Intro to Technology Philosophies

Q&A (10 minutes)

Q&A about ethics, computing, and logistics of the course.

No question is too silly, naive, controversial, basic, or advanced.

Discussion 1

1. In your opinion, what technology has historically changed humanity the most?

This is a brainstorming activity – there is no right or wrong answer. This is meant to prime you to think about different perspectives on technology and its impact on our past and present (and future)

Journal Entry

Take a couple of minutes to reflect on the discussion you just had – this can be a list of technologies mentioned in your group + your personal opinion about the topic (use the same google document you have already shared with me)

Discussion 2

1. Do humans control technology?
2. Does technology have built-in values (is it good or bad)?

Be prepared to share your group ideas with the entire class/instructor

(Basic) Philosophies of technology

• instrumentalism (naive)
• determinism (hard, soft, substantivism)

Instrumentalism

• Technology is a neutral tool – it is neither good nor bad
• Technology does not contain inherent moral values
• Humans have complete control over how it is used
• High human agency – society decides whether technology is used for good or bad

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

Determinism

• Technology causes/drives social changes
• Technology shapes human behavior and society
• Low human agency – humans adapt to technology (we cannot easily stop its trajectory)
• Determinism (technology is autonomous and neutral) vs. Substantivism (technology is autonomous and value-laden)

“Cellphones have ruined face-to-face interactions”

Instrumentalism vs. Determinism

flowchart LR
  Instrumentalism <----------> Determinism

Soft technological determinism (Critical theory)

• Technology both shapes society and is shaped by it
• Technology and social practices develop in tandem and influence one another
• Technology is the means, human purposes are the end/goal
• Some room for human agency – engineers can inscribe their intentions within technology to shape human behavior
• Awareness of unintended social or environmental consequences

Technological constructivism

• Social construction of technology (SCOT)
• Technology does not determine human action, human action shapes technology
• Technology is embedded within its respective social context
• Humans accept or reject technology

Summary

• Instrumentalism: Humans control technology, technology is neutral
• Determinism: Technology causes/drives social changes
• Soft technological determinism: Technology shapes society and is shaped by it (engineers can imbue their values into technology, unintended consequences are often present)
• Technological constructivism: social context shapes technology

Journal Writing: Which philosophy makes more sense to you? Why?

Group Activity

The paragraph below describes a type of (systems) design that takes an interactional stance on technology (Value Sensitive Design, Friedman & Hendry, 2026):

One implication of the interactional stance is that “technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral” (Kranzberg, 1986). Thus, design matters. That is, values can be embodied, at least to some extent, within the features of a tool or technology.

Group Activity

The paragraph below describes a type of (systems) design that takes an interactional stance on technology (Value Sensitive Design, Friedman & Hendry, 2026):

Electronic document readers, for example, can make text accessible to both blind and sighted people; information systems that allow for legal names, nicknames, and preferred names might enable people to better represent their identities; multiplayer online games can be competitive or cooperative, thereby reflecting or resisting the values of certain groups of people.

Group Activity

Value Sensitive Design (Friedman & Hendry, 2026):

At the same time, designers do not have complete control. Norms, practices, and incentives, perhaps originating from different stakeholders in a complex social ecology, can have a major influence on technology’s effects.

Discussion: Which ethical philosophy does this perspective align most with? Think and discuss one or two more examples (the authors mention electronic document readers, name representation, multiplayer online games) that allow designers to make choices.

Policies

Where lawmakers fall in the deterministic and instrumentalist spectrum reflects in their (our) policies:

• Solutionism – lawmakers believe technology will solve all the world’s problems
• Fatalism – lawmakers have resigned themselves to the consequences of technology
• Regulation – lawmaker believe technology should be regulated

Which of these three do you vote for?

Policies

Thinking and acting more critically towards technology enables societies to escape merely adapting to technological advances asserted as inevitable. – Andrew Smith (2026)

Survey results: “I believe facial recognition technology should be regulated for individual privacy.”

• 59% Strongly agree
• 33% Agree
• 7% Neither agree or disagree

References/Further Reading

• Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. G. (2026). Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. The MIT Press.
• Grimes, S.M. & Feenberg, Andrew. (2013). Critical theory of technology. 10.4135/9781446282229.n9.
• Kranzberg, M. (1986). Technology and History: “Kranzberg’s Laws.” Technology and Culture, 27(3), 544–560. https://doi.org/10.2307/3105385
• Smith, A. (2026). Loosening the grip of technological determinism in futures thinking. UNESCO.

Society?

When we say “social context/society/humans shapes technology,” who is “society?”

Journal Writing

Reflect on what you liked and disliked about this lecture, what you learned, and what you wished you’d learned.

1. What you learned from the lecture and discussion – this can be something that surprised you, something you had not considered before, a new way of thinking about something
2. What you wish you’d learned from the discussion – this can be questions you still have and questions you would like to explore further
3. Anything you liked of disliked (were the discussions helpful? were the contents of the slides clear?)