SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY

AND SOCIETY
(GE 7)

SEMI FINAL COVERAGE

Instructors Name: ​JERRYLYN F. MALICDEM

Contact No.: ​09306837314
Email Account:
jerrylynfmf24@gmail.com
1
 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SOCIETY AND THE
HUMAN CONDITION

Lesson 5
TECHNOLOGY AS A WAY OF REVEALING
Lesson objectives: at the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:
1. Differentiate the essences of technology and modern technology;
2. Discuss and illustrate the dangers of modern technology; and
3. Explain why art is the saving power of modern technology.

ACTIVITY #1
Rate the extent of your agreement to the following statement using the Osgood scale.
You are also given space to write any comment to further clarify your response.

STATEMENT AGREE COMMENTS

DISAGREE
Technology is a means to an 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
end.
Technology is a human activity. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Poetry is technology. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Nature is a standing reserve. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Man is an instrument of the 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
exploitation of nature.
Man is in danger of being 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
swallowed by technology.
There is a saving power or a 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
‘way out' of the danger of
technology.
Art may be the saving power. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

2
 At A Glance: Who is Martin Heidegger?
“The essence of technology is by no means anything technological”
-Martin Heidegger (1977)

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) is widely acknowledged as one of the most important

philosophers of the 20th century. He was a German philosopher who was part of the Continental
tradition of philosophy. His stern opposition to positivism and technological world domination
received unequivocal support from leading postmodernists and post-structuralists of the time,
including Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Jean-François Lyotard.
In 1933, he joined the Nazi Party (NSDAP) and remained to be a member until it was
dismantled toward the end of World War II. This resulted in his dismissal from the University of
Freiburg in 1949. He was only able to resume teaching in 1951. Heidegger's membership to the
Nazi Party made him controversial-his philosophical work was often eclipsed by his political
affiliation, with critics saying that his philosophy would always be rooted in his political
consciousness.
Heidegger's work on philosophy focused on ontology or the study of being' or dasein in German.
His philosophical works are often described as complicated, partly due to his use of complex
compound German words, such as Seinsvergessenheit (Forgetfulness of Being),
Bodenständigkeit (Rootedness-in-Soil), and Wesensverfassung (Essential Constitution)

The essence of technology

It cannot be denied that science and technology are responsible for the ways society is
continuously being modernized. Science and technology continuously seep into the way people
go about their daily lives. However, the omnipresence of science and technology must not
eclipse the basic tenets of ethics and morality. Instead, it should allow the human person to
flourish alongside scientific progress and technological development. In order to spark the
discussion on the role of ethics and social morality in science and technology, it is necessary to
go back to the very essence of technology, i.e., its definition.

The essence of technology can be captured in its definition. In his treatise​, The Question
Concerning Technology​, Martin Heidegger (1977) explains the two widely embraced definitions
of technology: (1) ​instrumental and (2) anthropological.

3
1. Instrumental definition: Technology is a means to an end. Technology is not an end in
itself, it is a means to an end. In this context, technology is viewed as a tool available to
individuals, groups, and communities that desire to make an impact on society. How
technology is used varies from individual to individual, groups to groups, and
communities to communities according to their individual and collective functions, goals,
and aspirations. While technology is omnipresent, knowing its functions requires paying
attention to how humans use it as a means to an end. In this sense, technology is an
instrument aimed at getting things done.
2. Anthropological definition: Technology is a human activity. Alternatively, technology
can also be defined as a human activity because to achieve an end and to produce and use
a means to an end is, by itself, a human activity. The production or invention of
technological equipment tools and machines, the products and inventions, and the
purpose and functions they serve are what define technology.

Both definitions, Le, instrumental and anthropological, are correct. However, neither
touches on the true essence of technology

Technology as a way of revealing

Heidegger stressed that the true can only be pursued through the correct. Simply, what is
correct leads to what is true. In this sense, Heidegger envisioned technology as a way of
revealing-a mode of 'bringing forth.' Bringing forth can be understood through the Ancient
Greek philosophical concept, poiesis, which refers to the act of bringing something out of
concealment. By bringing something out of concealment, the truth of that something is
revealed. The truth is understood through another Ancient Greek concept of aletheia, which
is translated as unclosedness, unconcealedness, disclosure, or truth.

Thus, for Heidegger, technology is a form of poiesis-a way of revealing that conceals
aletheia or the truth. This is seen in the way the term techne, the Greek root word of
technology, is understood in different contexts. In philosophy, techne resembles the term
episteme that refers to the human ability to make and perform. Techne also encompasses
knowledge and understanding. In art, it refers to tangible and intangible aspects of life. The
Greeks understood techne in the way that it encompasses not only craft, but other acts of the
mind, and poetry.

