From your readings of Jonas’ Technology\u00a0& Responsibility, and Floridi’s\u00a0“The Onlife\u00a0Manifesto”, how should we (society) approach the development of cyber-policy and infrastructure given\u00a0the “short arm” (read limited understanding) of predictive knowledge?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cMore specifically, it will be my contention that with certain developments of our powers the nature of human action <\/em>has changed, and since ethics is concerned with action, it should follow that the changed nature of human action calls for a change in ethics as well:\u201d (Jonas). Basically, what Jonas was talking about is that the cause of action that humans take can cause the ethical reason behind it to change. In a sense, what Jonas is talking about is that ethics will change through generations because every generation leaves off technology and framework for the next generation. How this can be related: to cyber security concepts are constantly changing in the cyber world along with the hardware aspect as well. With predictive knowledge what may start out as a security, may turn into a vulnerability and potentially, world war three will be fought on the cyber battle field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n JONAS, H. (1973). TECHNOLOGY AND RESPONSIBILITY: REFLECTIONS ON THE NEW TASKS OF ETHICS. Social Research,<\/em> 40<\/em>(1), 31-54. Retrieved from www.jstor.org\/stable\/40970125<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" From your readings of Jonas’ Technology\u00a0& Responsibility, and Floridi’s\u00a0“The Onlife\u00a0Manifesto”, how should we (society) approach the development of cyber-policy and infrastructure given\u00a0the “short arm” (read limited understanding) of predictive knowledge? \u201cMore specifically, it will be my contention that with certain developments of our powers the nature of human action has changed, and since ethics is concerned with… <\/p>\n