Privacy and perfect voyeurism

Ethics and Information Technology 11 (3):181-189 (2009)
Abstract
I argue that there is nothing wrong with perfect voyeurism , covert watching or listening that is neither discovered nor publicized. After a brief discussion of privacy I present attempts from Stanley Benn, Daniel Nathan, and James Moor to show that the act is wrong. I argue that these authors fail to make their case. However, I maintain that, if detected or publicized, voyeurism can do grave harm and to that extent should be severely punished. I conclude with some thoughts on the stubborn intuition that perfect voyeurism is wrong despite the absence of harm.
Keywords Autonomy   Harm   Privacy   Surveillance   Utilitarianism   Voyeurism   Wrong
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,456
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
R. G. Frey (2000). Privacy, Control, and Talk of Rights. Social Philosophy and Policy 17 (02):45-.

View all 17 references

Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-05-30

Total downloads

47 ( #36,239 of 1,102,454 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

8 ( #30,059 of 1,102,454 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.