How to Deal with Counter-Examples to Common Morality Theory: A Surprising Result

Herissone-Kelly P.

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.

2022;31(2):185-191.

doi:10.1017/S096318012100058X

Abstract

Tom Beauchamp and James Childress are confident that their four principles—respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice—are globally applicable to the sorts of issues that arise in biomedical ethics, in part because those principles form part of the common morality (a set of general norms to which all morally committed persons subscribe). Inevitably, however, the question arises of how the principlist ought to respond when presented with apparent counter-examples to this thesis. I examine a number of strategies the principlist might adopt in order to retain common morality theory in the face of supposed counter-examples. I conclude that only a strategy that takes a non-realist view of the common morality’s principles is viable. Unfortunately, such a view is likely not to appeal to the principlist.

The info is here.

Herissone-Kelly examines various strategies principlism could employ to address counter-examples:

Refine the principles: This involves clarifying or reinterpreting the principles to better handle specific cases.

• Prioritize principles: Establish a hierarchy among the principles to resolve conflicts.
• Supplement the principles: Introduce additional considerations or context-specific factors.
• Limit the scope: Acknowledge that the principles may not apply universally to all cultures or situations.

Herissone-Kelly argues that none of these strategies are fully satisfactory. Refining or prioritizing principles risks distorting their original meaning or introducing arbitrariness. Supplementing them can lead to an unwieldy and complex framework. Limiting their scope undermines the theory's claim to universality.

He concludes that the most viable approach is to adopt a non-realist view of the common morality's principles. This means understanding them not as objective moral facts but as flexible tools for ethical reflection and deliberation, open to interpretation and adaptation in different contexts. While this may seem to weaken the theory's authority, Herissone-Kelly argues that it allows for a more nuanced and practical application of ethical principles in a diverse world.

Is Dan Ariely Telling the Truth?

Tom Bartlett

The Chronicle of Higher Ed

Originally posted 18 Feb 24

Here is an excerpt:

In August 2021, the blog Data Colada published a post titled “Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Field Experiment About Dishonesty.” Data Colada is run by three researchers — Uri Simonsohn, Leif Nelson, and Joe Simmons — and it serves as a freelance watchdog for the field of behavioral science, which has historically done a poor job of policing itself. The influential field experiment in question was described in a 2012 paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, by Ariely and four co-authors. In the study, customers of an insurance company were asked to report how many miles they had driven over a period of time, an answer that might affect their premiums. One set of customers signed an honesty pledge at the top of the form, and another signed at the bottom. The study found that those who signed at the top reported higher mileage totals, suggesting that they were more honest. The authors wrote that a “simple change of the signature location could lead to significant improvements in compliance.” The study was classic Ariely: a slight tweak to a system that yields real-world results.

But did it actually work? In 2020, an attempted replication of the effect found that it did not. In fact, multiple attempts to replicate the 2012 finding all failed (though Ariely points to evidence in a recent, unpublished paper, on which he is a co-author, indicating that the effect might be real). The authors of the attempted replication posted the original data from the 2012 study, which was then scrutinized by a group of anonymous researchers who found that the data, or some of it anyway, had clearly been faked. They passed the data along to the Data Colada team. There were multiple red flags. For instance, the number of miles customers said they’d driven was unrealistically uniform. About the same number of people drove 40,000 miles as drove 500 miles. No actual sampling would look like that — but randomly generated data would. Two different fonts were used in the file, apparently because whoever fudged the numbers wasn’t being careful.

In short, there is no doubt that the data were faked. The only question is, who did it?

The article is here.

This article discusses an investigation into the research conduct of Dr. Dan Ariely, a well-known behavioral economist at Duke University. The investigation, prompted by concerns about potential data fabrication, concluded that while no evidence of fabricated data was found, Ariely did commit research misconduct by failing to adequately vet findings and maintain proper records.

The article highlights several specific issues identified by the investigation, including inconsistencies in data and a lack of supporting documentation for key findings. It also mentions that Ariely made inaccurate statements about his personal history, such as misrepresenting his age at the time of a childhood accident.

