IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rsocec/v80y2022i1p106-126.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How intelligent neurotechnology can be epistemically unjust. An exploration into the ethics of algorithms

Author

Listed:
  • Sebastian Schleidgen
  • Orsolya Friedrich
  • Andreas Wolkenstein

Abstract

Recently, the epistemic quality of algorithms and its normative implications have come under scrutiny. While general questions of justice have been addressed in this context, specific issues of epistemic (in)justice have so far been neglected. We aim to fill this gap by analyzing some potential implications of behavioral intelligent neurotechnology (B-INT). We claim that B-INT exhibits a number of epistemic features implying the potential for certain epistemic problems, which, in turn, are likely to result in instances of epistemic injustice. To support this claim, we will first introduce and specify the terminology and technology behind B-INT. Second, we will present four fictitious scenarios of using B-INT and highlight a number of epistemic issues that might arise. Third, we will discuss their relation to the concept of epistemic justice, as well as potential instances thereof. Thus, we will show some important and morally relevant implications of the epistemic properties of INT.

Suggested Citation

  • Sebastian Schleidgen & Orsolya Friedrich & Andreas Wolkenstein, 2022. "How intelligent neurotechnology can be epistemically unjust. An exploration into the ethics of algorithms," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 80(1), pages 106-126, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rsocec:v:80:y:2022:i:1:p:106-126
    DOI: 10.1080/00346764.2021.1979241
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00346764.2021.1979241
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00346764.2021.1979241?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rsocec:v:80:y:2022:i:1:p:106-126. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RRSE20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.