Conceptual Engineering and Philosophy of Technology: Amelioration or Adaptation?

Abstract

Conceptual Engineering (CE) is thought to be generally aimed at ameliorating deficient concepts. In this paper, we challenge this assumption: we argue that CE is frequently undertaken with the orthogonal aim of conceptual adaptation. We develop this thesis with reference to the interplay between technology and concepts. Emerging technologies can exert significant pressure on conceptual systems and spark ‘conceptual disruption’. For example, advances in Artificial Intelligence raise the question of whether AIs are agents or mere objects, which can be construed as a CE question regarding the concepts AGENT and OBJECT. We distinguish between three types of conceptual disruption (conceptual gaps, conceptual overlaps, and conceptual misalignments) and argue that when CE occurs to address these disruptions, its primary aim is not to improve concepts, but to retain their functional quality, or to prevent them from degrading. This is the characteristic aim of CE when undertaken in philosophy of technology: to preserve the functional role of a concept or conceptual scheme, rather than improving how a concept fulfills its respective function.

Engineering the trust machine. Aligning the concept of trust in the context of blockchain applications

“…This caused a conceptual misalignment (cf. Hopster & Löhr, 2023), where the notion of "trust" as currently used in at least part of the research literature may no longer serve its function. The function of trust in technology appears to be twofold: firstly, trust allows individuals to handle risky situations.…”

Ethics of Socially Disruptive Technologies

“…Conceptual disruptions can come in different types (Hopster and Löhr, 2023). First, technological change may yield gaps in our conceptual repertoire.…”

“…conceptual scheme as a whole. We argued that conceptual disruptions can be interpreted in three ways, and that technology typically plays a prominent role in each of them (Hopster and Löhr, 2023). First, we may be faced with a 'conceptual gap'.…”

“…But as many of the examples we have discussed in this book showcase, conceptual disruptions are typically not limited to single concepts. Instead, they challenge clusters of interrelated concepts (Löhr, 2023). Consider the conceptual disruptions brought about by reproductive technologies as introduced in Chapter 5, which challenge our concepts of 'mother', 'father', and 'parent', as well as our concepts of 'birth', 'beginning of life', and 'personhood'.…”

“…Not all projects of conceptual engineering fit these parameters. Indeed, the 'engineering' metaphor notwithstanding, until recently, mainstream work in conceptual engineering has not focused much on conceptual engineering in response to technological developments (Hopster and Löhr, 2023). However, as examples from the previous chapters illustrate, technology often plays a prominent role in conceptual disruption and conceptual change, in many more instances than previously noticed and discussed.…”