Technology as Poiesis: Does Modern Technology Bring Forth or Challenge

Forth?
Heidegger, in The Question Concerning Technology, posited that both primitive crafts
and modern technology are revealing However, he explained that modern technology is
4
 revealing not in the sense of bringing forth or poiesis. Heidegger made a clear distinction
between technology and modern technology in that the latter 'challenges' nature. Modern
technology challenges nature by extracting something from it and transforming storing, and
distributing it. On the surface, Heidegger's criticism of modern technology might appear
counterintuitive to the purpose of nature to human existence. However, by digging deeper
into Heidegger's question, it becomes dear that the essence of modern technology is not to
bring forth in the sense of poiseis. Instead, Heidegger considers modern technology's way of
revealing as a way of challenging forth. Modern technology challenges forth, because it
makes people think how to do things faster, more effectively, and with less effort. It prompts
people into dominating and enframing the earth's natural resources. Challenging forth
reduces objects as standing-reserve or something to be disposed of by those who enframe
them-humans. This is evident in the way people exploit natural resources with very little
concern for the ecological consequences that come with it. Challenging forth as a result of
modern technology is also evident in the information age, such that greater control of
information to profit from its value gives rise to concerns about privacy and the protection of
human rights.

The challenging forth of modern technology is seen everywhere: in the rise and depletion
of petroleum as a strategic resource; the introduction and use of synthetic dyes, artificial
flavorings, and toxic materials into the consumer stream that bring about adverse effects on
human health, and the use of ripening agents in agriculture that poses threats to food safety
and health security.

Enframing as Modern Technology's Way of Revealing

If the essence of technology can be understood as a way of bringing forth the truth in the
sense of ​poiseis,​ Heidegger distinguished the way of revealing modern technology by
considering it as a process of enframing Humankind's desire to control everything, including
nature, is captured in this process. By putting things, in this case nature, in a frame, it
becomes much easier for humans to control it according to their desires.
Enframing, according to Heidegger, is akin to two ways of looking at the world:
calculative thinking and meditative thinking. In calculative thinking humans desire to put an
order to nature to better understand and control it. In meditative thinking, humans allow
nature to reveal itself to them without the use of force or violence. One thinking is not
necessarily better than the other. In fact, humans are capable of using both and will benefit
from being able to harmonize these ways of looking at the world. Yet, calculative thinking
tends to be more commonly utilized, primarily because humans' desire to control due to their
fear of irregularity.

5
 Enframing, then, is a way of ordering (or framing) nature to better manipulate it.
Enframing happens because of how humans desire for security, even if it puts all of nature as
a standing reserve ready for exploitation Modern technology challenges humans to enframe
nature. Thus, humans become part of the standing reserve and an instrument of technology,
to be exploited in the ordering of nature. The role humans take as instruments of technology
through enframing is called destining. In destining, humans are challenged forth by
enframing to reveal what is real. However, this destining of humans to reveal nature carries
with it the danger of misconstruction or misinterpretation.

The Dangers of technology

The dangers of technology lie in how humans let themselves be consumed by it.
Although humans are looped into the cycle of bringing forth or challenging forth, it is their
responsibility to recognize how they become instruments of technology.
The Brazilian novelist, Paulo Coelho, once remarked that it is boastful for humans to
think that nature needs to be saved, whereas Mother Nature would remain even if humans
cease to exist. Hence, in facing the dangers of technology, the fear of disappearing from the
face of the Earth should concern people more potently than the fear of the Earth
disappearing. As mere tenants on Earth, people must not allow themselves to be consumed
by technology lest they lose the essence of who they are as human beings. In this sense,
humans are in danger of becoming merely part of the standing reserve or, alternatively, may
find themselves in nature.
Recognizing its dangers of technology requires critical and reflective thinking on its use.
For example, social media has indeed connected people in the most efficient and convenient
way imaginable, but it also inadvertently gave rise to issues such as invasion of privacy,
online disinhibition, and proliferation of fake news. The line has to be drawn between what
constitutes a beneficial use of social media and a dangerous one. As exemplified, social
media comes with both benefits and drawbacks.
However, the real threat of technology comes from its essence, not its activities or
products. The correct response to the danger of technology is not simply dismissing
technology altogether. Heidegger (1977) explained that people are delivered over to
technology in the worst possible way when they regard it as something neutral. This
conception of technology, according to Heidegger, to which today humans particularly like to
pay homage, makes them utterly blind to the essence of technology. Ultimately, the essence
of technology is by no means anything technological (Heidegger, 1977).

