rri-100-1 root file uploaded

[chrisdburr]

New root file created for the RRI skills track:

• Title: Understanding Responsibility
• Module: What is Responsible Research and Innovation?
• Section: 1

Tasks

• Review root file (Clau)
• Answer comments (Chris)
• Draft web version (Clau)
• Review web version (Chris)
• Create slides (Chris)
• Review slides and draft script (Clau)
• Record video lecture
• Upload to OLE

https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/turing-commons/blob/drafts/drafts/rri-skillstrack/rri-modules/root-files/rri-100-1.md

[ClauFischer]

Review of root file:

• The good versus bad in this line is a bit confusing, because it's unclear whether it is talking about good versus bad opportunities or good v bad consequences.

turing-commons/drafts/rri-skillstrack/rri-modules/root-files/rri-100-1.md

Line 64 in 32e4553

Evaluating whether technology is likely to create harms versus opportunities (good versus bad), and identifying how such harms and opportunities are distributed throughout society is complicated.

• I would suggest to move this section up in the document, between the introduction and the section titled "two questions about responsibility in science and technology"
  The reason for this is that I think the clarification on the difference between responsibility and accountability is super useful, and would make the examples of the Manhattan project and harmless torturer even clearer. And then this flows directly from examples into kinds of responsibility.
  

  turing-commons/drafts/rri-skillstrack/rri-modules/root-files/rri-100-1.md

  Line 126 in 32e4553

  ## Responsibility Versus Accountability

• Instead of saying "in addition" to the above types, maybe it should say something like; with respect to moral and legal responsibility, it is worth drawing further distinctions...
  As it is phrased now, it sounds like these two topics are completely new instead of just having been talked about in the last section.
  

  turing-commons/drafts/rri-skillstrack/rri-modules/root-files/rri-100-1.md

  Line 156 in ba6c55e

  In addition to the above types of responsibility, it is also worth drawing further distinctions between moral and legal responsibility and duties. This is because there are many legal responsibilities that data controllers and processors may have, even if these topics are outside of the scope of this module.[^dataprotection]

• Is there a reason why we are focusing specifically on data controllers and processors? Seems overly specific when compared to the rest of the section.
  

  turing-commons/drafts/rri-skillstrack/rri-modules/root-files/rri-100-1.md

  Line 156 in 9adfdf1

  In addition to the above types of responsibility, it is also worth drawing further distinctions between moral and legal responsibility and duties. This is because there are many legal responsibilities that data controllers and processors may have, even if these topics are outside of the scope of this module.[^dataprotection]

• Add reference to supererogatory duties.
  

  turing-commons/drafts/rri-skillstrack/rri-modules/root-files/rri-100-1.md

  Line 169 in ba6c55e

  Moral philosophers refer to duties that compel action beyond what is simply permissible as 'superogatory' duties [@ref]. In the context of morality, one may receive praise for going above and beyond (e.g. for donating a significant portion of one's income to charity), but receive neither praise nor blame for simply acting in line with minimal obligations.

• I am a bit confused as to the relevance go Human Rights Law to the fact that the law usually setting the threshold for acceptable behaviour yet remaining silent on what constitutes praiseworthy behaviour.
  

  turing-commons/drafts/rri-skillstrack/rri-modules/root-files/rri-100-1.md

  Line 171 in 9adfdf1

  In contrast, the law tends to set the minimal threshold for acceptable behaviour while remaining silent on what constitutes morally praiseworthy behaviour. This is especially true in the context of Human Rights Law, where rights are taken to be universal in nature and, therefore, must be accepted by many different people and cultures.

[chrisdburr]

* [ ]  The good versus bad in this line is a bit confusing, because it's unclear whether it is talking about good versus bad opportunities or good v bad consequences.

Deleted brackets.

* [ ]  I would suggest to move this section up in the document, between the introduction and the section titled "two questions about responsibility in science and technology"
  The reason for this is that I think the clarification on the difference between responsibility and accountability is super useful, and would make the examples of the Manhattan project and harmless torturer even clearer. And then this flows directly from examples into kinds of responsibility.

Done.

* [ ]  Instead of saying "in addition" to the above types, maybe it should say something like; with respect to moral and legal responsibility, it is worth drawing further distinctions...
  As it is phrased now, it sounds like these two topics are completely new instead of just having been talked about in the last section.

Adopted your suggestion.

* [ ]  Is there a reason why we are focusing specifically on data controllers and processors? Seems overly specific when compared to the rest of the section.

Nope. Not sure why this was here. Removed the unnecessary sentence.

* [ ]  Add reference to supererogatory duties.
  https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/turing-commons/blob/ba6c55e8511264d66c65a1dbd47857745ece75ab/drafts/rri-skillstrack/rri-modules/root-files/rri-100-1.md?plain=1#L169

Yes. Please do.

* [ ]  I am a bit confused as to the relevance go Human Rights  Law to the fact that the law usually setting the threshold for acceptable behaviour yet remaining silent on what constitutes praiseworthy behaviour.

It's probably easiest to just remove this, rather than expanding on the point on the web version. It's mostly a tangential point that's specific to Human Rights Law that I am not explaining well enough.

[ClauFischer]

@chrisdburr

turing-commons/drafts/rri-skillstrack/rri-modules/root-files/rri-100-1.md

Line 186 in 89a20b4

Moral philosophers refer to duties that compel action beyond what is simply permissible as 'supererogatory' duties [@heys2019].

For this source I am assuming it is this paper by David Heyd. Please let me know if I'm mistaken so I can change it.

[chrisdburr]

Firstly, well done on working around the typo. It is a David Heyd reference, but it's actually his book: https://philarchive.org/rec/HEYSIS

[ClauFischer]

@chrisdburr The book is from 1982 though, is this the right one? Or are you quoting a newer version?

[chrisdburr]

It's entirely possible I was using the reference to his SEP article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/supererogation/

To be honest, it's not too important. There are lots of references that could be used here, as it's just a source for the term 'supererogatory', which is used a lot in the moral philosophy literature.

Let's go with the SEP article. It's the most accessible.