While Ariely maintains that he did not intentionally fabricate data and attributes the errors to negligence and a lack of awareness, the investigation's findings have damaged his reputation and raised questions about the integrity of his research. The article concludes by leaving the reader to ponder whether Ariely's transgressions can be forgiven or if they represent a deeper pattern of dishonesty.

It's important to note that the article presents one perspective on a complex issue and doesn't offer definitive answers. Further research and analysis are necessary to form a complete understanding of the situation.

Unraveling the Mindset of Victimhood

Scott Barry Kaufman

Scientific American

Originally posted 29 June 2020

Here is an excerpt:

Constantly seeking recognition of one’s victimhood. Those who score high on this dimension have a perpetual need to have their suffering acknowledged. In general, this is a normal psychological response to trauma. Experiencing trauma tends to “shatter our assumptions” about the world as a just and moral place. Recognition of one’s victimhood is a normal response to trauma and can help reestablish a person’s confidence in their perception of the world as a fair and just place to live.

Also, it is normal for victims to want the perpetrators to take responsibility for their wrongdoing and to express feelings of guilt. Studies conducted on testimonies of patients and therapists have found that validation of the trauma is important for therapeutic recovery from trauma and victimization (see here and here).

A sense of moral elitism. Those who score high on this dimension perceive themselves as having an immaculate morality and view everyone else as being immoral. Moral elitism can be used to control others by accusing others of being immoral, unfair or selfish, while seeing oneself as supremely moral and ethical.

Moral elitism often develops as a defense mechanism against deeply painful emotions and as a way to maintain a positive self-image. As a result, those under distress tend to deny their own aggressiveness and destructive impulses and project them onto others. The “other” is perceived as threatening whereas the self is perceived as persecuted, vulnerable and morally superior.

The info is here.

Here is a summary:

Kaufman explores the concept of "interpersonal victimhood," a tendency to view oneself as the repeated target of unfair treatment by others. He identifies several key characteristics of this mindset, including:

• Belief in inherent unfairness: The conviction that the world is fundamentally unjust and that one is disproportionately likely to experience harm.
• Moral self-righteousness: The perception of oneself as more ethical and deserving of good treatment compared to others.
• Rumination on past injustices: Dwelling on and replaying negative experiences, often with feelings of anger and resentment.
• Difficulty taking responsibility: Attributing negative outcomes to external factors rather than acknowledging one's own role.

Kaufman argues that while acknowledging genuine injustices is important, clinging to a victimhood identity can be detrimental. It can hinder personal growth, strain relationships, and fuel negativity. He emphasizes the importance of developing a more balanced perspective, acknowledging both external challenges and personal agency. The article offers strategies for fostering resilience

AI needs the constraints of the human brain

Danyal Akarca

iai.tv

Originally posted 30 Jan 24

Here is an excerpt:

So, evolution shapes systems that are capable of solving competing problems that are both internal (e.g., how to expend energy) and external (e.g., how to act to survive), but in a way that can be highly efficient, in many cases elegant, and often surprising. But how does this evolutionary story of biological intelligence contrast with the current paradigm of AI?

In some ways, quite directly. Since the 50s, neural networks were developed as models that were inspired directly from neurons in the brain and the strength of their connections, in addition to many successful architectures of the past being directly motivated by neuroscience experimentation and theory. Yet, AI research in the modern era has occurred with a significant absence of thought of intelligent systems in nature and their guiding principles. Why is this? There are many reasons. But one is that the exponential growth of computing capabilities, enabled by increases of transistors on integrated circuits (observed since the 1950s, known as Moore’s Law), has permitted AI researchers to leverage significant improvements in performance without necessarily requiring extraordinarily elegant solutions. This is not to say that modern AI algorithms are not widely impressive – they are. It is just that the majority of the heavy lifting has come from advances in computing power rather than their engineered design. Consequently, there has been relatively little recent need or interest from AI experts to look to the brain for inspiration.

But the tide is turning. From a hardware perspective, Moore’s law will not continue ad infinitum (at 7 nanometers, transistor channel lengths are now nearing fundamental limits of atomic spacing). We will therefore not be able to leverage ever improving performance delivered by increasingly compact microprocessors. It is likely therefore that we will require entirely new computing paradigms, some of which may be inspired by the types of computations we observe in the brain (the most notable being neuromorphic computing). From a software and AI perspective, it is becoming increasingly clear that – in part due to the reliance on increases to computational power – the AI research field will need to refresh its conceptions as to what makes systems intelligent at all. For example, this will require much more sophisticated benchmarks of what it means to perform at human or super-human performance. In sum, the field will need to form a much richer view of the possible space of intelligent systems, and how artificial models can occupy different places in that space.

