34-228

Assignment #1

Stephanie Altenhof. 104325826

In the essay Technology and Responsibility, written by Hans Jonas, he explains

how and why modern technologies have changed traditional ethics, and calls for a
transformation in ethics because of the effect modern technologies have in present
society. In this essay I will present Jonas view on what he believes are the defining
features of traditional ethics, the reason why Jonas believes modern technologies have
changed the conditions of ethical responsibility, and finally, I will argue for or against his
views.
Before describing what Jonas believes are the defining features of traditional
ethics, it is important to know the three tactic premises which modern ethics rest upon.
This means that these features are assumed to be true. The first premise is that the human
condition is unable to change, and that it is determined by nature. Second, is that the
human good is determinable. The third premise is that the range of human action is slim
and because of this, the responsibility placed upon humans is narrow as well (Jonas 173).
With these premises in mind, what Jonas believes to be the defining features of these
ethics can be extrapolated. Jonas explains that these ethical implications are only directly
involved with man and himself, or between men (175). From this, it can be concluded
that Jonas believes one of the defining features of these ethics is that they are
anthropocentric, meaning, they are confined to a human-based way of thinking about
things.
Jonas believes another defining feature is that traditional ethics have fixed limits.
Man is still small by the measure of the elements, Jonas proclaims, Them he cannot
harm by carving out his little dominion from theirs (174). Jonas is conveying that man is
small in comparison to nature, and although it is true that man is a part of nature, nature
still far exceeds him in scope. Jonas explains, Nature was not an object of human

34-228

Assignment #1

Stephanie Altenhof. 104325826

responsibility- she taking care of herself not ethics, only nature applied to her (175).
Because nature is so much greater than humans, they cannot affect nature and thus, are
limited in what they do.
The final defining feature of traditional ethics, in Jonas opinion, is that they are
neighbour ethics; they are small in scale. Jonas explains that what remains constant in
each of the premises that traditional ethics rest upon, is that they are confined to the
immediate setting. He then goes on to quote some of the maxims that illustrate traditional
ethics and highlight the feature of their neighbour ethics, for example, Love thy
neighbor as thyself, Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you (Jonas, 175).
The scale which humans can affect is small and therefore responsibility is limited to that
same scale. What needs to be done morally is confined to man and mans neighbours, or
anyone within proximity of man that may be affected by his decisions.
Jonas believes that modern technologies have dramatically altered the conditions
of ethical responsibility both in our social relations to one another as human beings and in
our relations to the natural, non-human world. He believes this to be true because of the
colossal power that modern technology holds. There has been a grand shift in scale,
which includes ethical responsibility. Ethical responsibility was of a relatively small scale
but with the advent of modern technology and the role of it in our world today, there has
been a shift from small scale to massive. Jonas believes that modern technologies have
introduced actions, objects and consequences of such novel scale that former ethics can
no longer be applied (Jonas 176). Although Jonas believes that neighbour ethics still hold
true with day-to-day human interaction, a new ethics must be applied because of the
power of modern technology (Jonas 177). This power greatly exceeds the power of
humans. Because traditional ethics are limited, small in scale and are anthropocentric,

34-228

Assignment #1

Stephanie Altenhof. 104325826

they can no longer be applicable with the advent of modern technology and the grand
scale of power associated with it.
Part of what propelled this grand shift in scale can be attributed to a key feature of
technology; it is exponential in nature; it is accelerating. The containment of nearness
and contemporaneity is gone Jonas explains, To this take their cumulative character:
their effects add themselves to one another, and the situation for later acting and being
becomes increasingly different from what it was for the initial agent (177). It is
impossible to use traditional ethics in a situation like this; a moral decision cannot be
made because the outcome is always changing. The fixed limitations humans once had
are expanding and therefore, traditional ethics are no longer sufficient when having
relations with nature and with other humans. This grand shift in scale has ultimately
changed the defining features of traditional ethics, the boundaries of man and nature are
now being eliminated (Jonas 178). Therefore, the reason why technologies have changed
traditional ethics and thus, human ethical responsibility is due to the massive scale of
power that modern technologies have.
I do believe that modern technologies have transformed ethics and ethical
responsibility in the ways Jonas has described. Jonas claims that modern technologies
have a great amount of power (176). For example, the rise of the industrial revolution in
the mid 1800s is an obvious example of the power that modern technologies claim. Since
the industrial revolution, which was the period of the rise in modern technology, the
human population rose by billions of people; the power that modern technologies had
changed the scale in human population greatly. This is a clear reason as to why neighbour
ethics are no longer applicable; there are billions of other humans to ethically consider.

34-228

Assignment #1

Stephanie Altenhof. 104325826

The heart of technology is the earths resources. Massive amounts of extraction,

resources, waste and energy are necessary to give life to, and continue to support modern
technology. Changing the earth and nature at a scale that now will affect future
generations is a sign that traditional ethics are no longer applicable. Modern technologies
effects are not only large in space, but in time. For example, the use of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) was banned because years after their use, a hole in the ozone
layer was attributed to their release in the atmosphere. Traditional ethics were therefore
not applicable in the use of CFCs; knowledge of this substance was crucial to be ethically
responsible for the future generations of species. I mention species because it is now
necessary to think of species other than humans; it is necessary to include ecosystems, for
example, in the present.
I have supported Jonas claims that ethics can no longer be anthropocentric and
that they are of large scale, and I also have to agree with Jonas that they no longer have
limits. Modern technology is demonstrating capacities that were previously thought of as
impossible. There are countless examples: A deaf man can receive a cochlear implant and
hear, an automated external defibrillator (AED) can ultimately restart the heart of a dead
human, and cancer fighting technologies are constantly being developed. The grand
power of modern technology has therefore changed ethics and ethical responsibility.
In conclusion, Jonas believes that the defining features of traditional ethics are
that they are anthropocentric, they are small in scale and that they have fixed limits to
them. Jonas believes the reason modern technologies have dramatically altered the
conditions of ethical responsibility in our relations to other humans and to the natural
world is because they have a massive amount of power. Personally, I agree with what
Jonas is conveying in his essay.

34-228

Assignment #1

Stephanie Altenhof. 104325826

Works Cited
Hans, Jonas. Technology and Responsibility Readings in the Philosophy of Technology,
edited by David M. Kaplan, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2009, pp. 173-184.