In this blog post, we will examine whether technology is inherently value-neutral or whether its value varies depending on user intent and social context.
Science and technology have been with us throughout human history. Starting with simply building bonfires, we moved on to the invention of the steam engine, which powered trains, and in modern times, we have expanded our reach to IT technologies such as smartphones and optical communications. As the scope of science and technology has expanded, so has the need for a clearer understanding of how humans should approach technology. There have even been times when all of humanity has promised to oppose the development of nuclear weapons, which could lead to the destruction of humanity. This means that we need criteria for determining which technologies are acceptable and which are not.
In general, technology seems to make humanity more convenient and beneficial. However, paradoxically, many technologies have been developed to kill or harm humans rather than to benefit them. Most of these technologies were developed to gain superiority in armed conflicts with external enemies, and strategic weapons such as guns, cannons, and missiles are the result. At first glance, technologies such as strategic weapons seem to have negative value for humans. On the other hand, technologies such as steam engines seem to have positive value. However, the debate over whether it is appropriate to judge the rightness or wrongness of technology based solely on the technology itself, regardless of the context in which it was developed, is precisely the debate over value neutrality.
The fundamental reason why technology is generally considered value-neutral is because the value of technology is determined by the people who use it. The value of a technology begins to emerge through its users, and the value of technology varies according to the interests and moral values of its users. Therefore, the value of technology cannot be determined by the technology itself, but rather by how it is actually applied and the intentions behind its development. For example, even strategic weapons, which are generally considered bad technology, can be evaluated as positive technology if they are used as a deterrent to maintain peace.
Why does technology not have intrinsic value? In the case of nuclear weapons mentioned above, can we say that this technology is worthless because it could destroy humanity if used incorrectly? Furthermore, is it right to stop developing nuclear weapons because of this risk? It seems relatively easy to answer yes to this question. Let’s look at the example of the steam engine again. The steam engine, which triggered the Industrial Revolution in the UK, completely changed the country’s international status at the time. Based on the powerful productivity of steam engines, Britain gained a significant advantage in the colonial struggle during the imperialist era. Was the invention of steam engines really a good technology for other European powers, where steam engines were slow to spread at the time? At least for the African and Asian countries that were colonized at the time, steam engines must have been a terrible technology, not much different from a strategic weapon. In this case, what is the value of steam engine technology?
Ultimately, the value of technology inevitably differs greatly between those who possess it and their competitors. It is a natural fact that technology provides relative advantages to its possessors, and this alone is insufficient to prove that it is impossible to judge the value of technology itself. Therefore, in order to determine whether technology is truly value-neutral, we must judge it based on “right and wrong” rather than “good and bad.”
Whether a technology is right or wrong can be judged not by the economic benefits it brings to individuals, but by whether it is beneficial to humanity as a whole when used universally in the long term. For example, in the case of computers, Bill Gates, who first popularized personal computers, amassed enormous wealth. However, even aside from personal gain, computers have greatly benefited human life through their use in numerous fields of work. So, can we say that computer technology itself is good for humanity? No, we cannot. If we look at a few more examples of computer technology in use, we can see that fighter jets and weapons of war utilize the powerful computing capabilities of computers to wage war in a more destructive and effective manner. Furthermore, before the introduction of computers, countless workers earned their livelihoods through manual calculations, but now a single computer can do their work for them. Therefore, we cannot easily conclude that computer technology is good. As such, the more we consider the impact of all technologies on society, the more we realize that there are both beneficial and harmful aspects, and there are limits to weighing these aspects and ultimately determining whether they are right or wrong.
As such, the value of technology cannot be discussed in isolation, but rather, the value of a technology is determined only when combined with the intentions of individual users of that technology. So why is it important to establish the value neutrality of technology? The debate over the value neutrality of technology ultimately leads to the question of whether third parties who have no intention of contributing to research on a particular technology should be allowed to hinder that research. If a technology is deemed wrong from the outset, it would be beneficial for humanity as a whole not to develop it. Furthermore, if technology is not value-neutral and has individual values, it is possible to prioritize research on technology that is beneficial to human development. According to the logic presented above, technology is value-neutral, so it seems meaningless for technology developers to decide whether or not to develop technology. Similarly, it does not seem reasonable to prevent the development of technology itself. However, it is necessary to thoroughly examine the warnings raised by the debate on the value-neutrality of technology.
In modern society, technology has a tremendous impact on society. Therefore, it is essential for researchers studying technology to consider in advance how the technology they develop will manifest itself in the world. Unlike in the past, technology advances not through accidental discoveries but through investment by entities that want to develop technology. Therefore, developers can predict the value of a technology based on the characteristics of the organization they belong to and the goals of the technology they are researching.
In this case, rather than the value neutrality of the technology itself, it is necessary to evaluate the unique value of the intended technological development. It is not difficult to agree to prevent the development of technologies that are expected to have a significant negative impact on society. However, it is not easy for technology developers to understand the intentions of the organizations to which they belong. In addition, the value perceptions based on the moral or ethical judgments of individual developers may not be perfect.
This is because even a single technology developer belongs to a country, may have a particular religion, and has their own moral values. In such cases, rather than seeking a solution in the technology itself, it is more appropriate to decide whether or not to develop the technology based on the judgment of humanities and social science scholars. Questions about what is right or wrong and what makes humans human are philosophical questions, and interpretations will inevitably vary from person to person.
Therefore, it is appropriate for experts with extensive knowledge on the subject to make judgments on such issues, predict the ripple effects, and decide whether or not to allow them. There is no such thing as good or bad technology. Technology cannot be discussed in terms of its own value, as its value depends on where and how it is used, and therefore technology itself is value-neutral. However, the value neutrality of technology is insufficient as a proposition to determine whether technology research should proceed. Therefore, it is appropriate to comprehensively understand the background and objectives of the entities conducting technology research and decide whether to allow or prohibit research through social consensus. In other words, the argument that any technology can be permitted because it is value-neutral is inappropriate. Additionally, research should not be prohibited solely based on the possibility that a technology could be misused. Similarly, when a technology is deemed to have a negative impact on human society, criticism should be directed at the developers of the technology rather than the technology itself. The value neutrality of technology is a distinct concept that emphasizes the dangers of making value judgments without considering the intended use or context of the technology, separate from the proposition that all technologies are value-neutral. Ultimately, we must remember that the value of technology is determined by those who develop and use it. The debate over whether technology can be value-neutral for everyone, or whether it can be otherwise in certain cases, will continue, and this discussion will provide important insights into the future direction of technology development.
