Ethical aspects of behavior-steering technology

Abstract

For a short period of time in the mid-1970s, a federal law in the United States mandated cars to be designed not to start if seatbelts were not worn. Cars produced during that brief period of history had an electric link between the seats, seat belts and starter. In the seats, there were weightsensing elements that registered whether a person was in the seat. If so, the seatbelt for that seat would have to be fastened or the starter would not work (and a buzzer would sound). This mechanism is an example of behaviorsteering technology, which is a technology in which one of its main functions is to make its users behave in a way that is not necessarily desired by the user but that is desired by some other party in control of the technology. Usually, such behavior-steering functions are designed to be part of the technology by order of a government or other standard-setting body, or by an organization that commissioned the technology. Some other examples of behavior-steering technologies (BSTs) are gas pedals that increase their resistance to the foot of the driver when the car is going above a certain speed limit so as to encourage a more economical use of energy, or the heavy weights on hotel keys that induce hotel guests to drop off the key at the receptionist before going outside. The question discussed in this essay is under what circumstances, if any, the use of behavior-steering technology is justified from a moral point of view, and under what circumstances its use may become morally problematic. The U.S. seatbelt case illustrates that behavior-steering technologies are sometimes controversial. U.S. car drivers did not appreciate being mechanically forced to wear their seat belts, and many drivers had the mechanism illegally removed. Some people even mounted a court challenge: they felt that the coercive mechanism went against their civil liberties. As a result of these protests, the law was repealed, and wearing seat belts became again something that was mandatory but no longer mechanically forced. So when are behavior-steering functions morally permissible? When is the moral price that has to be paid for the perceived benefits of behaviorsteering seen to be too high? In what follows, I will discuss three moral issues that need to be considered in the use of behavior-steering technologies (BSTs): the freedom issue, the technocracy versus democracy issue, and the responsibility issue. © 2006 Springer.