficult, and returning to the state before its emergence is challenging.
Technology is value-dependent in that it profoundly influences public perception and ideas. The ‘world’ around us is a collection of diverse technologies; we accept technology as naturally embedded in life and form corresponding ideas. The public embraces the artifacts created by technology as part of life, and ideas change based on this foundation. Driving a car while talking on a mobile phone is commonplace today, but it was an unfamiliar sight to older generations who encountered the technology for the first time. It is important to note that technology changes not only people’s lives but also their concepts of self, world, and society.
In the past, when people traveled by horseback, the distance from Seoul to Busan was considered very far, but today that distance is no longer perceived as distant. Technology has altered the very notion of ‘distance and proximity’. Furthermore, while people who met once every few days were considered close in the past, today we perceive those we converse with multiple times a day as intimate. This process of technology reshaping our perceptions is deeply embedded in our daily lives. If human cloning technology were developed and commercialized, its impact would bring about a significant shift in public perception. If this change manifests negatively, it could foster a culture that devalues life; if positively, it could spread a consciousness that respects life. Regardless of the outcome, the responsibility for technology’s impact on society lies with the technologist, and striving to ensure that impact is positive is the technologist’s ethical duty.
Science and technology are intrinsically linked to society; they cannot be objective or value-neutral but are instead intertwined with ethical values. Therefore, technologists must bear responsibility for the social problems technology may cause and make careful choices. If reckless technological development continues, society could plunge into uncontrollable chaos. In modern capitalist societies, technological development is primarily driven by corporate profit-seeking, and the technologies thus developed transform human perception and life with unpredictable ripple effects. Scientists, technologists, and engineers must be held to high standards of ethical awareness and responsibility.
