Cited by 81Philosophical Ethics and TheoryEthics and Social Impacts of AIEthics in Business and Education

The uniqueness debate in computer ethics: What exactly is at issue, and why does it matter?

Tavani, Herman T.·2002·Ethics and Information Technology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1015283808882

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • There are several published accounts that review and classify the computer ethics discourse.

    “An important starting point for the delimitation of the computer ethics discourse is the fact that there are several published accounts that review and classify this discourse.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tavani, H. T.
Affiliations
Rivier University (US)
Corresponding author
Tavani, Herman T.
Venue
Ethics and Information Technology
Published
2002-03
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
37-54
ISSN
  • 1388-1957 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8439
OpenAlex
W1534800424
Cited by
81
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
29.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Ethics and Information Technology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
Keywords
computer ethics, cyberstalking

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