Authors
Dan Weijers
University of Waikato
Abstract
Predicting terrorist attacks with prediction markets has been accused of being immoral. While some of these concerns are about the likely effectiveness of prediction markets on terrorism (PMsoT), this paper discusses the three main reasons why even effective prediction markets on terrorism might be considered immoral. We argue that these three reasons establish only that PMsoT cause offense and/or fleeting mild harm, and that, even taken together, they do not constitute serious harm. The moral issues considered are that PMsoT: 1) create character-affecting perverse incentives, 2) desensitise society to tragic events, and 3) disrespect important ideals. In addition to arguing against the force of these three potential moral problems, it is also argued that societies and governments already endorse intelligence-gathering methods that are clearly more immoral than PMsoT in the relevant respects. We also argue that some circumstances require governments to cause non-serious harm to some people in order to protect and promote the rights and welfare of its citizens. We conclude that a government’s obligation to protect and promote the rights and welfare of its citizens outweighs the non-serious harm that could be caused by effective PMsoT. As a result, we recommend that the likelihood of PMsoT being effective is investigated more closely.
Keywords prediction markets  terrorism  ethics  prediction markets on terrorism  Policy Analysis Market
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,342
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

Utilitarianism: For and Against.J. J. C. Smart & Bernard Williams - 1973 - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach.Martha C. Nussbaum - 1988 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 13 (1):32-53.
Utilitarianism.J. S. Mill - 1861/1998 - Oxford University Press UK.
Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism Is Not a Liberal View.Samuel Freeman - 2001 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 30 (2):105-151.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Is the Repugnance About Betting on Terrorist Attacks Misguided?Dan Weijers & Jennifer Richardson - 2014 - Ethics and Information Technology 16 (3):251-262.
Deliberating Groups Versus Prediction Markets (or Hayek's Challenge to Habermas).Cass R. Sunstein - 2012 - In Alvin I. Goldman & Dennis Whitcomb (eds.), Episteme. Oxford University Press. pp. 192-213.
Temptations and Dynamic Consistency.Enrica Carbone - 2008 - Theory and Decision 64 (2-3):229-248.
Terrorism.Suzanne Uniacke - 2016 - In Helen Frowe & Seth Lazar (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Three Prejudices Against Terrorism.Shawn Kaplan - 2009 - Critical Studies on Terrorism 2 (2):181-199.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-10-26

Total views
36 ( #263,633 of 2,326,052 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #87,101 of 2,326,052 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes