Each review should be a couple of paragraphs that address the quality of the arg

Each review should be a couple of paragraphs that address the quality of the argument made in the position paper. You’re not (dis) agreeing with your peer’s position, but rather analyzing the effectiveness of the paper and hopefully providing him/her with some constructive criticism. Here are some aspects of each paper you might consider:
Does the author describe their chosen technology in sufficient detail to make it clear how ethical issues have arisen from the technology?
Does the author take an ethical position? If you can identify normative statements, e.g. who should be responsible, what should be avoided, what should be legislated, etc., that is a good clue. However, the author should be proposing more than just best practices, e.g. we should use the longest encryption key available, or we should thoroughly test software before release (those are policies, not ethical positions).
Does the author support his/her position with factual evidence? Are all factual statements drawn from cited sources?
Does the author fairly depict opposing viewpoints? Does the author consider all important opposing viewpoints?
Does the author propose a policy to encourage or enforce ethical usage of the technology? Is the author’s policy a rational conclusion drawn from his/her evidence? Does the author document his/her chain of logic and is that chain reasonable? Does the author describe the underlying ethical principles that support the specific chain of logic he/she has chosen?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.