As technology continues to pervade our lives in new and increasingly interconnected ways, the ways in which it is used (and the values that are often attributed to them) becomes an even bigger question. Some might say that technology is value-neutral; it is not inherently good or bad by its existence itself, and any moral judgments that might be attributed to actions made through technology should fall on the people behind it, not the technology. However, the presence of technology itself does allow for these positive and negative values to spring forth. While technology provides an outlet for the values of others, it is not inherently good or bad; these values are inserted by the user and the system that uses this piece of technology.
Communication in the modern technological age does have certain positive and negative values attached to it; while it can be used to provide a greater exchange of information and understanding between people, it can also be used to threaten and persecute. Communications technology is a tool, just like any other, and can be used to convey whatever idea, good or bad, a person wishes to communicate. According to Tully, people are able to exchange intellectual and empirical information and transcend typical boundaries of culture and physical distance, which is a positive value; however, this is not performed by the technology itself - only facilitated. Furthermore, sometimes the access to other ideas and notions is, in and of itself, possessing of value - is the increase in communication a positive or negative act? One might argue that the ability to access the whole realm of human information might expose people to dangerous ideas they would not have known and subscribed to otherwise. As it stands, communication technology can still be used to perpetuate heritage-based consensus on ideas and concepts as well, which possesses a negative value due to its restrictive focus.
The notion of completely decentralized sharing of information and Internet content creation in Web 2.0 is evidence that communication and Internet technology are somewhat value-neutral, and the forces that use it instill their own values upon it. As Kleiner & Wyrick argue, corporations who control Web 2.0 essentially fund web creation on the basis of it helping their own corporate interests; with them in control, the narrative can fit their own (potentially skewed) message, thus making the enterprise a negative one. However, with the ability to destructure and free Internet content creation to the free user, it allows for a greater exchange of ideas and a wider net of opportunity for everyone, which is undoubtedly a positive value. The use of a single technology for both of these disparate values and aims is further evidence that technology has the capability to be value-neutral; it is essentially geared toward the value system of those who use it.
This kind of argument is furthered in Griffis' article regarding the use of Google Maps and other GPS related technologies to essentially create their own maps to share with others. In this respect, the technology is value-neutral in that its usefulness and message is created with each user who creates a custom map layer in Google Earth. If someone wanted to point out the best restaurants in their home city for the purposes of informing and entertaining, that would be good - if someone wanted to use this system to point out potential targets for a terrorist attack, or embarrassing information on a colleague or stranger, this would be a bad thing. The map system itself does not incline itself toward one value or the other - it is up to the individual using it and their own system of mores and ethics to use it as it befits their values.
Video games are one type of technology whose use is perhaps the most dubious with regards to morality; is it possible to create video games with positive values? It may be possible to do so with educational video games, or ones that teach ideals and tell enlightening stories. However, in the case of Martins et al. (2009), video games have an inherently destructive tendency to portray women in video games as objects that serve little purpose but to titillate and further antiquated gender norms. At the same time, is this the fault of the video game technology itself, or the game developer? It is not a question of whether or not game technology is capable of making more well-rounded, realistic and positive female characters; programmers, game writers and developers decide to make their female characters this way. It is entirely possible, through the use of the same kind of technology, to create positive role models for women to show players in games. This furthers the idea that it is not technology that has positive and negative values, but the people that use it.
Petersen's essay regarding robot servitude contains one of the most interesting arguments for technology not being value-neutral; robots who do our work for us may seem ethically ambiguous on the surface, but it may also boil down primarily to how the robots are used. Are they given any kind of agency or sentience? Are we infringing upon their rights? Are we using them to kill, or merely to help us? These questions depend highly on the potential sentience and self-awareness of robots. If they were sentient, and we still made them do our bidding, it would be wrong either way. The question becomes murkier if we are not sure of their sentient status, and it depends on what we are asking them to do.
In conclusion, I must eventually assess that technology, as a construct, is value-neutral; the creation of new things effectively boils down to creating new tools with which to do as we will. The values these technologies are implemented toward are created and fuelled by the motivations and biases of the human beings who operate these tools - communication technology and Web 2.0 can either be used to inform or destroy; video games can further awful attitudes about women or positive ones; custom map technology can help us communicate and share, or point out targets; and robots can either help us or harm us, or we might be the monsters for making robot slaves in the first place. All these ethical dilemmas are fascinating, but they are not inherently chosen by the nature of technology itself - it is up to the choices and responsibility of the humans using them.
Works Cited
Tully, James. "Communication and Imperialism".
Kleiner, Dmytri & Brian Wyrick. "INFOENCLOSURE 2.0".
Griffis, Ryan. 3."For an art against the cartography of everyday life".
Martins, N., D. Williams, R. Ratan & K. Harrison. "A Content Analysis of Female Body
Imagery in Video Games" Sex Roles. 61(11-12) p. 824-836.
Petersen, Stephen. "The Ethics of Robot Servitude."
