Publications
Authors:
  • Bob Anderson
Citation:
Xerox Technical Report
Abstract:
A number of systems which have been designed to enhance the computational support for collaborative work
have features which are or might be potentially invasive. This has led to a debate within the domain of CSCW
concerned with the ethics of research into such systems. In this paper, one general species of argument, used
both to support and deny the validity of this research, known as "consequentialism" is examined. Several
variations of consequentialism are examined: pure utility arguments, superogatory arguments, and Trojan
Horse arguments. None is found to be especially well suited for the structure of the arguments which need to
be deployed. It is concluded that the search for a consequentialist path through the ethical maze may itself be
an unfruitful line of enquiry and indeed the consequence itself of our over-focus on the technology of argument.
Year:
1991
Report number:
1991-107
Attachments: