Brett Neese
Jul 22, 2017 · 3 min read

there is a seeming contradiction in the ethics of tech between power and liberty.

if we are to take a heiddegerian(?) or foucauldian approach to technological ethics, we are to see that technology is an object of power: that is to say, an object created or used at the hands of or in pursuit of power has a moral distinction. therefore it is possible and grounded to say something such as “that’s a bad invention,” or that is “an immoral weapon.”

at face value this seems quite silly. but it’s easy to see how some one who invents a weapon might feel a sense of guilt or perhaps joy at the disaster before them. those are real, grounded emotions that point to some semblance of morality. but how to consider intent? for instance, there is no possibility that the creator or creators of a disastrous or “bad” technology could have foreseen it’s dangers. they might not even know what they’re building or why. it does not feel appropriate to place blame or guilt upon them.

in fact, unintended consequences are rather inevitable — and it is very the much case that it even with undesired consequences comes enhanced possibility: in other words, a technology can be both liberatory and oppressive. a classic utilitarian approach would be to weigh the good against the bad, but, at the very least, this calculus seem near impossible, as it requires foresight, an possibility whose impossibility trends toward infinite. even if the body and the mechanics of the earth are naturally and mechanistically determined, probability theory suggests that every possible outcome and every possible model is a mere chance, dependent on such an infinite of possibilities that it is effectively an impossibility itself.

thus both neither utilitarian perspective nor one with rooted in understanding dynamics of power is appropriate here.

i can imagine a third model speckled with hints of sartre and mill — one that suggests maybe all technology is good simply because it expands the realm of individual possibility. if the ultimate goal of humans endeavors ought to be striving towards freedom, then technology is ultimately and only. even the most disastrous technology would be morally good simply because invention is the bosom of possibility: the most terrible and wondrous possibilities.

these views feel so utterly opposed and yet wonderfully attractive: perhaps the issue with these approaches is to place the individual human subject under the realm of power and the the technologic object under the realm of possibility. this is not a complete separation: it is one that is ultimately connected under a framework through which the question of what makes a technology good or bad is via addressing both the question of power and liberation: separating the power embedded in both the human subject and technological object from it’s material mechanistic composition. then we can say such things as that is both a bad and good invention. this is not merely utilitarianism all over again: it is to say the question of good vs bad is ultimately rooted in power, and the question of power is separate from the question of possibility. asking “is it a good technology” is to ask multiple questions with multiple perhaps opposing answers.

that does allow for the possibility of us placing blame or guilt on an inventor: either through abusing their level of power, or through ignorantly refusing to acknowledge the systems of power they find themselves situated. intent (and non-intent, as non intent is ultimately intent) matters, in other words. but that applies for every individual human on a merely and ultimately individual level. this means it is also possible to create moral technology through expressing intent, for the expression of intent is a manifestation and realization of the individual moral ethic.

therefore it is imperative that one strives towards morality and individual freedom even if forced under a framework that seeks to oppress.it is not merely enough to think moral: one must act moral and strive towards morality. in other words: salvation through practice, as the christians among us might say.

this can be done in the form of speech or through other human forms, for all speech spoke with intent is the expression of individual freedom. freedom is not opposed to biological determinism for freedom is rooted in expanding the realm of possibility continuously. that means of course acknowledging and contending with power constantly. this practice is the ultimate art of humanity even as it contends with itself as to what that means.

 by the author.

Brett Neese

Written by

artist