Online research in philosophy

University of Oslo and Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Norway We look at how one should reward effort without rewarding talent. One way to approach this issue is to ask how an increase in one individual's effort should be allowed to affect the post-tax income of others. The article provides characterizations of three main classes of redistribution mechanism on the basis of how these answer this question. Key Words: reward • effort • responsibility • equal opportunity • distributive justice.

A developing neurobiological/psychological theory of positive motivation gives a key causal role to reward events in the brain which can be directly activated by electrical stimulation (ESB). In its strongest form, this Reward Event Theory (RET) claims that all positive motivation, primary and learned, is functionally dependent on these reward events. Some of the empirical evidence is reviewed which either supports or challenges RET. The paper examines the implications of RET for the concepts of 'motivation', 'desire' and 'reward' or 'pleasure'. It is argued (1) that a 'causal base' as opposed to a functional' concept of motivation has theoretical advantages; (2) that a causal distinction between the focus' and the 'anchor' of desire suggests an ineliminable 'opacity' of desire; and (3) that some affective concept, such as 'pleasure', should play a key role in psychological explanation, distinct from that of motivational (or cognitive) concepts. A concept of 'reward' or 'pleasure' as intrinsically positive affect is defended, and contrasted with the more 'operational' definitions of 'reward' in some of the hypotheses of Roy Wise.

Depue & Morrone-Strupinsky (D&M-S) present a thorough case for the role of “reward” brain circuits in affiliative bonding. Integration of information in the nucleus accumbens shell (NA), the role of dopamine in this processing, and opioid (primarily via mu receptors) control of these circuits are the primary elements of the model. Although the overall picture is quite compelling, the description leans excessively in the view of dopamine systems as “reward” circuits.

The study seeks to determine the influence of economic reward on unethical behavior with the help of a Reward Punishment Model. The model postulates that ethical or unethical behavior depends on the relationship among three factors: economic reward or benefit that a businessperson receives from the unethical practice, the severity of punishment the society imposes for such wrong-doing, and the probability of receiving the punishment. A short survey, which contained a hypothetical ethical situation, was administered to 251 respondents. The findings indicate that the probability of risk-taking decreases as the level of punishmentand the chance of being caught increases.

Despite general agreement that altered reward sensitivity is involved in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a wide range of different alterations has been proposed. We cite work showing abnormal sensitivity to delay of reward, together with abnormal sensitivity to individual instances of reward. We argue that at the cellular level these behavioural characteristics might indicate that dopamine timing is off in children with ADHD.

Rolls's proposal that the amygdala is critical for the association of visual objects with reward is not consistent with recent ablation evidence. Stimulus-reward association learning is more likely to depend on basal forebrain efferents to the inferior temporal cortex, some of which pass through the amygdala. It is more likely that the amygdala is involved in rapid modulation of stimulus reward value.

Brain death is accepted in most countries as death. The rationales to explain why brain death is death are surprisingly problematic. The standard rationale that in brain death there has been loss of integrative unity of the organism has been shown to be false, and a better rationale has not been clearly articulated. Recent expert defences of the brain death concept are examined in this paper, and are suggested to be inadequate. I argue that, ironically, these defences demonstrate the lack of a defensible rationale for why brain death should be accepted as death itself. If brain death is death, a conceptual rationale for brain death being equivalent to death should be clarified, and this should be done urgently.