Art as the Saving power

Necessary reflection upon and confrontation with technology are required in order to
proactively address the dangers of technology Friedrich Hölderlin, a German poet quoted by
6
 Heidegger, said: "But where danger is, grows the saving power also". Following this, the
saving power can be traced exactly where the danger is in the essence of technology. As
mentioned, this essence is not neutral and by no means anything technological. Along this
line, Heidegger proposed art as the saving power and the way out of enframing: "And art was
simply called ​techne​. It was a single, manifold revealing".. Heidegger saw art as an act of the
mind, i.e., a ​techne,​ that protected and had great power over the truth. By focusing on art,
people are able to see more clearly how art is embedded in nature. Art encourages humans to
think less from a calculative standpoint where nature is viewed as an ordered system. Instead,
it inspires meditative thinking where nature is seen as an art and that, in all of art, nature is
most poetic. Heidegger encapsulated this as follows:
Because the essence of technology is nothing technological, essential reflection
upon technology and decisive confrontation with it must happen in a realm that is, on the
one hand, akin to the essence of technology and, on the other, fundamentally different
from it. Such a realm is art. But certainly, only if reflection on art, for its part, does not
shut its eyes to the constellation of truth after which we are questioning
Questioning as the Piety of Thought
Heidegger concluded his treatise on technology by saying:
The closer we come to danger, the more brightly do the ways into the saving power begin
to shine and the more questioning we become. For questioning is the piety of thought.
Heidegger underscored the importance of ​questioning in the midst of technology. For
him, there is unparalleled wisdom gained only when humans are able to pause, think, and
question what is around them. Humans are consumed by technology when they are caught up in
enframing and fail to pay attention to the intricacies of technology, the brilliance of the purpose
of humankind, and the genius of humans to bring forth the truth.
Questioning is the piety of thought. It is only through questioning that humans are able to
reassess their position not only in the midst of technology around them, but also, and most
importantly, in the grand scheme of things. Heidegger posited that it is through questioning that
humans bear witness to the crises that a complete preoccupation with technology brings,
preventing them from experiencing the essence of technology
Thus, humans need to take a step back and reassess who they were, who they are, and
who they are becoming in the midst of technology in this day and age.

ACTIVITY #2
Instructions: After studying the full text of Martin Heidegger's The Question Concerning
Technology, available on www.psyp.org/question_ concerning technology. answer the following:
1. What three concepts remain unclear or difficult for you to understand?
2. What three significant insights did you gain in studying this text?
3. What three questions do you want to ask about the text?

7
 LESSON 6
HUMAN FLOURISHING IN PROGRESS AND
DE-DEVELOPMENT
Lesson objectives:
1. Discuss human flourishing in the context of progress in science and technology;
2. Explain de-development as a progress and development framework; and
3. Differentiate between traditional frameworks of progress and development and Hickel's
concept of de-development.
Thoughts to Ponder
Despite efforts to close out the gap between the rich and poor countries, a BBC report in
2015 stated that the gap in growth and development just keeps on widening. Although there is no
standard measure of inequality, the report claimed that most indicators suggest that the widening
of the growth gap slowed during the financial crisis of 2007 but is now growing again. The
increasing inequality appears paradoxical having in mind the efforts that had been poured onto
the development programs designed to assist poor countries to rise from absent to slow progress.
With this backdrop and in the context of unprecedented scientific and technological
advancement and economic development, humans must ask themselves whether they are indeed
flourishing, individually or collectively. If development efforts to close out the gap between the
rich and poor countries have failed, is it possible to confront the challenges of development
through a nonconformist framework?
In the succeeding article, ​Jason Hickel​, an anthropologist at the London School of
Economics, criticizes the failure of growth and development efforts to eradicate poverty seven
decades ago. More importantly, he offers a nonconformist perspective toward growth and
development.

