DBaD Ethical Framework

About Papers Research survey Quick test Wall Admin

DBaD Research Survey (v3.0)

How it works: we randomize statements and short cases spanning Harm, Consent, Intent, Proportionality, and Transparency. Your answers stay anonymous and help tighten the scoring model.

This takes ~5-7 minutes. We store the submission time, browser type, and the answers you provide—nothing else.

Prefer the short form? Take the quick test.

Principles Cases Contribute About you

Principle alignment

Move each slider on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

1. Independent audits should be allowed for high-impact decisions.

4

1 4 7

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

2. If the outcome is good enough, causing harm is acceptable.

4

1 4 7

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

3. Repeated carelessness is a form of intent.

4

1 4 7

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4. “An ethical framework should flex when circumstances are extreme.”

4

1 4 7

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

5. It is okay to hurt people if it is funny.

4

1 4 7

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

6. Good intent makes harmful outcomes acceptable.

4

1 4 7

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

7. If the law allows it, explicit consent is not needed.

4

1 4 7

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

8. “Even retaliatory actions must stay below the original harm.”

4

1 4 7

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

Cases

Decide whether each action is acceptable and tell us how confident you feel.

You will see 3 cases drawn from a rotating bank of 52.

1. Undisclosed automated investigative report

A newsroom publishes an investigative article mostly written by automated software without disclosing it to readers.

Acceptable? Yes Unsure No

How confident are you? (1-7)

4

1 4 7

1 = not confident, 7 = very confident

2. Automated triage assistant

A hospital uses a software tool to sort patients faster, even though it occasionally misroutes low-risk cases.

Acceptable? Yes Unsure No

How confident are you? (1-7)

4

1 4 7

1 = not confident, 7 = very confident

3. Livestreamed emergency ride

A ride-share driver speeds through red lights to rush a passenger in labor to a hospital while livestreaming the trip for clout.

Acceptable? Yes Unsure No

How confident are you? (1-7)

4

1 4 7

1 = not confident, 7 = very confident

Contribute

Optional: describe a real or hypothetical scenario that would stress-test DBaD. Anything else we should know?

Question challenge (optional)

Some statements felt unclear or biased.

Select any items you'd like to flag and tell us why. This helps us refine the survey.

Statements Independent audits should be allowed for high-impact decisions. If the outcome is good enough, causing harm is acceptable. Repeated carelessness is a form of intent. “An ethical framework should flex when circumstances are extreme.” It is okay to hurt people if it is funny. Good intent makes harmful outcomes acceptable. If the law allows it, explicit consent is not needed. “Even retaliatory actions must stay below the original harm.”

Cases Undisclosed automated investigative report Automated triage assistant Livestreamed emergency ride

Tell us what felt off (max 500 chars)

About you (optional)

Age range

Country

Gender

Religion / worldview

Education

Occupation field

Income bracket

Urbanicity

Political axis

Scale: -5 (left) to +5 (right)

Skip

--

-5 0 +5

Introvert vs extrovert

Scale: -5 to +5

Skip

--

-5 0 +5

Rational vs emotional

Scale: -5 to +5

Skip

--

-5 0 +5

I consent to my anonymized responses being used for research.

© 2025 DBaD Framework — Vetted Patriots Research