Some researchers are now pursuing implementations in quantum computers that, they hope, constitute, or at least causally give rise to, consciousness. Is such pursuit unethical? It depends. The term ‘consciousness,’ as used among relevant researchers, is polysemous. This reflects the fact that the study of consciousness in philosophy, and in disciplines that compared to it are newcomers (e.g. AI/AGI) to such study, is carried out by competing schools of researchers, most if not all marked by their own: particular targeted type of consciousness as an object of study; position on how it’s informally or formally defined/measured, correlated with observable phenomena, and created (e.g. in implemented computation). One school is Integrated Information Theory. It targets phenomenal consciousness, offers no formal definition but relies on the customary informal characterization of this type of consciousness, does offer a measurement scheme ( \(\varPhi \) ), correlates states of—using the established abbreviation—p-consciousness with computation, and, of late, is aiming at creating quantum consciousness. After laying out the broad landscape, we argue that this research permutation is ethically impermissible. Part of the landscape is our different, competing school traceable back to AI founder John McCarthy, a pursuit of AGIs that have cognitive consciousness.  We encapsulate the pursuit of quantum consciousness in this school (at the level of epistemic propositional logic), and relate why this pursuit appears in contrast to be ethically permissible.