This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Keep. Good lemma but very unclear article, I replaced it with a minimal stub. BTW this is a standard course on a number of universities, so can perhaps just some students fill in the details? -- Pjacobi 22:11, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete in this form: This is more an article for (not about) Hans Jonas. I will attempt to do some rewrite, but I feel like the lemma ought to be a gateway to other ethics categories, as the general subject is too vast to cover in one article. Geogre 00:18, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Abstain: I've done enough rewriting now that it would be insane to vote against what is 80% mine and 15% Pjacobi's. I don't have a lot of confidence in what I've written (all the bulky stuff after the 1st par.). If people vote to keep, I'm curious as to whether they think the push for Hans Jonas should stay. Geogre 13:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
To clarify: I know nothing about the topic, but did only routine Googling on the lemma. I found that's a standard course and the reference to Hans Jonas. Then I replaced the incongruent first author's version with the references to Jonas' books. Pjacobi 13:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This is developing into an awesome article. Lots of room for development, but a great start and an excellent example of what Wikipedia can do. Andrewa 02:10, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Needs rewrite and expansion. Article should reflect the relative importance of work done in the field Stirling Newberry 06:48, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Who says that "Technology itself is incapable of possessing moral or ethical qualities, since "technology" is merely tool making. Thus, "ethics of technology" refers instead to two basic subdivisions."? This part seems to need a reference. Moreover, this understanding of technology as neutral it is not at all in line with later writings within fields such as philosophy of technology and STS-studies. S. Comments? (18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC))
After looking at both articles (and yes, both could use a cleanup) and doing some background reading, these 2 domains, despite overlap, are quite distinct. Technoethics aligns with the Engineers, Computer Scientists, technologists, and social science folk. Much of the work is empirical and oriented towards practical problem solving and knowledge building. Ethics of Technology derives from Philosophy and makes connections with Ethics, Applied Ethics and Philosophy of Technlogy, which provides some theoretical framing for some research in technoethics but lacks the empirical research orientation that defines Technoethics. Since Bunge's work precedes Jonas's, I would have folded Ethics of Technology into Technoethics instead if I was forced to. However, I do think there are more reasons to keep them apart. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Merge. Not much traction on this item. I recognize the difference between the two topics, but I'm still inclined to vote in favor. I agree with the previous comment about folding EoT into TE, rather than vv. if there are no objections, I'll add the merge job to my to-do list. jxm (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Was there any outcome on this? I'd like to edit one or the other article, but not both. - WilmingMa (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
It's still languishing on my to-do list. If you could do the merge, that would be great. WP:BOLD! jxm (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This has been waitng for 4 years now, so I'm acting, even as a non-expert. It could still do with an expert polish. Klbrain (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
In "Historical framing of technology – four main periods", point 2, appears the word "Tecknik" in quotes, in the next sentence it is spelled as "Technik". The latter is the correct contemporary spelling in German (my mother tongue). I did a quick google for "Tecknik" and could not find relevant hits, but I am not sure whether the spelling has changed since the 19th century. If anyone has a reference to the spelling in the article, it would be nice to cite it. Otherwise it might be an unfortunate misspelling within quotation marks, which suggest that the misspelled version is odd, but actually correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)