Pragmatism, the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and Sociotechnical Systems

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. in Philosophy, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D. in Comparative Philosophy, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of Theology and Islamic Studies Department, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

This paper investigates the ethical evaluation of artificial intelligence (AI) through the sociotechnical systems approach, with a particular emphasis on the insights of pragmatist philosophers. In recent years, the sociotechnical perspective has gained attention among AI ethics researchers. However, this approach has been interpreted and discussed in various ways, which can be broadly categorized into three main narratives. This paper introduces and critically examines all three, with a primary focus on the pragmatist narrative. Given the increasing relevance and relative novelty of this approach, a thorough evaluation is necessary to understand its potential and limitations. To this end, the study adopts an analytical-critical methodology to assess the framework and propose constructive solutions. Our analysis indicates that the pragmatist narrative of the sociotechnical systems approach emphasizes the real-world functioning of AI and its societal impacts. It seeks to identify the diverse social, technical, and institutional factors that contribute to ethical and societal outcomes. One of the central challenges of this approach lies in the inherent complexity of sociotechnical systems and the multitude of interacting elements they encompass. In response to this challenge, the paper draws on the work of pragmatist philosophers to propose interdisciplinary inquiry as an appropriate and effective method for studying sociotechnical systems. The findings suggest that, despite the complexity involved, this approach offers a viable path for comprehensively analyzing and ethically assessing AI technologies within their broader social contexts.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abbasi, M. & Teymouri, M. (2024). A Review of the Ethical and Legal Challenges of Using Artificial Intelligence in the Health System. Quarterly Journal of Medical Ethics, 17(48), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.22037/mej.v17i48.44053 (in Persian)
Alvargonzález, D. (2011). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and the sciences. International studies in the philosophy of science, 25(4), 387-403. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2011.623366
Ashouri Kisomi, M. A. & Parvizi, M. (2024). Investigation of the Ethical Agency of Artificial General Intelligence. Science and Religion Studies, 15(1), 125-151. https://doi.org/10.30465/srs.2024.49282.2162 (in Persian)
Ashouri Kisomi, M. A. (2024a). Investigating some ethical issues of artificial intelligence in art. Metaphysics, 16(37), 93-110. https://doi.org/10.22108/mph.2024.138105.1488 (in Persian)
Ashouri Kisomi, M. A. (2024b). Convergence of privacy and transparency, limitations of artificial intelligence design. Wisdom And Philosophy, 20(78), 45-73. https://doi.org/10.22054/wph.2024.75680.2183 (in Persian)
Boenink, M., & Kudina, O. (2020). Values in responsible research and innovation: from entities to practices. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(3), 450-470. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT press. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1806451
Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coeckelbergh, M. (2022b). Digital technologies, temporality, and the politics of co-existence. Palgrave Macmillan.
Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. London: Frances Pinter.
Corrêa, N. K., Galvão, C., Santos, J. W., Del Pino, C., Pinto, E. P., Barbosa, C., ... & de Oliveira, N. (2023). Worldwide AI ethics: A review of 200 guidelines and recommendations for AI governance. Patterns, 4(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100857
Crawford, S. E. S., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A Grammar of Institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082975
de Wildt, T. E., & Schweizer, V. J. (2022). Exploring value change. Prometheus, 38(1), 25-44. http://doi.org/10.13169/prometheus.38.1.0025
Decker, M. (2004). The role of ethics in interdisciplinary technology assessment. Poiesis & Praxis, 2, 139-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-003-0047-0
Dewey, J. (1917). The need for a recovery of philosophy (1917). In L.A. Hickman & T.M. Alexander (Eds.), The essential Dewey (pp. 46-70). Bloom- ington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Holt.
Dewey, J. (2004). Reconstruction in Philosophy. Courier Corporation.
European Commission. (2023). EU-U.S. Terminology and Taxonomy for Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved 22-11-2024 from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/eu-us-terminology-and-taxonomy-artificial-intelligence
Floridi, L. (2016). Should We Be Afraid of AI? Machines Seem to Be Getting Smarter and Smarter and Much Better at Human Jobs, yet True AI Is Utterly Implausible. Why? Aeon, May 9. Retrieved 12-1-2025 from https://aeon.co/essays/true-ai-is-both-logically-possible-and-utterly-implausible
Floridi, L. (2023). The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Principles, Challenges, and Opportunities. United Kingdom: OUP Oxford.
Frodeman, R., Mitcham, C. (eds.) (2004). New Directions in the Philosophy of Science. Toward a Philosophy of Science Policy, Special Issue. Philosophy Today 48(5).
Gambo, I. P., & Taveter, K. (2021, July). A Pragmatic View on Resolving Conflicts in Goal-oriented Requirements Engineering for Socio-technical Systems. In ICSOFT (pp. 333-341). http://doi.org/10.5220/0010605703330341
Hagendorff, T. (2020). The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and machines, 30(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8
Hoffmann, A. L. (2019). Where fairness fails: data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse. Information, Communication & Society, 22(7), 900-915. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2019.1573912
Hopster, J. (2021). What are socially disruptive technologies? Technology in Society, 67, 101750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101750
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A New Name for some Old Ways of Thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kroes, P., Franssen, M., Poel, I. V. D., & Ottens, M. (2006). Treating socio‐technical systems as engineering systems: some conceptual problems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 23(6), 803-814. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.703
Kudina, O., & Van de Poel, I. (2024). A sociotechnical system perspective on AI. Minds and Machines, 34(3), 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-024-09680-2