The info is here.

Key Points:

• Evolutionary pressures: Efficient, resource-saving brains are advantageous for survival, leading to optimized solutions for learning, memory, and decision-making.
• AI's reliance on brute force: Modern AI often achieves performance through raw computing power, neglecting principles like energy efficiency.
• Shifting AI paradigm: Moore's Law's end and limitations in conventional AI call for exploration of new paradigms, potentially inspired by the brain.
• Neurobiology's potential: Brain principles like network structure, local learning, and energy trade-offs can inform AI design for efficiency and novel functionality.
• Embodied AI with constraints: Recent research incorporates space and communication limitations into AI models, leading to features resembling real brains and potentially more efficient information processing.

Empathy Trends in American Youth Between 1979 and 2018: An Update

Konrath, S., et al. (2023).

Social Psychological and Personality Science, 0(0).

https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231218360

Abstract

Previous research has found declining dispositional empathy among American youth from 1979 to 2009. We update these trends until 2018, using three datasets. Study 1 presents a cross-temporal meta-analysis of undergraduates’ empathy (Interpersonal Reactivity Index), finding significant cubic trends over time: perspective taking (PT) and empathic concern (EC) both increased since 2009. Study 2 conceptually replicated these findings using nationally representative datasets, also showing increasing PT (Study 2a: American Freshman Survey) and EC (Study 2b: Monitoring the Future Survey) since 2009. We include economic, interpersonal, and worldview covariates to test for potential explanations, finding evidence that empathy trends may be related to recent changes in interpersonal dynamics.

The article is paywalled here.

Summary:

Shifting trend: Contrary to earlier studies, researchers found that empathy among college students has increased since 2009 in two key dimensions: perspective taking (understanding another's viewpoint) and empathic concern (sharing another's feelings).

Data sources: The study used three datasets: a meta-analysis of college students' self-reported empathy, a nationally representative survey of freshmen (American Freshman Survey), and another national survey of high school students (Monitoring the Future Survey).

Possible explanations: The reasons for the shift are explored, with potential factors including changes in interpersonal dynamics, increased exposure to diverse perspectives through technology, and growing involvement in social movements emphasizing empathy and social justice.

Overall, the research suggests that the story of empathy in American youth may be more nuanced than previously thought. While earlier studies documented a decline, recent data points towards a possible reversal. Understanding the factors influencing empathy trends is crucial for fostering a more compassionate and connected society.

The study highlights the importance of using multiple data sources and different measurement methods to gain a comprehensive understanding of complex social phenomena.  Further research is needed to confirm the trend and explore its causes in more detail.

Scientists are on the verge of a male birth-control pill. Will men take it?

Jill Filipovic

The Guardian

Originally posted 18 Dec 23

Here is an excerpt:

The overwhelming share of responsibility for preventing pregnancy has always fallen on women. Throughout human history, women have gone to great lengths to prevent pregnancies they didn’t want, and end those they couldn’t prevent. Safe and reliable contraceptive methods are, in the context of how long women have sought to interrupt conception, still incredibly new. Measured by the lifespan of anyone reading this article, though, they are well established, and have for many decades been a normal part of life for millions of women around the world.

To some degree, and if only for obvious biological reasons, it makes sense that pregnancy prevention has historically fallen on women. But it also, as they say, takes two to tango – and only one of the partners has been doing all the work. Luckily, things are changing: thanks to generations of women who have gained unprecedented freedoms and planned their families using highly effective contraception methods, and thanks to men who have shifted their own gender expectations and become more involved partners and fathers, women and men have moved closer to equality than ever.

Among politically progressive couples especially, it’s now standard to expect that a male partner will do his fair share of the household management and childrearing (whether he actually does is a separate question, but the expectation is there). What men generally cannot do, though, is carry pregnancies and birth babies.

The info is here.

