Robotics Reference
In-Depth Information
2. The motivations behind the creation of a persuasive technol-
ogy should never be such that they would be deemed uneth-
ical if they led to more traditional persuasion.
3. The creators of a persuasive technology must consider, con-
tend with, and assume responsibility for all reasonably pre-
dictable outcomes of its use.
4. The creators of a persuasive technology must ensure that it
regards the privacy of users with at least as much respect as
they regard their own privacy.
5. Persuasive technologies relaying personal information about
a user to a third party must be closely scrutinized for privacy
concerns.
6. The creators of a persuasive technology should disclose their
motivations, methods, and intended outcomes, except when
such disclosure would significantly undermine an otherwise
ethical
goal.
7. Persuasive technologies must not misinform in order to achieve
their persuasive end.
And finally, the “Golden Rule of Persuasion”:
8. The creators of a persuasive technology should never seek to
persuade a person or persons of something they themselves
would not consent to be persuaded to do. [25]
In examining these ethical principles, Berdichevsky and Neuen-
schwander recognize that it is appropriate:
...to reconsider the implications for the ethics of traditional per-
suasive methods when these methods are undertaken by technolo-
gies instead of by humans. [25]
andthatitisalsonecessary:
...to evaluate the ultimate outcome of the persuasive act—the
ethics of what the persuaded person is persuaded to do or think.
If something is unethical for you to do of your own volition, it
is equally unethical to do when someone persuades you to do it.
What about unintended outcomes? [25]
They give as an example the case of a stranger who proved severely allergic
to and died after ingesting a kumquat, having been persuaded by a waiter
in a restaurant to eat the fruit.
