Scholarlink

<p>In their recent article Hopster, Rueda and Hillenbrink argue that debate on technomoral change would benefit from reflections on second order conceptual change and the role of institutions. This commentary builds on some issues that are only briefly mentioned in their paper, by connecting the literature on technomoral change to the literature on <i>forms of life</i> in critical theory, which allows to explore the complex relationship between concepts and institutions and how they influence moral change. In particular, the phenomenon of crises induced by so called “socially disruptive technologies” will be used to alert us to the possibility of critique aimed at existing institutions that may force change in the forms of life that dominate.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Forms of life, crisis, and technomoral change: Reply to Hopster, Rueda and Hillenbrink

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月24日

查看全文
  • Michiel De Proost

摘要

In their recent article Hopster, Rueda and Hillenbrink argue that debate on technomoral change would benefit from reflections on second order conceptual change and the role of institutions. This commentary builds on some issues that are only briefly mentioned in their paper, by connecting the literature on technomoral change to the literature on forms of life in critical theory, which allows to explore the complex relationship between concepts and institutions and how they influence moral change. In particular, the phenomenon of crises induced by so called “socially disruptive technologies” will be used to alert us to the possibility of critique aimed at existing institutions that may force change in the forms of life that dominate.