“Designer Fallacy” and Pre-reflective Self-consciousness: On the Bodily Phenomenological Basis of Technological Artifacts' Moralizing Design

doi:10.15936/j.cnki.1008-3758.2021.03.001

Abstract

Abstract: “Persuasive technology” and “nudges” can be seen as the main practical approaches of Peter-Paul Verbeek's theory of “moralizing technology”， and these approaches carried out the moralizing guiding of our body behaviors through moralizing design. However， Verbeek failed to explain the internal causes of “designer fallacy” in that he attributed the moral function of technological artifacts to technological intentionality and technological design. On the one hand， the body intentionality can be regarded as the internal reason for realizing the moralizing function of the technological artifacts by introducing the dimension of bodily pre-reflective self-consciousness. On the other hand， the bodily phenomenological root of designer fallacy can be found as well. Therefore， the bodily phenomenological design approach not only needs to combine designing artifacts with designing contexts， but also needs to combine the reflection on technological design with the reflection on technological applications.

Key words: designer fallacy; technological artifact; moralizing design; bodily phenomenology; pre-reflective self-consciousness

CLC Number:

N031

LIU Zheng. “Designer Fallacy” and Pre-reflective Self-consciousness: On the Bodily Phenomenological Basis of Technological Artifacts' Moralizing Design[J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2021, 23(3): 1-7.

References

[1]Verbeek P. What Things Do? Philosophical Reflections on Technology， Agency and Design［M］. trans. Crease R. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press， 2005:213.
[2]Verbeek P. Designing the Morality of Things: the Ethics of Behaviour-guiding Technology［C］∥Designing in Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press， 2017.
[3]Fogg B J. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do［M］. Dordrecht: Elsevier， 2003:1.
[4]Dorrestijn S，Verbeek P. Technology， Wellbeing， and Freedom: the Legacy of Utopian Design［J］. International Journal of Design， 2013，7(3):45-56.
[5]Verbeek P. Ambient Intelligence and Persuasive Technology: the Blurring Boundaries Between Human and Technology［J］. NanoEthics， 2009，3(3):231-242.
[6]Thaler R H，Sunstein C R. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health， Wealth， and Happiness［M］. New Haven: Yale University Press， 2008:1-2.
[7]Merleau-Ponty M. Phenomenology of Perception［M］. trans. Donald L. London: Routledge， 2012.
[8]Dreyfus H，Dreyfus S. The Challenge of Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Embodiment for Cognitive Science［M］∥Perspectives on Embodiment: the Intersections of Nature and Culture. New York: Routledge， 1999:18.
[9]Dreyfus H. The Myth of the Pervasiveness of the Mental in Mind， Reason and Being-in-the-world: the McDowell-Dreyfus Debate［M］. New York: Routledge， 2013:18.
[10]Dreyfus H. The Return of the Math of the Mental［J］. Inquiry， 2007，50(4):352-365.
[11]Gallagher S，Zahavi D. Phenomenological Approachs to Self-consciousness［EB/OL］. (2014-12-24)［2020-04-20］. https:∥plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/self-consciousness-phenomenological.
[12]Burken B C. Beyond Technological Mediation: a Normative Practice Approach［J］. Research in Philosophy and Technology， 2016，20(3):177-197.

[1]	QIAN Yuanyuan. Moral Deviations of “Moral Machines” and Ethical Approaches to Autonomous Vehicles [J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2021, 23(3): 8-16.
[2]	CAO Kangkang. How Is Green Technological Innovation Ethics Made Possible? [J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2021, 23(3): 16-21.
[3]	JIA Lumeng， CHEN Fan. Paradigm Transformation of Realizing Contemporary Technological Ethics [J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2021, 23(2): 1-7.
[4]	WU Qing， CHEN Hongbing. Privacy Economy and Its Criticism in the Era of Big Data [J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2021, 23(2): 8-14.
[5]	GAO Hua ， CHEN Hongbing. On the Difference Between Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence [J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2021, 23(2): 15-21.
[6]	CUI Zhong-liang， Berit Brogaard(USA). The Impact of the Problem of Other Minds in AI Research on Human-Robot Interaction——From the Perceptive of Wittgenstein's Therapy of Other Minds [J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2020, 22(6): 1-9.
[7]	ZHANG Jiao， WANG Jian. Technological Dimension: A New Perspective of Design History Periodization [J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2020, 22(6): 10-16.
[8]	JING Shan， WANG Jue. “The Problem of Many Hands” and Ethical Transcendence in Engineering Community [J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2020, 22(6): 17-23.
[9]	CHEN Fan， PENG Kang-ning. On the Methodological Features of Anticipatory Technology Ethics [J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2020, 22(5): 1-7.
[10]	YANG Qing-feng. Psychologism in Memory Studies and Its Beyond [J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2020, 22(5): 7-15.
[11]	WANG Hui-li， LI Xue-jiao. Intersubjectivity Analysis of Human-Computer Interaction from the Perspective of Phenomenology [J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2020, 22(5): 16-22.
[12]	WANG Bin， KONG Yan. On the Chinese Cultural Psychology of Technophobia [J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2020, 22(4): 1-6.
[13]	CHE Yuan. On the Emerging Human Enhancement Technology and Its Protection and Promotion of the Dignity of the Disabled [J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2020, 22(4): 7-13.
[14]	GU Xiao-dan， LUO Ling-ling， CHEN Hong-bing. New Understanding of Environmental Design Concept from Ecological Dimension——Based on Gibson's Affordance Theory [J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2020, 22(4): 14-20.
[15]	ZHU Chun-yan， PAN Bao-jun. Early Philosophy of Technology from the Humanitarian Perspective [J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2020, 22(3): 1-7.