Here are some themes worthy of discussion:

Shifting responsibility: The potential availability of a reliable male contraceptive marks a significant departure from the historical norm where the burden of pregnancy prevention was primarily borne by women. This shift raises thought-provoking questions that delve into various aspects of societal dynamics.

Gender equality: A crucial consideration is whether men will willingly share responsibility for contraception on an equal footing, or whether societal norms will continue to exert pressure on women to take the lead in this regard.

Reproductive autonomy: The advent of accessible male contraception prompts contemplation on whether it will empower women to exert greater control over their reproductive choices, shaping the landscape of family planning.

Informed consent: An important facet of this shift involves how men will be informed about potential side effects and risks associated with the male contraceptive, particularly in comparison to existing female contraceptives.

Accessibility and equity: Concerns emerge regarding equitable access to the male contraceptive, particularly for marginalized communities. Questions arise about whether affordable and culturally appropriate access will be universally available, regardless of socioeconomic status or geographic location.

Coercion: There is a potential concern that the availability of a male contraceptive might be exploited to coerce women into sexual activity without their full and informed consent.

Psychological and social impact: The introduction of a male contraceptive brings with it potential psychological and social consequences that may not be immediately apparent.

Changes in sexual behavior: The availability of a male contraceptive may influence sexual practices and attitudes towards sex, prompting a reevaluation of societal norms.

Impact on relationships: The shift in responsibility for contraception could potentially cause tension or conflict in existing relationships as couples navigate the evolving dynamics.

Masculinity and stigma: The use of a male contraceptive may challenge traditional notions of masculinity, possibly leading to social stigma that individuals using the contraceptive may face.

Robot, let us pray! Can and should robots have religious functions? An ethical exploration of religious robots

Puzio, A.

AI & Soc (2023).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01812-z

Abstract

Considerable progress is being made in robotics, with robots being developed for many different areas of life: there are service robots, industrial robots, transport robots, medical robots, household robots, sex robots, exploration robots, military robots, and many more. As robot development advances, an intriguing question arises: should robots also encompass religious functions? Religious robots could be used in religious practices, education, discussions, and ceremonies within religious buildings. This article delves into two pivotal questions, combining perspectives from philosophy and religious studies: can and should robots have religious functions? Section 2 initiates the discourse by introducing and discussing the relationship between robots and religion. The core of the article (developed in Sects. 3 and 4) scrutinizes the fundamental questions: can robots possess religious functions, and should they? After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments, benefits, and potential objections regarding religious robots, Sect. 5 addresses the lingering ethical challenges that demand attention. Section 6 presents a discussion of the findings, outlines the limitations of this study, and ultimately responds to the dual research question. Based on the study’s results, brief criteria for the development and deployment of religious robots are proposed, serving as guidelines for future research. Section 7 concludes by offering insights into the future development of religious robots and potential avenues for further research.

The article is here.

Summary

Can robots fulfill religious functions? The article explores the technical feasibility of designing robots that could engage in religious practices, education, and ceremonies. It acknowledges the current limitations of robots, particularly their lack of sentience and spiritual experience. However, it also suggests potential avenues for development, such as robots equipped with advanced emotional intelligence and the ability to learn and interpret religious texts.

Should robots fulfill religious functions? This is where the ethical debate unfolds. The article presents arguments both for and against. On the one hand, robots could potentially offer various benefits, such as increasing accessibility to religious practices, providing companionship and spiritual guidance, and even facilitating interfaith dialogue. On the other hand, concerns include the potential for robotization of faith, the blurring of lines between human and machine in the context of religious experience, and the risk of reinforcing existing biases or creating new ones.

Ultimately, the article concludes that there is no easy answer to the question of whether robots should have religious functions. It emphasizes the need for careful consideration of the ethical implications and ongoing dialogue between religious communities, technologists, and ethicists. This ethical exploration paves the way for further research and discussion as robots continue to evolve and their potential roles in society expand.

Hope for Suicide Prevention

Ellen Barry

The New York Times

Originally published 21 Feb 24

Here is an excerpt:

Research has demonstrated that suicide is most often an impulsive act, with a period of acute risk that passes in hours, or even minutes. Contrary to what many assume, people who survive suicide attempts often go on to do well: Nine out of 10 of them do not die by suicide.

