One of the claims advanced in scholarship on technology-induced conceptual disruption is that conceptual engineering should not be understood in terms of detached amelioration, but rather in terms of situated adaptation (Hopster and Löhr 2023).
Existing methodologies in technology ethics predominantly take individual technologies, applications, or artefacts as their primary unit of analysis, treating technology as a relatively well-defined and discrete object of evaluation.
I argue that concepts are public goods: they are non-rival (my grasp and use of TABLE does not diminish yours) and (variably) non-excludable (I cannot prevent you from learning or using the concept FREEDOM).