Skip to main content

Design Culture and Acceptable Risk

  • Chapter

Technological design is usually considered as a process of stipulating target functions. Technological artifacts are, however, not determined entirely by the intent of the engineers who designed them: they unavoidably contain unpredictable and uncertain characters that transcend engineers’ intent, and they cannot be understood purely from a functionalist perspective. In aviation, for example, the smooth implementation of a flight is ensured by a system that includes pilots interacting with each other and with a suite of technological devices. Emphasizing the human aspect of technological designs, this article presents a theoretical framework that takes socio-cultural aspects of technology as the primary for a philosophical, ethical analysis. An analysis of the acceptability of risks shows that the reliability of a technology is determined by the reliability of the technological decisions, eventually the existence of a reliable technological culture. So the task of the ethics of risks is to provide ways to reform our technology culture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bainbridge, L., 1987, Ironies of automation, in: New Technology and Human Error, J. Rasmussen, K. Duncan, and J. Leplat, eds., Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birsch, D., 1994, Product safety, cost‐benefit‐analysis, and the Ford Pinto case, in: The Ford Pinto Case, D. Birsch and J. H. Fielder, eds., SUNY Press, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassirer, E., 1985, Form und Technik, in: Symbol, Technik, Sprache, W. Orth, ed., Felix Meiner, Verlag, Hamburg (originally published in 1933).

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H., and Pinch, T., 1998, The Golem at Large, Cambridge UP, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M., 1989, Explaining wrongdoing, J. of Social Phil. 20(1&2):74-90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De George, R. T., 1994, Ethical responsibilities of engineers in large organizations: The Pinto case, in: The Ford Pinto Case, D. Birsch and J. H. Fielder, eds., SUNY Press, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, E. S., 1992, Engineering and the Mind's Eye, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C., Pritchard, M., and Rabins, M., 1995, Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E., 1995, How a cockpit remember its speed?, Cogn. Sci. 19(2):265-283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ihde, D., 1999, Technology and prognostic predicaments, AI & Soc. 13:44-51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A., 1993, Things that Make us Smart, Perseus Books, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., Jaeger, C. C., Rosa, E. A., and Webler, T., 2001, The rational actor paradigm in risk theories, in: Risk in the Modern Age, M. J. Cohen, ed., Palgrave, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason, J., 1997, Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents, Ashgate, Hampshire.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saito, N., 2005, What is Techno‐Literacy? (in Japanese), Kodansha, Tokyo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, A., 1970, Reflections on the Problem of Relevance, R. M. Zaner, ed., Yale UP, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader‐Frechette, K., 1994, Ethics of Scientific Research, Rowman & Littlefield, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenner, E., 1996, Why Things Bite Back, Vintage Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velasquez, M. G., 2005, The ethics of consumer production, in: Business Ethics, Vol. 3, F. Allhoff and A. Vaidya, eds., SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, D., 1996, The Challenger Launch Decision, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner, L., 1986, The Whale and the Reactor, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Naoe, K. (2008). Design Culture and Acceptable Risk. In: Philosophy and Design. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6591-0_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics