Research Commons
      • Browse 
        • Communities & Collections
        • Titles
        • Authors
        • By Issue Date
        • Subjects
        • Types
        • Series
      • Help 
        • About
        • Collection Policy
        • OA Mandate Guidelines
        • Guidelines FAQ
        • Contact Us
      • My Account 
        • Sign In
        • Register
      View Item 
      •   Research Commons
      • University of Waikato Research
      • Arts and Social Sciences
      • Arts and Social Sciences Papers
      • View Item
      •   Research Commons
      • University of Waikato Research
      • Arts and Social Sciences
      • Arts and Social Sciences Papers
      • View Item
      JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

      “Just wrong,” “disgusting,” “grotesque,” “offensive”: How to deal with public rejection of new potentially life-saving technologies

      Weijers, Dan M.
      Thumbnail
      Files
      “Just wrong,” “disgusting,” “grotesque,” “offensive”.pdf
      Published version, 1.254Mb
      Citation
      Export citation
      Weijers, D. M. (2018). ‘Just wrong,’ ‘disgusting,’ ‘grotesque,’ ‘offensive’: How to deal with public rejection of new potentially life-saving technologies. Presented at the The Waikato Dialogue: The Implications of Emerging Disruptive Technologies for International Security and New Zealand, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
      Permanent Research Commons link: https://hdl.handle.net/10289/12469
      Abstract
      New technologies can offer solutions to security concerns, such as preventing terrorist attacks. Many new technologies are criticised on moral grounds, leading some potentially life-saving technologies to be left on the shelf (in a folder marked “rejected ideas”). In this talk, I present a procedural framework for policymakers to use when a potentially beneficial new technology is deemed morally repugnant by members of the public. The framework takes into account the possibility of different and conflicting moral beliefs, and indicates the appropriate response to moral repugnance about potentially beneficial new technologies. The example of “PAM”, the proposed anti-terrorist prediction market is used to illustrate the framework.
      Date
      2018
      Type
      Conference Contribution
      Rights
      © 2018 copyright with the author.
      Collections
      • Arts and Social Sciences Papers [1423]
      Show full item record  

      Usage

      Downloads, last 12 months
      21
       
       

      Usage Statistics

      For this itemFor all of Research Commons

      The University of Waikato - Te Whare Wānanga o WaikatoFeedback and RequestsCopyright and Legal Statement