Forget 'developing poor countries, it's time to 'de-develop' rich countries

by Jason Hickel
This week, heads of state are gathering in New York to sign the UN's new sustainable
development goals (SDGS). The main objective is to eradicate poverty by 2030. Beyoncé, One
Direction and Malala are on board. It's set to be a monumental international celebration.
Given all the fanfare, one might think the SDGs are about to offer a fresh plan for how to
save the world, but beneath all the hype, it's business as usual. The main strategy for eradicating
poverty is the same: growth
Growth has been the main object of development for the past 70 years, despite the fact
that it's not working. Since 1980, the global economy has grown by 380%, but the number of
people living in poverty on less than $5 (£3.20) a day has increased by more than 1.1 billion.
That's 17 times the population of Britain. So much for the trickle down effect.
8
 Orthodox economists insist that all we need is yet more growth. More progressive types
tell us that we need to shift some of the yields of growth from the richer segments of the
population to the poorer ones, evening things out a bit. Neither approach is adequate. Why?
Because even at current levels of average global consumption, we're overshooting our
planet's biocapacity by more than 50% each year.
In other words, growth isn't an option any more - we've already grown too much. Scientists are
now telling us that we're blowing past planetary boundaries at breakneck speed. And the hard
truth is that this global crisis is due almost entirely to overconsumption in rich countries.
Right now, our planet only has enough resources for each of us to consume 1.8 "global hectares"
annually - a standardised unit that measures resource use and waste. This figure is roughly what
the average person in Ghana or Guatemala consumes. By contrast, people in the US and Canada
consume about 8 hectares per person, while Europeans consume 4.7 hectares - many times their
fair share.
What does this mean for our theory of development Economist Peter Edward argues that instead
of pushing poorer countries to "catch up with rich ones, we should be thinking of ways to get
rich countries to "catch down to more appropriate levels of development, We should look at
societies where people live long and happy lives at relatively low levels of income and
consumption not as basket that need to be developed towards western models, but as exemplars
of efficient living Cases
How much do we really need to live long and happy lives? The US, life expectancy is 79
years and GDP per capita is $53,000 But many countries have achieved similar life expectancy
with a me fraction of this income. Cuba has a comparable life expectancy to the US and one of
the highest literacy rates in the world with GDP per capita of only $6,000 and consumption of
only 1.9 hectares - right at the threshold of ecological sustainability. Similar claims can be made
of Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Tunisia.
Yes, some of the excess income and consumption we see in the rich world yield
improvements in quality of life that are not captured by life expectancy, or even literacy rates.
But even if we look at measures of overall happiness and wellbeing in addition to life
expectancy, a number of low and middle-income countries rank highly. Costa Rica manages to
sustain one of the highest happiness indicators and life expectancies in the world with a per
capita income one-fourth that of the US.
In light of this, perhaps we should regard such countries not as underdeveloped, but
rather as appropriately developed. And maybe we need to start calling on rich countries to justify
their excesses.
The idea of "de-developing rich countries might prove to be a strong rallying cry in the
global south, but it will be tricky to sell to westerners. Tricky, but not impossible. According to
recent consumer research, 70% of people in middle- and high-income countries believe
overconsumption is putting our planet and society at risk. A similar majority also believe we
9
should strive to buy and own less, and that doing so would not compromise our happiness.
People sense there is something wrong with the dominant model of economic progress and they
are hungry for an alternative narrative.
The problem is that the pundits promoting this kind of transition are using the wrong
language. They are terms such as de growth zero growth or worst of all-the-development, which
are technically accurate but off putting for anyone who's not already on board. Such terms are
repulsive because they run against the deepest frames we use to think about human progress,
and, indeed, the purpose of life itself. It's like asking people to stop moving positively through
life, to stop learning, improving, growing.
Negative formulations won't get us anywhere. The idea of "steady-state" economics is a
step in the right direction and is growing in popularity, but it still doesn't get the framing right.
We need to reorient ourselves toward a positive future, a truer form of progress. One that is
geared toward quality instead of quantity. One that is more sophisticated than just accumulating
ever increasing amounts of stuff, which doesn't make anyone happier anyway. What is certain is
that GDP as a measure is not going to get us there and we need to get rid of it.
Perhaps we might take a cue from Latin Americans, who are organizing alternative
visions around the indigenous concept of buen vivir, or good living. The west has its own
tradition of reflection on the good life and it's time we revive it. Robert and Edward Skidelsky
take us down this road in his book, How Much is Enough? where they lay out the possibility of
interventions such as banning advertising, a shorter working week and a basic income, all of
which would improve our lives while reducing consumption.
Either we slow down voluntarily or climate change will do it for us. We can't go on
ignoring the laws of nature. But rethinking our theory of progress is not only an ecological
imperative, it is also a development one. If we do not act soon, all our hard-won gains against
poverty will evaporate, as food systems collapse and mass famine reemerges to an extent not
seen since the 19th century.
This is not about giving anything up. And it's certainly not about living a life of voluntary
misery or imposing harsh limits on human potential. On the contrary, it's about reaching a higher
level of understanding and consciousness about what we're doing here and why.

10
 ACTIVITY #3
Watch and take notes on the documentary film, The Magician's Twin: C. S. Lewis and the Case
Against Scientism, available on YouTube (https//www.youtube.com/?=FPeyJvXU68k). Then,
answer the following questions:
1. Why was C. S. Lewis very much a skeptic and critic of scientism? Was he against
science?
2. How did C. S. Lewis explain the following?
2.1. science as religion
2.2. science as credulity
2.3. science as power
3. Why did C.S. Lewis think that modern science is far more dangerous than magic?
4. Why did C. S. Lewis become increasingly concerned about the rise of scientocracy? How
does scientocracy relate to scientism?
5. Based on what you learned in the documentary film, how does scientism pose a threat to
the human person flourishing in science and technology? Why should science be guided
by an ethical basis that is not dictated by science itself?

