IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2016 - 86

commentary

Michael Arnold

The story so far...
n Part One of the
series it was suggested that in order
to hold technologies
to moral account
a number of objections must be
overcome: the argument that only
humans are morally accountable,
the "passive instrument" argument,
the "dumb instrument" argument,
the "free will" argument, and the
"dilution of responsibility" argument. In Part Two, the "human
exclusivity" argument was refuted,
and here in Part Three the "passive
instrument" objection is considered.

The Passive Instrument Argument
This particular objection to the moral
inclusion of technologies asserts that
technologies do not act in the world,
but are acted upon by humans, or
are at most, intermediaries in actions
undertaken by humans. The objection is not so much that technologies do not act at all, for this is their
very purpose - scissors do cut, cars
do move, computers do compute, a
shirt does block the sun, a pet-rock
does stop the paper from blowing
away. In this sense it can be readily
admitted by all sides of the argument
that non-humans act - they cut,
move, compute, block and so on.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MTS.2016.2554442
Date of publication: 2 June 2016

Christopher Pearce

Are Technologies
Innocent?
Part Three: The Passive
Instrument Argument
However, the "passive instrument" objection is not concerned
with the literal fact that nonhumans act, but with the mix of
human and non-human agency that
is associated with the actions of
a technology. Is the technology a
passive instrument whose actions
to cut, move, compute, or block
are entirely attributable to human
agency, or does the technology act
in any significant way in an expression of its own agency? If the former, technology is innocent, if the
latter, the option remains open to
hold technology to moral account.
Humans and technologies go
back a long way, and are clearly in
some sort of relationship. We come
together and interact in a variety of
ways, and in consort humans and
technologies do things and act in
the world. Some of these actions
are performed at the direct behest
of humans (a file is printed), whilst
others are autonomous in that they
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine

are prompted by triggers internal
to the technology (a new page is
fed to the printer), and others are
requested or prompted by the technology (unknown filetype, please...).
Some actions are optional for the
operator (to delete a file); others are
mandated by the technology (press
OK to delete), or perhaps by other
technical systems to which the system in question is answerable (enter
username and password). Some
human actions can be performed
without the participation of technology, but for pragmatic reasons are
not (communicating). Other actions
require the participation of technologies (sending an email). Technologies thereby respond to action,
intervene with their own acts, make
requests for action, receive requests
for action, make demands on others,
and receive demands from others.
In these ways technology is an
actor in human affairs, in at least
the literal and weakest sense of the
∕

june 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2016