Automated essay scoring programs are becoming more common and more technically advanced. They provoke strong reactions from both their advocates and their detractors. Arguments tend to fall into two categories: technical and principled. This paper argues that since technical difficulties will be overcome with time, the debate ought to be held in terms of the principles. A thought experiment, based on a technically perfect Automated Essay Scorer, is proposed in order to explore the moral questions related to this topic, such as whether students deserve to have their work read by a human. It concludes that affect is an important component both of writing and of the debate, but that if the move to automated scoring stops being an "all or nothing" debate, then many of the objections on principle will be obviated.