Cited by 27Critical Theory and PhilosophyPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Discourse ethics for computer ethics: A heuristic for engaged dialogical reflection

Rehg, William·2015·Ethics and Information Technology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10676-014-9359-0

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ethical positions based on process and exchange, such as discourse ethics, are well suited to reflect the need for the ongoing negotiations of facts and values needed to make new technologies work in society.

    “Ethical positions based on process and exchange, such as discourse ethics (Mingers & Walsham, 2010;Rehg, 2014), are well suited to reflect the need for the ongoing negotiations of facts and values needed to make new technologies work in society.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rehg, W.
Affiliations
Saint Louis University (US)
Corresponding author
Rehg, William
Venue
Ethics and Information Technology
Published
2014-12-28
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
27-39
ISSN
  • 1388-1957 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8439
OpenAlex
W2101926921
Cited by
27
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3
FWCI
4.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Ethics and Information Technology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Theory and Philosophy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
discourse ethics, computer ethics, Jürgen Habermas, dialogical reflection, moral inquiry, moral acceptability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review