Kilpatrick (2010) provides an eloquent speech about technology and ethics that, in the end, is less than convincing. Two major strengths of Kilpatrick's speech are the scope of technology addressed and an interesting selection of examples. Regarding the former, Kilpatrick does well to address technology in the broadest sense, ranging from energy production to genetic science. People often make the mistake of viewing technology too narrowly, only including discussions of computers and software. 

Unfortunately, the ethics examples in the speech provided very little to support the line of logic being presented. The first example characterized children's struggle to achieve power and the satisfaction that comes with each accomplishment, such as walking and talking. Likewise, humanity has made many technological advances that have reached a point of ethical concern.  The final series of examples included the BP oil spill disaster and examples of how to generate sustainable fuels in the future. Since these and other examples were not tied together directly in the speech, the line of logical became rather disconnected. 

The greatest leap in logic comes when Kilpatrick moves from morally-good technological progress in science to infringement upon ethical principles, which apparently occurs at cloning according to  Kilpatrick.  "And if that happens, somebody somewhere will suggest we 'use' this power for the medical treatment of the 'primary' person who was cloned. This is the most objectionable and repugnant practice of 'organ farming' and, like eugenics, is a practice that utterly violates the dignity of human persons" (p. 568). The real problem is that Kilpatrick has not defined why this is a violation of ethics. What ethical principle is at stake? Is this a violation of beneficence? If so, what about organ farming to save lives? The above statement by Kilpatrick raises many more questions than answers, yet Kilpatrick just abondons this point.

Without the delineation of the ethical violation at play, the listener can only conclude there is some religion-driven motive to the speech. Kilpatrick clearly indicates he is Catholic, that he works at a Catholic institution, and in the speech he promotes Catholic sentiment by quoting the Pope and other clerics. This would be fine, provided that a principle was identified by which technology has crossed the line, even if it is religiously based principle. However, this does not happen in the speech. As a result, the audience is left wondering if this is merely a proselytizing effort. 

The one point that has some ethical basis, is Kilpatrick's introduction of types of justice midway through the speech. He identifies commutative, distributive, and social justice. Making a distinction between these concepts was worthwhile and appropriate, but the connection with the topic and examples was weak. He appears to be identifying justice as the major issue at play with technology and ethics. In reality, justice and punishment was not the issue under discussion. It originally was a technology progress issue and concern for harm. Justice is related, but tertiary, to the original argument.  He also misses out on making a good connection between justice and the ethics of technology in the dialog that ensues.

Although Kilpatrick alludes to the need for business to contribute to the ethical responsibility in technology, his rhetoric mostly seems to attack scientists and promote Catholicism. While that does not seem to be his intent, unfortunately the information presented does not present a strong case otherwise. While much of Kilpatricks points are reasonable and noteworthy, he fails to make a compelling point about moral-violations in technology because of the lack of continuity in reasoning and disjointed use of examples. 

1. KILPATRICK, P. (2010). The Relationship Between Technology and Ethics. Vital Speeches of the Day, 76(12), 567-570.