Materializing Morality: Design Ethics and Technological Mediation
Abstract
During the past decade, the “script” concept, indicating how technologies prescribe human actions, has acquired a central place in STS. Until now, the concept has mainly functioned in descriptive settings. This article will deploy it in a normative setting. When technologies coshape human actions, they give material answers to the ethical question of how to act. This implies that engineers are doing “ethics by other means”: they materialize morality. The article will explore the implications of this insight for engineering ethics. It first augments the script concept by developing the notion of technological mediation. After this, it investigates how the concept of mediation could be made fruitful for design ethics. It discusses how the ambition to design behaviorinfluencing technologies raises moral questions itself and elaborates two methods for anticipating technological mediation in the design process: performing mediation analyses and using an augmented version of constructive technology assessment.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
AI systems mediate the communicative process of transparency, inviting some actions and inhibiting others.
“AI systems mediate this process, inviting some actions, and inhibiting others (Verbeek 2006).”
From Tensions in transparent urban AI: designing a smart electric vehicle charge point (2023) · cites this paper as Verbeek 2006
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 13 · Cited by 683
- Authors
- Verbeek, P.-P.
- Affiliations
- University of Twente (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Verbeek, Peter-Paul
- ORCID
- Verbeek, Peter-Paul
- Venue
- Science, Technology, & Human Values
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-05
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 361-380
- ISSN
- 0162-2439 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8251
- OpenAlex
- W2128868982
- Cited by
- 683
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 53 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 21
- FWCI
- 35.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science Technology & Human Values (publishedVersion)
- University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion)
- University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Technology, Environment, Urban Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- technological mediation, engineering ethics, design ethics, constructive technology assessment, mediation analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review