11
 LESSON 7
THE GOOD LIFE
Lesson objectives:
1. Explain human rights-based approach to science, technology, and development.
2. identify key documents and their principles that ensure the well-being of humans in the
midst of scientific progress and technological development; and
3. discuss the importance of upholding human rights in science, technology, and
development.
ACTIVITY #4
Thinking time!
Write whether you AGREE or DISAGREE with each statement.
1. The purpose of life is happiness.

2. Happiness comes from pleasure, wealth, and recognition.

3. Happiness means merely feeling good or joyful.
4. Reason is an important element of human happiness.
5. To achieve happiness, humans must pursue only extremely positive things.
6. A life of happiness is a result of a balance between two extremes.
7. A happy life is a virtuous life.
8. Intellectual and moral virtues happiness.
9. It is not the role of science and technology to guide humans toward a virtuous life.
10. Ethical standards must be imposed upon science and technology to avoid excesses and
deficiencies.

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and the Good Life

To answer the question, "Are we living the good life?," necessary reflection must be made on
two things: first, what standard could be used to define the good life?" Second, how can the
standard serve as a guide toward living the good life in the midst of scientific progress and
technological advancement? In the documentary film, The Magician's Twin: C. S. Lewis and the
Case Against Scientism, C. S. Lewis posited that "science must be guided by some ethical basis
that is not dictated by science itself." One such ethical basis is Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

Aristotle, who lived from 384 to 322 BC, is probably the most important ancient Greek
philosopher and scientist. He was a student of Plato, who was then a student of Socrates.
Together, they were considered the 'Big Three of Greek Philosophy.'

12
 Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, the fundamental basis of Aristotelian ethics, consists of
ten books. Originally, they were lecture notes written on scrolls when he taught at the
Lyceum. It is widely believed that the lecture notes were compiled by or were dedicated to
one of Aristotle's sons, Nicomachus. Alternatively, it is believed that the work was dedicated
to Aristotle's father who was of the same name.
The Nicomachean Ethics, abbreviated as NE or sometimes EN based on the Latin version
of the name, is a treatise on the nature of moral life and human happiness based on the
unique essence of human nature. The NE is particularly useful in defining what the good life
is.
Everyone has a definition of what good is-getting a college degree, traveling across the
world, succeeding in a business venture, pursuing a healthy and active lifestyle, or being a
responsible parent. However, although everyone aims to achieve that which is good, Aristotle
posited two types of good. In NE Book 2 Chapter 2, (NE 2:2), Aristotle explained that every
action aims at some good. However, some actions aim at an instrumental good while some
aim at an intrinsic good. He made it clear that the ultimate good is better than the
instrumental good for the latter is good as a means to achieving something else or some other
end while the former is good in itself.
Others might think that wealth is a potential candidate for the ultimate good, but a critique of
wealth would prove otherwise. Indeed, many, if not most, aim to be financially stable, to be
rich, or to be able to afford a luxurious life. However, it is very common to hear people say
that they aim to be wealthy insofar as it would help them achieve some other goals.
Elsewhere, it is also common to hear stories about people who have become very wealthy but
remain, by and large, unhappy with the lives they lead. In this sense, wealth is just an
Intermediate good-that is, only instrumental. It is not the ultimate good because it is not
self-sufficient and does not stop one from aiming for some other ‘greater’ good
Another candidate for the ultimate good is fame and honor. Many people today seem to
be motivated by a desire to be known to be famous. Others strive for honor and recognition.
This is reflected by those people who use social media to acquire large virtual following on
the internet and wish to gain a foothold on the benefits that can bring many people to act
according to how they think they will be admired and appreciated by other people. However,
these cannot constitute the ultimate good, simply because they are based on the perception of
others. Fame and honor can never be good in themselves. If one's definition of the good life
is being popular or respected, then the good life becomes elusive since it is based on the
subjective views of others.
Unlike pleasure, wealth, fame, and honor, happiness is the ultimate good. In the Aristotelian
sense, happiness is "living well and doing well" (NE 1:4). Among the Greeks, this is known
as eudaimonia, from the root words eu, meaning good, and daimon, meaning spirit
Combining the root words, eudaimonia means happiness or welfare. More accurately, others
13
 translate it as human flourishing or prosperity. Aristotle proposed two hallmarks of
eudaimonia, namely virtue and excellence (NE 1:7). Thus, happiness in the sense of
eudaimonia has to be distinguished from merely living good. Eudaimonia transcends all
aspects of life for it is about living well and doing well in whatever one does.
Eudaimonia: Uniquely Human?
Eudaimonia or happiness is unique to humans for it is a uniquely human function. It is
achieved only through a rationally directed life. Aristotle's notion of a tripartite soul as
summarized in Table 1 illustrates a nested hierarchy of the functions and activities of the soul.
The degrees and functions of the soul are nested, such that the one which has a higher degree of
soul has all of the lower degrees. Thus, on the nutritive degree, all living things, i.e., plants,
animals, and humans, require nourishment and have the ability to reproduce. To a sensitive
degree, only animals and humans have the ability to move and perceive. Finally, to a rational
degree, only humans are capable of theoretical and practical functions. Following this, humans
possess the nutritive, sensitive, and rational degrees of the soul. More importantly, only humans
are capable of a life guided by reason. Because this is so, happiness, too, is a uniquely human
function for it can only be achieved through a rationally directed life.

