Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Technology assessment and the ethical matrix.
View graph of relations

Technology assessment and the ethical matrix.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Technology assessment and the ethical matrix. / Schroeder, Doris; Palmer, Clare A.
In: Poiesis and Praxis, Vol. 1, No. 4, 06.2003, p. 295-307.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Schroeder, D & Palmer, CA 2003, 'Technology assessment and the ethical matrix.', Poiesis and Praxis, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 295-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-003-0027-4

APA

Schroeder, D., & Palmer, C. A. (2003). Technology assessment and the ethical matrix. Poiesis and Praxis, 1(4), 295-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-003-0027-4

Vancouver

Schroeder D, Palmer CA. Technology assessment and the ethical matrix. Poiesis and Praxis. 2003 Jun;1(4):295-307. doi: 10.1007/s10202-003-0027-4

Author

Schroeder, Doris ; Palmer, Clare A. / Technology assessment and the ethical matrix. In: Poiesis and Praxis. 2003 ; Vol. 1, No. 4. pp. 295-307.

Bibtex

@article{a04a83c1d3b147e08194f4799a334e60,
title = "Technology assessment and the ethical matrix.",
abstract = "This paper explores the usefulness of the 'ethical matrix', proposed by Ben Mepham, as a tool in technology assessment, specifically in food ethics. We consider what the matrix is, how it might be useful as a tool in ethical decision-making, and what drawbacks might be associated with it. We suggest that it is helpful for fact-finding in ethical debates relating to food ethics; but that it is much less helpful in terms of weighing the different ethical problems that it uncovers. Despite this drawback, we maintain that, with some modifications, the ethical matrix can be a useful tool in debates in food ethics. We argue that useful modifications might be to include future generations amongst the stakeholders in the matrix, and to substitute the principle of solidarity for the principle of justice.",
author = "Doris Schroeder and Palmer, {Clare A.}",
year = "2003",
month = jun,
doi = "10.1007/s10202-003-0027-4",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "295--307",
journal = "Poiesis and Praxis",
issn = "1615-6609",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Technology assessment and the ethical matrix.

AU - Schroeder, Doris

AU - Palmer, Clare A.

PY - 2003/6

Y1 - 2003/6

N2 - This paper explores the usefulness of the 'ethical matrix', proposed by Ben Mepham, as a tool in technology assessment, specifically in food ethics. We consider what the matrix is, how it might be useful as a tool in ethical decision-making, and what drawbacks might be associated with it. We suggest that it is helpful for fact-finding in ethical debates relating to food ethics; but that it is much less helpful in terms of weighing the different ethical problems that it uncovers. Despite this drawback, we maintain that, with some modifications, the ethical matrix can be a useful tool in debates in food ethics. We argue that useful modifications might be to include future generations amongst the stakeholders in the matrix, and to substitute the principle of solidarity for the principle of justice.

AB - This paper explores the usefulness of the 'ethical matrix', proposed by Ben Mepham, as a tool in technology assessment, specifically in food ethics. We consider what the matrix is, how it might be useful as a tool in ethical decision-making, and what drawbacks might be associated with it. We suggest that it is helpful for fact-finding in ethical debates relating to food ethics; but that it is much less helpful in terms of weighing the different ethical problems that it uncovers. Despite this drawback, we maintain that, with some modifications, the ethical matrix can be a useful tool in debates in food ethics. We argue that useful modifications might be to include future generations amongst the stakeholders in the matrix, and to substitute the principle of solidarity for the principle of justice.

U2 - 10.1007/s10202-003-0027-4

DO - 10.1007/s10202-003-0027-4

M3 - Journal article

VL - 1

SP - 295

EP - 307

JO - Poiesis and Praxis

JF - Poiesis and Praxis

SN - 1615-6609

IS - 4

ER -