Abstract

The use of deception for the purposes of research is a widespread practice within many areas of study. If we want to avoid either absolute acceptance or absolute rejection of this practice then we require some method of distinguishing between those uses of deception which are morally acceptable and those which are not. In this article I discuss the concept of counterfactual consent, and propose a related distinction between counterfactual-defeating deception and counterfactual-compatible deception. The aim is to show that this proposed distinction will be useful in furthering the debate regarding the use of deception for the purposes of research.

Highlights

  • The use of deception for the purposes of research has long been the subject of interest and concern from ethicists and researchers alike

  • In response to this challenge, some have argued that it is important to distinguish between different types of deception, and that making this distinction means that we can judge the moral acceptability of a given study depending on the type of deception used

  • In this article I will highlight a distinction between different forms of deception that appeals to the notion of counterfactual consent

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The use of deception for the purposes of research has long been the subject of interest and concern from ethicists and researchers alike. If we want to avoid either absolute rejection or absolute acceptance of this practice, we face the challenge of providing some method for distinguishing between different cases. In response to this challenge, some have argued that it is important to distinguish between different types of deception, and that making this distinction means that we can judge the moral acceptability of a given study depending on the type of deception used. I aim to show how this way of distinguishing between types of deception is superior to other suggestions in the recent literature, and to demonstrate how it can shed light on the issue of when the use of deception for the purposes of research ought to be considered morally acceptable

THE USE OF DECEPTION IN RESEARCH
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF DECEPTION
COUNTERFACTUAL CONSENT
APPLYING THE PROPOSED DISTINCTION
CONCLUSION
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.