Arête and Human Happiness

Eudaimonia is what defines the good life. To live a good life is to live a happy life. For
Aristotle, ​eudaimonia​ is only possible by living a life of virtue.
Arête​, a Greek term, is defined as "excellence of any kind" and can also mean "moral
virtue."A virtue is what makes one function well. Aristotle suggested two types of virtue:
intellectual virtue and moral virtue.
Intellectual virtue o​ r virtue of thought is achieved through education, time, and
experience. Key intellectual virtues are ​wisdom,​ which guides ethical behavior, and
understanding​, which is gained from scientific endeavors and contemplation. Wisdom and
understanding are achieved through formal and non-formal means. Intellectual virtues are
acquired through self-taught knowledge and skills as much as those knowledge and skills
14
taught and learned in formal institutions.
Moral virtue ​or virtue of character is achieved through habitual practice. Some key moral
virtues are generosity, temperance, and courage. Aristotle explained that although the
capacity for intellectual virtue is innate, it is brought into completion only by practice.
It is by repeatedly being unselfish that one develops the virtue of generosity. It is by
repeatedly resisting and foregoing every inviting opportunity that one develops the virtue of
temperance. It is by repeatedly exhibiting the proper action and emotional response in the
face of danger that one develops the virtue of courage. By and large, moral virtue is like a
skill. A skill is acquired only through repeated practice. Everyone is capable of learning how
to play the guitar because everyone has an innate capacity for intellectual virtue, but not
everyone acquires it because only those who devote time and practice develop the skill of
playing the instrument.
If one learns that eating too much fatty foods is bad for the health, he or she has to make
it a habit to stay away from this type of food because health contributes to living well and
doing well. If one believes that too much use of social media is detrimental to human
relationships and productivity, he or she must regulate his or her use of social media and
deliberately spend more time with friends, family, and work than on a virtual platform. If one
understands the enormous damage to the environment that plastic materials bring, he or she
must repeatedly forego the next plastic item he or she could do away with. Good relationship
dynamics and a healthy environment contribute to one's wellness, in how he or she lives and
what he or she does.
Both intellectual virtue and moral virtue should be in accordance with reason to achieve
eudaimonia. Indifference with these virtues, for reasons that are only for one's convenience,
pleasure, or satisfaction, Heads humans away from eudaimonia.
A virtue is ruined by any excess and deficiency in how one lives and acts. A balance
between two extremes is a requisite of virtue. This balance is a mean of excess not in the
sense of a geometric or arithmetic average. Instead, it is a mean relative to the person,
circumstances, and the right emotional response in every experience (NE 2:2; 2:6).
Consider the virtue of courage. Courage was earlier defined as displaying the right action and
emotional response in the face of danger. The virtue of courage is ruined by an excess of the
needed emotional and proper action to address a particular situation. A person who does not
properly assess the danger and is totally without fear may develop the vice of foolhardiness
or rashness. Also, courage is ruined by a deficiency of the needed emotion and proper action.
When one overthinks of a looming danger, that he or she becomes too fearful and incapable
of acting on the problem, he or she develops the vice of cowardice.

15
What then is the good life?
Putting everything in perspective, the good life in the sense of eudaimonia is the state of
being happy, healthy, and prosperous in the way one thinks, lives, and acts. The path to the
good life consists of the virtues of thought and character, which are relative mediators
between the two extremes of excess and deficiency. In this way, the good life is understood
as happiness brought about by living a virtuous life.
One could draw parallels between moving toward the good life and moving toward further
progress and development in science and technology. In appraising the goodness of the next
medical procedure, the new social media trend, the latest mobile device, or the upcoming
technology for food safety, one must be guided by Aristotelian virtues. Science and
technology can be ruined by under- or over-appreciation of the scope and function it plays in
the pursuit of the uniquely human experience of happiness. Refusing science and technology
altogether to improve human life is as problematic as allowing it to entirely dictate reason
and action without any regard for ethical and moral standards. By imposing on science and
technology an ethical standard that is not dictated by itself, as C. S. Lewis proposed, not only
will scientific advancement and technological development flourish, but also the human
person.

