Online research in philosophy

: This essay provides an analysis of conflicts of interest in science. It gives an overview of some current conflict of interest policies and distinguishes between real, apparent, and potential conflicts of interest. The essay argues that scientists should disclose real, apparent, and potential conflicts of interest and that they should avoid conflicts that threaten scientific objectivity or trustworthiness. The essay also uses several hypothetical scenarios to illustrate some of the key points made in the analysis and suggests some strategies for buffering the impact of conflicts of interest in science.

Gaski (1999) is critical of marketing ethics and suggests that its ethical guidelines amount to no more than "obey the law" and "act in your self-interest". This reply questions Gaski''s critique and clarifies possible misconceptions about the field that might otherwise result. It identifies the limitations and assumptions of Gaski''s argument and shows that there are exceptions to his central proposition even when narrowly circumscribed. It is not disputed that there is merit to reminding managers of their obligations to obey the law and to act in their enlightened self-interest. However, although fulfilling these obligations is generally a necessary requirement for good conduct, it is not sufficient. There are situations where ethics demands more of marketing managers than "obey the law" and "act in your self-interest". In addition, managers may face situations where ethics, the law and self-interest are inconsistent. The article incorporates observations on the role of normative marketing ethics, including the requirement to develop ethical theory for marketing as well as ethical guidelines.

Moralists tend to have a low opinion of self-interest. It is seen as force that has to be controlled or transcended. This essay tries to get beyond the bifurcation of human motivations into self-interest (which is seen as vicious or non-moral) and concern for others (which is virtuous). It argues that there are some surprising affinities between self-interest and morality. Notably the principal force that checks self-interest is self-interest itself. Consequently, self-interest often coincides with and reinforces the commands of morality and promotes civility and consideration for others. Therefore it provides us with resources for constructing a more humane and civil society.

Two of Bourdieu’s fundamental contributions to science studies—the reflexive analysis of the social and human sciences and the concept of an intellectual field—are used to frame a reflexive study of the history and social studies of science and technology as an intellectual field in the United States. The universe of large, Ph.D.-granting graduate programs is studied in two parts. In the first analysis, relations between institutional position and disciplinary type are explored by department. A positive correlation exists between historians of science and institutional position (as higher prestige or capital). In the second analysis, attention to intellectual tastes for research topics is explored at an individual level with respect to departmental position and the individual’s discipline and gender. Scholars in nonelite history of science departments have low field interest in democracy, social movements, or public participation; environment or sustainability; and gender, race, or sexuality; whereas those in history of technology programs and nonelite STS programs have a higher field interest in those areas, and historians of technology have a higher interest in class or labor issues. Among social scientists, there is a higher interest among scholars in nonelite programs in environment or sustainability and in democracy, social movements, or public participation.

Several philosophers opposed to animal rights have recently sought to justify their opposition by arguing that the epistemic differences between human and animal interests (often referred to as “taking an interest” vs. “having an interest”) constitute a morally significant difference. In this paper, I first detail the various forms ofhaving an interest and oftaking an interest. I then evaluate the moral significance of these differences from both utilitarian and deontological viewpoints. The conclusion of this analysis is that the epistemic differences between human and animal interests are not morally significant.

Human beings naturally care a great deal for themselves--and couldn't survive otherwise. As Aquinas observed, the drive for self-preservation is the first law of nature. Yet in the imperative of self-love, philosophers have also perceived a tacit threat. Plato reminds us that 'the excessive love of self is in reality the source to each man of all offences.' And so the inevitability of self- concern must be balanced with its manifest potential for harm. But how is such a reconciliation possible? This collection brings tohether the efforts of twenty- three great thinkers addressing such themes as the nature of self-interest, its connection to benevolence and morality, and its implications for political theory. The philosophical results are rich and varied. Self-Interest is intended for philosophers, students, and anyone inclined to reflect upon a subject of such enduring importance and perplexity as the love of self.

ABSTRACT Four decades ago, Gerald Kramer showed that economic conditions affect electoral outcomes. Some researchers took this to mean that voters were self-interested, voting their ?pocketbooks,? while others, such as Leif Lewin, took it to mean that voters were sociotropic, motivated by the public interest?and therefore altruistic. It is important, however, to avoid conflating sociotropic voters with altruistic ones. Voters might be voting in favor of politicians or parties that they think will further the public interest as an indirect route to furthering their own interests, as members of the public. More research, perhaps conducted using novel methodologies, is needed in order to settle the extent to which voters are motivated by self-interest or by the public interest.

McLachlan and Swales dispute my arguments against commercial surrogatemotherhood. In reply, I argue that commercial surrogate contractsobjectionably commodify children because they regardparental rights over children not as trusts, to be allocated in the bestinterests of the child, but as like property rights, to be allocatedat the will o the parents. They also express disrespect for mothers, bycompromising their inalienable right to act in the best interest of theirchildren, when this interest calls for mothers to assert a custody rightin their children.

The commentaries by Dennett, Sterelny, and Queller on Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection (DPNS) are so constructive that they make it possible to extend and improve the book’s framework in several ways. My replies will focus on points of disagreement, and I will pick a small number of themes and develop them in detail. The three replies below are mostly self-contained, except that all my comments about genes, discussed by all three critics, are in the reply to Queller. Agential views of evolution, discussed by Queller and Dennett, are addressed in my reply to Dennett.

Draft (Version 1.1, October 2007): (PDF file) A reply to Jason Stanley’s Analysis criticism of my interest-relative view on vagueness.