https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8369-3217
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Martin B. Peterson argues that the social experiment analysis improperly shifts our focus onto the rhetorical dimension of debates over technology, which is ‘clearly irrelevant’ to the ‘traditional’ question: is this a morally acceptable technology? By invoking Harry Truman and the atom bomb in his counterargument, however, Peterson exemplifies the important role that rhetoric plays in our assessment and acceptance of certain technologies. Peterson’s account of The Bomb is an unfortunate byproduct of American nationalist dogma, but the social experiment analysis is well equipped to neutralize its obfuscating effect. Philosophers should further investigate its utility in light of this analytical strength.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. van de Poel briefly acknowledges this problem in his 2013 response to Peterson: ‘One kind of consideration that is clearly relevant, and which is unrelated to the traditional question, is whether there were other ways to stop the war’ (p. 352).