ACTIVITY #5
Compare and contrast each pair of terms related to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics as
discussed in this section.

1. Instrumental Good - Ultimate Good

2. Pleasure – Happiness
3. Virtue – Vice
4. Intellectual Virtue - Moral
5. Science and technology – The good life

16
 Lesson 8
WHEN TECHNOLOGY AND HUMANITY CROSS
Lesson objectives:
1. Identify William Nelson Joy's arguments as to why the future doesn't need us;
2. Evaluate contemporary human experiences with science and technology.

Human rights in the face of scientific and technological advancement are critical factors
in one's journey toward eudaimonia or the good life. Exercising the right to accept or reject,
minimize or maximize, and evaluate and decide on the scope and function of science and
technology indicates human flourishing in science and technology. Protecting the well-being and
upholding the dignity of the human person must be at the core of continued scientific and
technological progress and development. Such is the focus of a human rights-based approach to
science, technology, and development.

S. Romi Mukherjee, a senior lecturer in Political Theory and the History of Religions at
the Paris Institute of Political Studies, explained a human rights-based approach to science,
technology, and development as follows:
"[lt] seeks to place a concern for human rights at the heart of how the international
community engages with urgent global challenges. The UN Development Programme
characterizes this approach as one that leads to better and more sustainable outcomes by
analyzing and addressing the inequalities, discriminatory practices and unjust power
relations which are often at the heart of development problems. It puts the international
human rights entitlements and claims of the people (the 'right-holders') and the
corresponding obligations of the state (the 'duty-bearer') in the center of the national
development debate, and it clarifies the purpose of capacity development."

Mukherjee (2012) furthered that this approach identifies science as "a socially organized
human activity which is value laden and shaped by organizational structures and procedures."
Moreover, it requires an answer to whether governments and other stakeholders can craft and
implement science and technology policies that ensure safety, health and livelihoods, include
people's needs and priorities in development and environmental strategies; and ensure they
participate in decision making that affects their lives and resources."

Multiple international statutes, declarations, and decrees have been produced to ensure
well-being and human dignity. Mukherjee listed some of the most important documents that
center on a human rights-based approach to science, development, and technology, and their key
principles:
17
 Table 2​. Useful documents for a human-rights based approach to science, technology, and
Document
Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (Article 27)
UNESCO Recommendation on the
Status of Scientific Researchers
-1974 (Article 4)
UNESCO Declaration on the Use of
Scientific Knowledge-1999 (Article
33)
development
Key Principles
This document affirms everyone's right to participate
in and benefit from scientific advances, and be
protected from scientific misuses. The right to the
benefits of science comes under the domain of
culture, so it is usually examined from a cultural
rights perspective
This document affirms that all advances in scientific
and technological knowledge should solely be geared
towards the welfare of the global citizens, and calls
upon member states to develop necessary protocol
and policies to monitor and secure this objective.
Countries are asked to show that science and
technology are integrated into policies that aim to
ensure a more humane and just society.
This document states, "Today, more than Science and
its applications are indispensable for development.
All levels of government and the private sector
should provide enhanced support for building up an
adequate and evenly distributed scientific and
technological capacity through appropriate education
and research programmes as an indispensable
foundation for economic, social, cultural and
environmentally sound development. This is
particularly urgent for developing countries This
Declaration encompasses issues such as
pollution-free production, efficient resource use,
biodiversity protection, and brain drains.

A human rights-based approach to science, technology, and development sets the

parameters for the appraisal of how science, technology, and development promote human
well-being. Thus, the discussion of human rights in the face of changing scientific and
technological contexts must not serve as merely decorative moral dimensions of scientific and
technological policies. As Mukherjee (2012) posited, this approach "can form the very heart of
sustainable futures."
18
Human rights should be integral to the journey toward the ultimate good. They should guide
humans not only to flourish as individual members of society, but also to assist each other in
flourishing collectively as a society. Human rights are rights to sustainability, as Mukherjee put
it. They may function as the 'golden mean' particularly by protecting the weak, poor, and
vulnerable from the deficiencies and excesses of science and technology. By imposing upon
science and technology the moral and ethical duty to protect and uphold human rights, there can
be a more effective and sustainable approach to bridging the gap between poor and rich countries
both tangible (e.g., services and natural resources) and intangible leg, well-being and human
dignity) aspects. Ultimately, all these will lead humans to flourish together through science and
technology.

Activity #6
1. What is a human rights-based approach to science, technology, and development?
2. How do the documents and their key principles presented in Table 2 position human
rights in the intersection of technology and humanity?
3. Why should human rights be at the core of scientific and technological advancement?
4. What is the danger of using human rights as merely decorative moral dimensions of
scientific and technological policies?
5. Do you agree with Mukherjee's assertion that a human rights based approach to science,
technology, and development can form the very heart of sustainable futures? Explain.

