<p>Socially disruptive technologies can induce normative disorientation. This occurs as they disrupt established concepts that have traditionally provided normative guidance. A notable example of such technology-induced conceptual disruption is the advent of ventilator technology. Patients who lost brain stem activity and autonomous ventilation, yet remained alive through ventilator support, created a state of uncertainty: they were considered “dead” in terms of (autonomous) ventilation and brain activity, but “alive” in terms of cardiac function. This descriptive ambiguity led to normative disorientation, particularly among clinicians and patients’ relatives. In response, conceptual engineering and the introduction of the new concept of “brain death” have been identified as critical steps toward re-establishing normative clarity in the wake of socially disruptive technologies. However, the capacity of conceptual engineering to resolve such disruptions is often overstated. For engineered concepts to effectively restore descriptive and normative orientation, they must engage with underlying moral considerations, which constitute the foundation of normative guidance. Through the case study of “brain death,” this paper examines methodological challenges at the intersection of engineered concepts and normative frameworks. It applies the method of reflective equilibrium as a bridge between conceptual engineering and moral reasoning, thereby enriching the discourse on resolving technology-induced moral disruptions.</p>