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

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.