19
 Lesson 9
WHY THE FUTURE DOES NOT NEED US
Can you imagine a future without the human race? Do you think that robots and
machines can replace humans? Do you believe that there will come a time when human
existence will be at the mercy of robots and machines? Is it also possible that medical
breakthroughs in the future may go terribly wrong that a strain of drug-resistant viruses could
wipe out the entire human race?
For some, imagining a future without humans is nearly synonymous with the end of the
world. Many choose not to speculate about a future where humans cease to exist while the world
remains. However, a dystopian society void of human presence is the subject of many works in
literature and film. The possibility of such society is also a constant topic of debates.
In April 2000, William Nelson Joy, an American computer scientist and chief scientist of
Sun Microsystems, wrote an article for Wired magazine entitled Why the future doesn't need us?
In his article, Joy warned against the rapid rise of new technologies. He explained that 21st
century technologies-genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR)-are becoming very powerful
that they can potentially bring about new classes of accidents, threats, and abuses. He further
warned that these dangers are even more pressing because they do not require large facilities or
even rare raw materials-knowledge alone will make them potentially harmful to humans.
Joy argued that robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology pose much greater
threats than technological developments that have come before. He particularly cited the ability
of nanobots to self replicate, which could quickly get out of control. In the article,he cautioned
humans against overdependence on machines. He also stated that if machines are given the
capacity to decide on their own, it will be impossible to predict how they might behave in the
future. In this case, the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of machines.
Joy also voiced out his apprehension about the rapid increase of computer power. He was
also concerned that computers will eventually become more intelligent than humans, thus
ushering societies into dystopian visions, such as robot.rebellions. To illuminate his concern, Joy
drew from Theodore Kaczynski's book, Unabomber Manifesto, where Kaczynski described that
the unintended consequences of the design and use of technology are clearly related to Murphy's
Law: "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." Kaczynski argued further that overreliance
on antibiotics led to the great paradox of emerging antibiotic-resistant strains of dangerous
bacteria. The introduction of Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) to combat malaria
mosquitoes, for instance, only gave rise to malarial parasites with multi-drug resistant genes,
Since the publication of the article, Joy's arguments against 21st century technologies
have received both criticisms and expression of shared concern. Critics dismissed Joy's article
for deliberately presenting information in an imprecise manner that obscures the larger picture or
state of things. For onel John Seely Brown Rand Paul Duguid (2001, in their article A Response
20
 to Bill Joy and the Doom-and Gloom Techno Futurists, criticized Joy's failure to consider
social factors and only deliberately focused on one part of the larger picture. Others go as far as
accusing Joy of being a neo-Luddite, someone who rejects
new technologies and shows technophobic leanings. As a material, Joy's article tackles the
unpleasant and uncomfortable possibilities that a senseless approach to scientific and
technological advancements may bring. Whether Joy's propositions are a real possibility or an
absolute moonshot, it is unavoidable to think of a future that will no longer need the human race.
It makes thinking about the roles and obligations of every stakeholder a necessary component of
scientific and technological advancement. In this case, it 1s preeminently necessary that the
scientific community, governments, and businesses engage in a discussion to determine the
safeguards of humans against the potential dangers of science and technology.

ACTIVITY #7
Look at the picture. Do you think that there will come a time in the future that will no longer need
humans? Write your brief opinion.

21
MODULE QUESTION
1. DIFFERENTIATE THE ESSENCE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MODERN
TECHNOLOGY.

DO THE PHOTO (A)BRING FORTH (B)CHALLENGE FORTH? WRITE THE LETTER OF

YOU ANSWER AND EXPLAIN YOUR CHOICE.

(a)bring forth a)bring forth

(b)challenge forth (b)challenge forth

(a)bring forth
(a)bring forth (b)challenge forth
(b)challenge forth

(a)bring forth
(b)challenge forth
(a)bring forth
(b)challenge forth

22
2. What is the framework of de-development of rich countries all about?
3. How is the de-development framework different from traditional frameworks of
development?
4. According to Hickel, how can rich countries de-develop?
5. Why does Hickel frown upon pundits using terms such as de growth, vero growth, or de
development in describing an alternative framework?
6. Some people might think that development is about giving things up. How does Hickel
explain that this is not the case?
7. In your own words, what is your idea of a Good Life?
8. Explain the table 1 “Aristotle’s Tripartite soul”
9. Explain human rights-based approach to science, technology, and development?
10. Identify William Nelson Joy's arguments as to why the future does not need us.
11. Do you think that robots and machines can replace humans?

23