Readings Flashcards
“Libertarian Paternalism” 2015 Article
Gerd Gigerenzer 2015
AGAINST
- mammography screening
Arguments in the article:
1. The arguments for systematic irrationality relies on narrow logical norms and confirmation bias
2. Studies show that people are educatable
3. Requirements for choice architects is not satisfied, given that these people would have to be required to be objective and have no conflict of interest
“Libertarian Paternalism” 2017 article
Dan Kahan
FOR
Investigated the outcomes of 2 fictious studies –> effectiveness of a new skin rash treatment and effectivess of a ban for carrying concealed weapons
It tests the science comprehension thesis (SCT) and the Identity-protective cognition thesis (ICT)
Higher reasoning skills amplify polarization as individuals use these skills to justify group-consistent beliefs
Better education or reasoning skills wont solve polarization
“Defense for moderate (pragmatic) naturalism” article
Eric Racine 2008
- Balance between ‘is’ and ‘ought’
–> ought implies can = Ethical norms must be actionable within human and societal constraints, making empirical knowledge necessary to understand these constraints - Avoidance of reductionism
–> treats empirical evidence as a necessary but insufficient element of ethical deliberation - Relevance to real-world problems
–> stays connected to empirical research and societal needs - Emphasis of interdisciplinary
- Recognition of fact-value continuum
- Practical and Context-Sensitive ethical norms
- Alignment with Bioethics’ Evolving Practice
- Ethical Pluralism in a complex world
- Avoiding dogmatism
–> avoiding extremes, staying open minded - Fostering new wisdom
David Reisnek on genetic determinism
Argues against 4 arguments offered by determinists that are not in favor of genetic modification
- Freedom argument, GM interferes with the modified person’s ability to make free choices
-Puppet critique
-open future critique
- parental expectations critique
–> assumes strong determinism - Giftedness argument, children are products to be designed
–> assumes strong determinism - Authenticity argument, limiting the authenticity of accomplishments
–> Naturalistic fallacy and strong genetic determinism - Uniqueness, particular GM (cloning) violates the uniqueness of the unique person. Intervention with individuality
–> strong genetic determinism and assumption that genetic composition is significant to self identity
“Against paternalistic approaches on neuroenhancement” article
Corbellini & Sirgiovanni 2015
says that both supporters and opposers succumb to paternalistic ideas
since harm is not often proportional to legality, enhancements should also be treated in a similar manner
“For moral enhancement” article
Savulescu and Persson
This article explores the concept of moral bioenhancements as a response to the growing ethical challenges posed by technological and societal advancements
‘God-machine’
Arguments:
1. Moral enhancement is inevitable
–> it will become a viable tool to address global crises
2. Freedom vs. wellbeing
–> prevention of harm vs. the individual autonomy
3. Compatibility with Autonomy
–> challenge the idea that it inherently undermines autonomy, enhanced individuals can still choose within enhanced moral dispositions
4. Ethical safeguards
–> emphasis on consent and proportionality ensures moral enhancements aligns with democratic values, mitigating fears of authoritarian misuse
‘Against moral enhancement” article
John Harris
it is neither practical nor ethically desirable as currently envisioned
arguments:
1. Freedom and autonomy
–> morality must be a free choice to have ethical value
2. Feasibility of moral enhancement
–> the technical and conceptual challenges of designing biomedical interventions that genuinely enhance morality without causing harm
3. Advocacy for cognitive enhancement
–> highlights its immediate practicality and its ability to address the root causes of many global challenges
4. Critique of Persson and Savulescu
“Neuroethics: Challenges and Opportunities” article
discusses the emergence and development of neuroethics, its history, key branches, significant topics and ethical, legal and social implications.
Arguments:
1. Ethical challenges in diagnosing consciousness
–> the use of neuroimaging reveals ethical complexities in determining moral status and rights
2. Debate on Neuroenhancement
–> The authors balance concerns about equity, safety, and authenticity with the potential benefits of enhancing human abilities, advocating for responsible use and access
3. Neuroscience and Morality
–> Studies on the brain’s role is moral reasoning challenge assumptions about the reliability of different moral frameworks
4. Interdisciplinary Nature of Neuroethics
–> it bridges neuroscience, philosophy, law, and public policy
“Neuroethics II: Beyond point-and-shoot- morality” article
discusses the role of cognitive neuroscience in understanding moral judgement and its implications for normative ethics. He introduces the dual-process-theory.
Arguments:
1. Dual-process framework:
–> highlights the distinct roles of emotion and reason in moral judgement, providing a scientific basis for an ethical debate
2. Critique of deontology:
–> challenges the reliability of emotion driven judgements, which are often context-specific and prone to bias
3. Advocacy for consequentialism
–> Supports consequentialism as a more rational and adaptable ethical approach, particularly in addressing modern moral dilemmas
4. Interdisciplinary ethics
–> Greene emphasizes the value of integrative cognitive science into ethical theory, encouraging a data-informed approach to moral reasoning
“Ethics of cultivated meat” article
the article delves into the ethical implications of cultivated meat, a novel technology poised to address the environmental, health, and ethical issues associated with conventional meat production
Arguments
1. Ethical mitigation
–> cultivated meat reduces animal suffering and environmental harm, addressing key ethical concerns in conventional meat production
2. Practicality vs. ideals
–> While veganism or plant-based diets are ideal, they are unlikely to gain universal acceptance, making cultivated meat a pragmatic alternative
3. Socio-Economic Adjustments
–> policies supporting equitable access and worker retraining can mitigate economic disruptions
4. Technological realism
–> The author emphasizes technological potential while recognizing limitations and risks
“moral machine experiment” article
Edmond Award 2018
The moral machine experiment investigates public moral preferences regarding the ethical dilemmas autonomous vehicles (AV) face
Arguments:
1. Public input in machine ethics
–> The experiment emphasizes the importance of aligning AV ethics with public preferences to ensure societal acceptance
2. cultural diversity in ethics
–> Variations across cultural clusters reveal the complexity of establishing universal principles for AV ethics, necessitating nuanced, region-specific solutions
3. Prioritization of Ethical Dimensions
–> sparing humans, more lives, and younger individuals emerged as universal preferences, which can guide AV programming
4. Challenges of normative ethics
–> balancing public opinion with ethical principles (e.g. avoiding discrimination) is critical for policymakers and AV manufacturers
“Epistemic opacity of AS and ethical consequences” article
Mihaly Heder 2020
Arguments
1. Epistemic Opacity as a fundamental Challenge
–> the complexity of autonomous systems and their interaction with unpredictable environments creates inherent knowledge gaps, making ethical behavior difficult to ensure
2. Critique of theoretical models
–> challenges the validity of simplified moral dilemmas, arguing that real-world uncertainties must be considered for ethical system design
3. Shift to Empirical Testing
- Advocates for iterative, real world testing as a more effective method for ensuring ethical behavior than relying on theoretical frameworks
4. Redefining Responsibility
–> The concentration of moral responsibility at the design stage underscores the need for accountability and transparence in autonomous system development