Legg, C., & Hookway, C. (2008). Pragmatism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 14-1-2025 from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism
Levesque, H. J. (2017). Common sense, the Turing test, and the quest for real AI. MIT Press.
Mäki, U. (2016). Philosophy of interdisciplinarity. what? why? how?. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 6, 327-342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0162-0
Manheim, K., & Kaplan, L. (2019). Artificial intelligence: Risks to privacy and democracy. Yale JL & Tech., 21, 106.
Muller, V. C., & Cannon, M. (2022). Existential risk from AI and orthogonality: Can we have it both ways? Ratio, 35(1), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/rati.12320
Muller, V.C. (2016). New Developments in the Philosophy of AI. In: Müller, V.C. (eds) Fundamental Issues of Artificial Intelligence. Synthese Library, vol 376. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26485-1_1
Pareto, J., & Coeckelbergh, M. (2024). Social assistive robotics: an ethical and political inquiry through the lens of freedom. International journal of social robotics, 16(8), 1797-1808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01161-x
Peirce, C. S. (1955). The scientific attitude and fallibilism. Philosophical writings of Peirce, 42-59.
Peirce, C.S. (1905). What pragmatism is. In E.C. Moore (Ed.), Charles sanders Peirce: The essential writings (pp. 262-280). New York: Harper & Row.
Pfeiffer, J., Gutschow, J., Haas, C., Möslein, F., Maspfuhl, O., Borgers, F., & Alpsancar, S. (2023). Algorithmic fairness in AI: an interdisciplinary view. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 65(2), 209-222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00787-x
Pitt, J. C. (2013). “Guns don’t kill, people kill”; values in and/or around technologies. In The moral status of technical artefacts (pp. 89-101). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Prem, E. (2023). From ethical AI frameworks to tools: a review of approaches. AI and Ethics, 3(3), 699-716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00258-9
Putnam, H. (1995). Pragmatism. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 95, 291–306. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4545222
Ramezani, M. & Feizi-Derakhshani, M. R. (2014). Machine Ethics: Ethical Challenges and Strategies in Artificial Intelligent and Superintelligence. Ethics in Science and Technology. 8 (4), 35-43. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.22517634.1392.8.4.4.7 (in Persian)
Roco, M. C., Bainbridge, W. S. (eds.) (2002). Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance. Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Russell, S. (2019). Human Compatible. New York: Viking Press.
Sarrafzadeh, S. & Aboutaleb, E. (2023). The Importance of Ethics in Using of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education. Research in Medical Education, 15(2), 1-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.32592/rmegums.15.2.1 (in Persian)
Schmidt, J. C. (2011). What is a problem? On problem-oriented interdisciplinarity. Poiesis & Praxis, 7, 249-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-011-0091-0
Seifi, A. & Razmkhah, N. (2023). An In-depth Analysis of the Initial Draft of the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Exploring the Right to Environment. Public Law Researsh, 24(78), 9-47. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjpl.2022.63030.2659 (in Persian)
Srivatsa, N., Kaliarnta, S., & Kormelink, J. G. (2017). Responsible innovation: From MOOC to book.
Susser, D., Roessler, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (2019). Technology, autonomy, and manipulation. Internet policy review, 8(2). https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/gtltr4&i=13
UNICEF. (2021). Policy guidance on AI for children. United Nations Children's Fund.
Van de Poel, I. (2016). An ethical framework for evaluating experimental technology. Science and engineering ethics, 22(3), 667-686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9724-3
Van de Poel, I. (2021). Design for value change. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(1), 27-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9461-9
Van de Poel, I. (2023). AI, Control and Unintended Consequences: The Need for Meta-Values. In Rethinking Technology and Engineering: Dialogues Across Disciplines and Geographies (pp. 117-129). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25233-4_9
Van de Poel, I., & Kudina, O. (2022). Understanding technology-induced value change: A pragmatist proposal. Philosophy & Technology, 35(2), 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00520-8
Van de Poel, I., Hermann, J., Hopster, J., Lenzi, D., Nyholm, S., Taebi, B., & Ziliotti, E. (2023). Ethics of socially disruptive technologies: An introduction. Open Book Publishers. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0366
Van de Poel, I., Kroes, P. (2014). Can Technology Embody Values? In: Kroes, P., Verbeek, PP. (eds) The Moral Status of Technical Artefacts. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 17. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7914-3_7
Van den Hoven, J. (2012). Neutrality and technology: Ortega Y Gasset on the good life. In The Good Life in a Technological Age (pp. 327-338). Routledge.
Van Der Weij, F., Steinert, S., Van De Poel, I., Alleblas, J., Melnyk, A., & De Wildt, T. (2023). Value Change and Technological Design. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 42(3), 25-32.
Watson, D. S., Mökander, J., & Floridi, L. (2024). Competing narratives in AI ethics: a defense of sociotechnical pragmatism. AI & SOCIETY, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02128-2
Watson, D., & Mökander, J. (2023). In defense of sociotechnical pragmatism. In The 2022 Yearbook of the Digital Governance Research Group (pp. 131-164). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Weingart, P. (2000). Interdisciplinarity; The Paradoxical Discourse. In: Weingart, P., Stehr, N. (eds.) (2000). Practising Interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 25–41.
Welch IV, J. (2011). The Emergence of Interdisciplinarity from Epistemological Thought. Issues in Integrative Studies, 29, 1-39.
Werthner, H., Prem, E., Lee, E. A., & Ghezzi, C. (2022). Perspectives on digital humanism (p. 342). Springer Nature.
Young, M. T., & Coeckelbergh, M. (2024). Keeping Things Going: Maintenance and Philosophy of Technology. In Maintenance and Philosophy of Technology (pp. 1-36).
Zuboff, S. (2023). The age of surveillance capitalism. In Social theory re-wired (pp. 203-213). Routledge.
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image
Journal of Philosophical Investigations
Volume 19, Issue 52 - Serial Number 52
Articles
52 Autumn 2025
November 2025
Pages 281-300

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics