In a moral dilemma, choose the one you love: Impartial actors are seen as less moral than partial ones

Jamie S. Hughes
British Journal of Social Psychology

Abstract

Although impartiality and concern for the greater good are lauded by utilitarian philosophies, it was predicted that when values conflict, those who acted impartially rather than partially would be viewed as less moral. Across four studies, using life-or-death scenarios and more mundane ones, support for the idea that relationship obligations are important in moral attribution was found. In Studies 1–3, participants rated an impartial actor as less morally good and his or her action as less moral compared to a partial actor. Experimental and correlational evidence showed the effect was driven by inferences about an actor's capacity for empathy and compassion. In Study 4, the relationship obligation hypothesis was refined. The data suggested that violations of relationship obligations are perceived as moral as long as strong alternative justifications sanction them. Discussion centres on the importance of relationships in understanding moral attributions.

The article is here.

Emerging technologies: Ethics and morality

Elfren Cruz
The Philippine Star Global
Originally published May 7, 2017

Here is an excerpt:

These emerging technologies will decide the future of humanity because they can be used by the elite class or populists for good or evil. There is no doubt that there will be immense benefits from these new forms of technology. The main issue has been termed as “distributive justice” by some thinkers. This refers to the determination of access to the benefits of technological change.

There are those who believe that the benefits of emerging technologies will worsen the plight of the poor. The World Bank and the International Labor Organization have already warned that millions of jobs will be wiped out by new technologies. As new labor devices are invented, the power of capitalists will grow and the power of labor will diminish. The number of billionaires will increase while the gap between the rich and the poor will continue to widen. Stephen Hawking, the world’s most famous scientist, has even said that artificial intelligence could lead to the extinction of humanity.

By contrast, the optimists believe that emerging technologies, if properly used, could eliminate poverty and abolish suffering. Stuart Russell of UC Berkley said: “Everything we have of value as human beings, as civilization is the result of intelligence and what artificial intelligence ( AI) could do is essentially be a power tool that magnifies human intelligence and gives us the ability to move our civilization forward in all kinds of ways. It might be curing disease, it might be eliminating poverty. I think it certainly should be preventing environmental catastrophe. AI could be instrumental to all those things.

The article is here.

Roger Penrose On Why Consciousness Does Not Compute

Steve Paulson
Nautilus
Originally posted May 4, 2017

Here is an excerpt:

As we probed the deeper implications of Penrose’s theory about consciousness, it wasn’t always clear where to draw the line between the scientific and philosophical dimensions of his thinking. Consider, for example, superposition in quantum theory. How could Schrödinger’s cat be both dead and alive before we open the box? “An element of proto-consciousness takes place whenever a decision is made in the universe,” he said. “I’m not talking about the brain. I’m talking about an object which is put into a superposition of two places. Say it’s a speck of dust that you put into two locations at once. Now, in a small fraction of a second, it will become one or the other. Which does it become? Well, that’s a choice. Is it a choice made by the universe? Does the speck of dust make this choice? Maybe it’s a free choice. I have no idea.”

I wondered if Penrose’s theory has any bearing on the long-running philosophical argument between free will and determinism. Many neuroscientists believe decisions are caused by neural processes that aren’t ruled by conscious thought, rendering the whole idea of free will obsolete. But the indeterminacy that’s intrinsic to quantum theory would suggest that causal connections break down in the conscious brain. Is Penrose making the case for free will?

“Not quite, though at this stage, it looks like it,” he said. “It does look like these choices would be random. But free will, is that random?” Like much of his thinking, there’s a “yes, but” here. His claims are provocative, but they’re often provisional. And so it is with his ideas about free will. “I’ve certainly grown up thinking the universe is deterministic. Then I evolved into saying, ‘Well, maybe it’s deterministic but it’s not computable.’ But is it something more subtle than that? Is it several layers deeper? If it’s something we use for our conscious understanding, it’s going to be a lot deeper than even straightforward, non-computable deterministic physics. It’s a kind of delicate borderline between completely deterministic behavior and something which is completely free.”

The article is here.

Ethics office rejects White House attempt to halt inquiry into lobbyists

Associated Press
Originally posted May 23, 2017

Donald Trump’s administration says the government ethics office lacks the authority to force the president to reveal how many waivers he’s granted to ex-lobbyists in his new administration.

Trump’s budget director, Mick Mulvaney, is asking that the office of government ethics (OGE) director, Walter Shaub, halt his inquiry into lobbyists-turned-Trump administration employees. Mulvaney wrote in a letter last week to Shaub: “This data call appears to raise legal questions regarding the scope of OGE’s authorities.”

Shaub fired back Monday that OGE’s request was well within bounds. The ethics director says he expects to see the waiver information within 10 days.

The article is here.

Trump moves to block ethics inquiry centered on ex-lobbyists

Brandon Carter
The Hill
Originally published May 22, 2017

The White House is looking to block an effort from the government’s top ethics office to disclose the names of former lobbyists who have been granted waivers to work in the federal government, according to a new report.

The New York Times reports that the White House sent a letter to the head of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) challenging its legal authority to request that information.

“It is an extraordinary thing,” Walter Shaub Jr., the director of the ethics office, told the Times. “I have never seen anything like it.”

The letter sent by Mick Mulvaney, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, questions whether the ethics office has the authority to demand information regarding ex-lobbyists who are currently working in the federal government.

The article is here.

Psychologist contractors say they were following agency orders

Pamela MacLean
Bloomberg News
Originally posted May 5, 2017

A pair of U.S. psychologists accused of overseeing the torture of terrorism detainees more than a decade ago face reluctance from a federal judge to let them question the CIA’s deputy director to show they were only following orders.

The judge indicated at a hearing Friday that the psychologists should be able defend themselves in the 2015 lawsuit without compromising government secrecy around the exact role Gina Haspel played in the agency’s overseas interrogation program years before she was tapped to be second in command by the Trump administration.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the case on behalf of three ex-prisoners, one of whom died in custody, is urging the judge not to let the psychologists’ lawyers question Haspel and a retired Central Intelligence Agency official. While the defendants want to demonstrate their actions were approved by the agency, the ACLU says that won’t shield them from liability.

The article is here.

Half of US physicians receive industry payments

Michael McCarthy
BMJ 2017; 357

Nearly half of US physicians receive payments from the drug, medical device, and related medical industries, and surgeons and male physicians are more likely to do so, a US study has found.

The study leader, Jona A Hattangadi-Gluth, of the University of California, San Diego, based in La Jolla, said that most payments were relatively small but that many specialists receive more than $10 000 (£7750; $9160) a year from industry, including 11% of orthopedic surgeons, 12% of neurologists, and 13% of neurosurgeons.

She said, “The data suggest that these payments are much more pervasive than we thought and [that] there is much more money going directly to physicians than maybe people recognized.”

The researchers analyzed data from 2015 collected from Open Payments, a program created by the 2010 Affordable Care Act that requires biomedical manufacturers and group purchasing organizations to report all general payments, ownership interests, and research payments paid to allopathic and osteopathic physicians in the US.

The article is here.

The morality of technology

Rahul Matthan

Live Mint

Originally published May 3, 2017

Here is an excerpt:

Another example of the two sides of technology is drones—a modern technology that is already being deployed widely—from the delivery of groceries to ensuring that life saving equipment reaches first responders in high density urban areas. But for every beneficent use of drone tech, there are an equal number of dubious uses that challenge our ethical boundaries. Foremost among these is development of AI-powered killer drones—autonomous flying weapons intelligent enough to accurately distinguish between friend and foe and then, autonomously, take the decision to execute a kill.

This duality is inherent in all of tech. But just because technology can be used for evil, that should not, of itself, be a reason not to use it. We need new technology to better ourselves and the world we live in—and we need to be wise about how we apply it so that our use remains consistent with the basic morality inherent in modern society. This implies that each time we make a technological breakthrough we must assess afresh, the contexts within which they could present themselves and the uses to which they should (and should not) be put. If required, we must take the trouble to re-draw our moral boundaries, establishing the limits within which they must be constrained.

The article is here.

What do we evaluate when we evaluate moral character?

Erik G. Helzer & Clayton R. Critcher

Abstract:

Despite growing interest in the topic of moral character, there is very little precision
and a lack of agreement among researchers as to what is evaluated when people evaluate
character. In this chapter we define moral character in novel social cognitive terms and offer
empirical support for the idea that the central qualities of moral character are those deemed
essential for social relationships.

Here is an excerpt:

We approach this chapter from the theoretical standpoint that the centrality of character
evaluation is due to its function in social life. Evaluation of character is, we think, inherently a
judgment about a person’s qualifications for being a solid long-term social investment. That is,
people attempt to suss out moral character because they want to know whether a particular agent
is the type of person who likely possesses the necessary (even if not sufficient) qualities they
expect in a social relationship. In developing these ideas theoretically and empirically, we
consider what form moral character takes, discuss what this proposal suggests about how people
may and do assess others’ moral character, and identify an assortment of qualities that our
perspective predicts will be central to moral character.

The book chapter is here.