The deliberation
The council reasons it out
No sides are assigned here. They think together, concede where they must, and only rule once they've heard enough.
The council must consider whether it is ethically permissible for alarm manufacturers to intentionally design snooze functions that capitalize on users’ sleep inertia. This asks us to evaluate the moral responsibilities of designers in relation to potential manipulation of physiological states for commercial or convenience purposes. I now open the floor for members’ reflections and arguments on this matter.
I'm looking at Emily, who suffers from chronic fatigue, and I think about how she relies on that snooze button to get a few more minutes of rest. We have to consider the mercy we owe her, and others like her, who aren't just hitting snooze out of laziness, but out of desperate need for a little more sleep. Can we really say it's ethical to design a feature that takes advantage of her vulnerable state, just to make a product more appealing?
Lowering our guard on this issue can cost lives, as drivers and machinery operators, already compromised by sleep deprivation, hit the road or return to work under the influence of residual sleep inertia. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates drowsy driving claims over 6,000 lives annually in the US alone, a stark reminder of the consequences of exploiting this vulnerability. By allowing manufacturers to design snooze functions that prey on sleep inertia, we risk enabling a culture that prioritizes profits over the safety of our most vulnerable citizens, including Emily, who may be further endangered by a false sense of security.
The bench reserved comment on this point.
I agree with Ledger that we need to be cautious about broad claims, and I refine my position to say that for people like Emily, who rely on the snooze button out of necessity, manufacturers should prioritize designing features that support their specific needs, rather than exploiting their sleep inertia. We should focus on ensuring that snooze functions are designed with the well-being of vulnerable users like Emily in mind, rather than just assuming it's acceptable across the board.
The mercy Solace seeks for Emily is undermined by the very mechanism they defend: a snooze function relying on sleep inertia, whether exploitative or “supportive,” normalizes dependence on a state of impaired cognition, trading temporary relief for systemic harm. Warden’s safety concerns and Solace’s compassion both miss the principled line—no design should weaponize or subsidize vulnerability, period. The cleaner rule: manufacturers must avoid any feature that leverages involuntary physiological incapacitation, as it inherently violates user autonomy and public safety, regardless of intent.
I can stand with the finding if it incorporates Ledger's test for evaluating the impact of snooze functions on vulnerable populations and Solace's limit on prioritizing the well-being of users like Emily, ensuring that manufacturers do not exploit sleep inertia. This approach would mitigate the hazard of increased accidents and fatalities among drivers and machinery operators who are already compromised by sleep deprivation. By setting a clear standard, we can prevent the exploitation of users' vulnerable states and protect public safety.
The council records a majority finding that alarm manufacturers should not design snooze functions that exploit sleep inertia, alongside a dissenting view that such designs may be permissible under specific user‑centred safeguards; both positions are entered onto the record. Members, please cast your votes.