Moral Artifacts - Philosophy of HCI

What is an artifact? A man-made object, an archaeologist might answer. A product of the social behavior of an individual or group, a sociologist would reply. Anything that bears information about the culture of its creator, an anthropologist would muse. Technologists have a different approach - artifacts are byproducts of software developments, undesirable alterations in data, visual glitches. Apparently, some artifact did something bad to a technologist some day in the distant past and left a negative bias forever tainting their relationship.

Taking into view this bias, can an artifact be "bad" or "good"? Can it be "moral"?

If an artifact bears cultural information, it can carry the moral baggage of its creator. If it's the product of a social behavior, it can be intrinsically bad or good. It is so because there was such intent in its creation, or because it is so heavily shaped by its moral context that this moral bias cannot be extricated from the artifact.

But the most interesting interpretation of a moral artifact it that of artifacts that can shape morality through their usage. The most obvious example that occurs to me is the condom.

It began as a form of birth control for the 15th century nobility and swinged in importance as prophylactic and contraception for centuries, but the difficulty and pricing kept them from mass adoption until the 19th century, when it, although illegal in many places (damn you, religious morals!), became the most popular method of birth control. In these years, a surge in 'moral' rigidity made ignorance of proper sexual behavior (prophylaxis, contraception, abortion etc) widespread and the condom fought this surge in unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. But it wasn't until the 1910s when cement dipping and later latex made mass production of condoms possible.

In the '30s, the Anglicans relaxed their disapproval of contraception (something the Catholics are still to do) and the two World Wars made condoms still more important as American soldiers received a ration of condoms and were instructed on their proper use. This created a generation used to contraception and STD prevention. The free sex movement of the '60s would not be possible without condoms, nor would AIDS have been kept at bay in the '80s without them.

Even now, when we are in specially reactionary times (and for the first time in years we see condom fatigue in many cultures), condoms are an inextricable part of our culture, and it's difficult to tell who shaped whom: are condoms to blame for our sexual culture, or is it the other way around? One way or the other, it's undeniable: the condom is both a fruit of and a huge influencer of current culture and morals.