NanoEthics 5 (3):285-293 (2011)

How are we to understand the fact that the philosophical debate over nanotechnologies has been reduced to a clash of seemingly preprogrammed arguments and counterarguments that paralyzes all rational discussion of the ultimate ethical question of social acceptability in matters of nanotechnological development? With this issue as its starting point, the study reported on here, intended to further comprehension of the issues rather than provide a cause-and-effect explanation, seeks to achieve a rational grasp of what is being said through the appeals made to this or that principle in the range of arguments put forward in publications on the subject. We present the results of the study’s analyses in two parts. In the first, we lay out the seven categories of argument that emerged from an analysis of the literature: the arguments based on nature, dignity, the good life, utility, equity, autonomy, and rights. In the second part, we present the background moral stances that support each category of argument. Identifying the different categories of argument and the moral stance that underlies each category will enable a better grasp of the reasons for the multiplicity of the arguments that figure in discussions of the acceptability of nanotechnologies and will ultimately contribute to overcoming the tendency towards talking past each other that all too often disfigures the exchange. Clarifying the implications of the moral arguments deployed in the debate over nanotechnologies may make it possible to reduce the confusion observable in these exchanges and contribute to a better grasp of the reasons for their current unproductiveness
Keywords Acceptability  Debate on nanotechnology  Dialogue  Interdisciplinarity  Moral arguments  Nanoethics  Philosophy and nanotechnology  Social acceptability and nanotechnology
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11569-011-0132-0
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 68,916
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Some Pitfalls in the Philosophical Foundations of Nanoethics.Jean-Pierre Dupuy - 2007 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (3):237 – 261.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Constitutive Arguments.Ariela Tubert - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (8):656-666.
Corporate Moral Agency: Review and Implications. [REVIEW]Geoff Moore - 1999 - Journal of Business Ethics 21 (4):329 - 343.
Principled Ethics: Generalism as a Regulative Ideal. [REVIEW]Vojko Strahovnik - 2007 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7 (21):512-518.
Use and Abuse of Empirical Knowledge in Contemporary Bioethics.Jan Helge Solbakk - 2004 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7 (1):5-16.
Shame, Guilt and Morality.Fabrice Teroni & Otto Bruun - 2011 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (2):223-245.


Added to PP index

Total views
37 ( #304,559 of 2,497,981 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #283,501 of 2,497,981 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes