September 21, 2006. Campus, Cubicus (building 11), B200A
15.45 - 17.00 Mireille Hildebrandt: Legal and technological normativity
October 19, 2006 Double colloquium Campus, Ravelijn (building 10), Studio
14.00 – 15.30 Michael Zimmer: Values & Pragmatic Action: The challenges of engagement with technical design communities
15.30 - 17.00 Sabine Roeser: The Relation between Cognition and Affect in Moral Judgments about Risks
November 23, 2006 Campus, Cubicus (building 11), B200A
15.30 - 17.00 Edward Spence: Media corruption old and new in the age of information
December 21, 2006 Campus, Cubicus (building 11), B103
15.30 - 17.00 Adam Briggle: New media
January 18, 2007 Campus, Cubicus (building 11), B103
15.30 - 17.00 Pawel Bernat: Artifacts and Moral Agency
February 15, 2007 Campus, Cubicus (building 11), B103
15.30 - 17.00 Myra van Zwieten: Constructing testing results in prenatal diagnosis: whose morality is involved?
March 15, 2007 Campus, Cubicus (building 11), B103
15.00 - 17.00 Stephen Clarke
March 26, 2007 Campus, Cubicus (Building 11), B209
15.00 - 17.00 Deni Elliott and Paul Lester: When anyone can be a publisher, who is a journalist?
April 19, 2007 Campus, Cubicus (building 11), B103
16.30 - 18.00 Evan Selinger: Globalization and the Philosophy of Technology
In connection with technological innovation, citizens, policymakers, engineers, and activists across the globe have come to face numerous moral, political, and conceptual problems. Unfortunately, philosophers—even development ethicists—have yet to determine how best to frame, much less solve, many of them. In this talk, I examine how both analytic and continental philosophers have addressed globalization, and explain why these contributions, diverse as they are, have all been limited. By turning to the issue of digital technology transfer, I conclude by proposing preliminary strategies for how philosophers of technology can interrogate and get beyond the limited conceptual horizon that posits the digital divide as a primary global problem and distributive justice as its basic solution.
May 24, 2007 Campus, Cubicus (building 11), B103
10.00 - 11.30 Michael Selgelid: "Dangerous Science and Censorship"
Concerns over bioterrorism have prompted increased debate about whether or not “dual-use” life science discoveries with implications for bioweapons development should be prevented from being published. Much of this debate has focused on two particular studies: the genetic engineering of vaccine resistant mousepox and the artificial synthesis of polio. Critics complain that publishing studies like these alerts would-be bioterrorists to possibilities and provides them with explicit instructions for producing biological weapons. The fact that publishing such studies can have benefits related to medicine or biodefense, however, should hinder hasty conclusions that censorship is justified. There are, in any case, at least imaginable cases where censorship would be warranted. The important question, then, is what the process of censorship decision making should be. Because scientists are not usually security experts and because scientists are systematically denied (classified) information required for risk assessment, I conclude that we cannot—as proposed by the US National Research Council—rely on voluntary self-governance of the scientific community.
Ceptes colloquia are organised for a wide public and are therefore almost always in English.