Policymakers, it seems, are paying attention. I have been reporting on mental health for The New York Times for two years, and in today’s newsletter I will look at promising, evidence-based efforts to prevent suicide.

A single element

For generations, psychiatrists believed that, in the words of the British researcher Norman Kreitman, “anyone bent on self-destruction must eventually succeed.”

Then something strange and wonderful happened: Midway through the 1960s, the annual number of suicides in Britain began dropping — by 35 percent in the following years — even as tolls crept up in other parts of Europe.

No one could say why. Had medicine improved, so that more people survived poisoning? Were antidepressant medications bringing down levels of despair? Had life in Britain just gotten better?

The real explanation, Kreitman discovered, was none of these. The drop in suicides had come about almost by accident: As the United Kingdom phased out coal gas from its supply to household stoves, levels of carbon monoxide decreased. Suicide by gas accounted for almost half of the suicides in 1960.

It turns out that blocking access to a single lethal means — if it is the right one — can make a huge difference.

The strategy that arose from this realization is known as “means restriction” or “means safety,” and vast natural experiments have borne it out. When Sri Lanka restricted the import of toxic pesticides, which people had ingested in moments of crisis, its suicide rate dropped by half over the next decade.

The info is here.

Here is my summary

The article discusses new suicide prevention measures in the U.S., where suicide rates have risen 35% in recent decades. This contrasts with global trends of declining suicide rates.

• It highlights how installing barriers on bridges, buildings, and other high structures can deter impulsive suicide attempts. Many communities are now considering such barriers.
• Research shows most who survive a suicide attempt go on to live their lives and not die by suicide later. This suggests preventing access to lethal means in moments of crisis can save lives.
• Restricting access to highly lethal means like guns and toxic pesticides has significantly reduced suicide rates when implemented in other countries.
• In the U.S., red flag laws that temporarily remove guns from high-risk individuals have been associated with drops in firearm suicides.
• Educating gun owners on safe storage habits is another promising approach, as is providing incentives for measures like locking devices or gun safes.
• Even brief counseling for gun owners has proven effective in getting people to voluntarily store guns securely and prevent access during periods of risk.

In summary, the text highlights several evidence-based strategies for reducing access to lethal means during periods of acute suicide risk, thereby giving people a chance to recover and survive their suicidal crises.

Characteristics of Mental Health Specialists Who Shifted Their Practice Entirely to Telemedicine

Hailu, R., Huskamp, H. A., et al. (2024).

JAMA, 5(1), e234982. 

https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.4982

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic–related shift to telemedicine has been particularly prominent and sustained in mental health care. In 2021, more than one-third of mental health visits were conducted via telemedicine. While most mental health specialists have in-person and telemedicine visits, some have transitioned to fully virtual practice, perhaps for greater work-life flexibility (including avoiding commuting) and eliminating expenses of maintaining a physical clinic. The decision by some clinicians to practice only via telemedicine has gained importance due to Medicare’s upcoming requirement, effective in 2025, that patients have an annual in-person visit to receive telemedicine visits for mental illness and new requirements from some state Medicaid programs that clinicians offer in-person visits. We assessed the number and characteristics of mental health specialists who have shifted fully to telemedicine.

Discussion

In 2022, 13.0% of mental health specialists serving commercially insured or Medicare Advantage

enrollees had shifted to telemedicine only. Rates were higher among female clinicians and those

working in densely populated counties with higher real estate prices. A virtual-only practice allowing

clinicians to work from home may be more attractive to female clinicians, who report spending more

time on familial responsibilities, and those facing long commutes and higher office-space costs.

It is unclear how telemedicine-only clinicians will navigate new Medicare and Medicaid

requirements for in-person care. While clinicians and patients may prefer in-person care,

introducing in-person requirements for visits and prescribing could cause care interruptions,

particularly for conditions such as opioid use disorder.

Our analysis is limited to clinicians treating patients with commercial insurance or Medicare

Advantage and therefore may lack generalizability. We were also unable to determine where

clinicians physically practiced, particularly if they had transitioned to virtual-health companies. Given the shortage of mental health clinicians, future research should explore whether a virtual-only model

affects clinician burnout or workforce retention.