This article argues that a person’s well-being at a time and the goodness of her life are two distinct values. It is commonly accepted as platitudinous that well-being is what makes a life good for the person who lives it. Even philosophers who distinguish between well-being at a time and the goodness of a life still typically assume that increasing a person’s well-being at some particular moment, all else equal, necessarily improves her life on the whole. I develop a precise (...) statement of this standard assumption, and then show that it is subject to counterexamples. The possibility of such counterexamples depends only on premises similar to those sometimes invoked to argue that a person’s well-being over a long period is not simply the aggregate well-being of the shorter periods that compose the long period. The refutation of the standard assumption linking well-being and life-goodness entails that these are distinct and sometimes divergent values. As an alternative to the standard assumption, it is proposed that well-being is best understood as an ingredient in a good life. (shrink)

Imagine you are casually browsing an online bookstore, looking for an interesting novel. Suppose the store predicts you will want to buy a particular novel: the one most chosen by people of your same age, gender, location, and occupational status. The store recommends the book, it appeals to you, and so you choose it. Central to this scenario is an automated prediction of what you desire. This article raises moral concerns about such predictions. More generally, this article examines the ethics (...) of artificial social cognition—the ethical dimensions of attribution of mental states to humans by artificial systems. The focus is presumptuous aim attributions, which are defined here as aim attributions based crucially on the premise that the person in question will have aims like superficially similar people. Several everyday examples demonstrate that this sort of presumptuousness is already a familiar moral concern. The scope of this moral concern is extended by new technologies. In particular, recommender systems based on collaborative filtering are now commonly used to automatically recommend products and information to humans. Examination of these systems demonstrates that they naturally attribute aims presumptuously. This article presents two reservations about the widespread adoption of such systems. First, the severity of our antecedent moral concern about presumptuousness increases when aim attribution processes are automated and accelerated. Second, a foreseeable consequence of reliance on these systems is an unwarranted inducement of interpersonal conformity. (shrink)

This article addresses three questions about well-being. First, is well-being future-sensitive? I.e., can present well-being depend on future events? Second, is well-being recursively dependent? I.e., can present well-being depend on itself? Third, can present and future well-being be interdependent? The third question combines the first two, in the sense that a yes to it is equivalent to yeses to both the first and second. To do justice to the diverse ways we contemplate well-being, I consider our thought and discourse about (...) well-being in three domains: everyday conversation, social science, and philosophy. This article’s main conclusion is that we must answer the third question with no. Present and future well-being cannot be interdependent. The reason, in short, is that a theory of well-being that countenances both future-sensitivity and recursive dependence would have us understand a person’s well-being at a time as so intricately tied to her well-being at other times that it would not make sense to consider her well-being an aspect of her state at particular times. It follows that we must reject either future-sensitivity or recursive dependence. I ultimately suggest, especially in light of arguments based on assumptions of empirical research on well-being, that the balance of reasons favors rejecting future-sensitivity. (shrink)

Just as humans can draw conclusions responsibly or irresponsibly, so too can computers. Machine learning systems that have been trained on data sets that include irresponsible judgments are likely to yield irresponsible predictions as outputs. In this paper I focus on a particular kind of inference a computer system might make: identification of the intentions with which a person acted on the basis of photographic evidence. Such inferences are liable to be morally objectionable, because of a way in which they (...) are presumptuous. After elaborating this moral concern, I explore the possibility that carefully procuring the training data for image recognition systems could ensure that the systems avoid the problem. The lesson of this paper extends beyond just the particular case of image recognition systems and the challenge of responsibly identifying a person’s intentions. Reflection on this particular case demonstrates the importance (as well as the difficulty) of evaluating machine learning systems and their training data from the standpoint of moral considerations that are not encompassed by ordinary assessments of predictive accuracy. (shrink)

A self-fulfilling prophecy is, roughly, a prediction that brings about its own truth. Although true predictions are hard to fault, self-fulfilling prophecies are often regarded with suspicion. In this article, we vindicate this suspicion by explaining what self-fulfilling prophecies are and what is problematic about them, paying special attention to how their problems are exacerbated through automated prediction. Our descriptive account of self-fulfilling prophecies articulates the four elements that define them. Based on this account, we begin our critique by showing (...) that typical self-fulfilling prophecies arise due to mistakes about the relationship between a prediction and its object. Such mistakes—along with other mistakes in predicting or in the larger practical endeavor—are easily overlooked when the predictions turn out true. Thus we note that self-fulfilling prophecies prompt no error signals; truth shrouds their mistakes from humans and machines alike. Consequently, self-fulfilling prophecies create several obstacles to accountability for the outcomes they produce. We conclude our critique by showing how failures of accountability, and the associated failures to make corrections, explain the connection between self-fulfilling prophecies and feedback loops. By analyzing the complex relationships between accuracy and other evaluatively significant features of predictions, this article sheds light both on the special case of self-fulfilling prophecies and on the ethics of prediction more generally. (shrink)

A self-fulfilling prophecy in neuroprognostication occurs when a patient in coma is predicted to have a poor outcome, and life-sustaining treatment is withdrawn on the basis of that prediction, thus directly bringing about a poor outcome for that patient. In contrast to the predominant emphasis in the bioethics literature, we look beyond the moral issues raised by the possibility that an erroneous prediction might lead to the death of a patient who otherwise would have lived. Instead, we focus on the (...) problematic epistemic consequences of neuroprognostic SFPs in settings where research and practice intersect. When this sort of SFP occurs, the problem is that physicians and researchers are never in a position to notice whether their original prognosis was correct or incorrect, since the patient dies anyway. Thus, SFPs keep us from discerning false positives from true positives, inhibiting proper assessment of novel prognostic tests. This epistemic problem of SFPs thus impedes learning, but ethical obligations of patient care make it difficult to avoid SFPs. We then show how the impediment to catching false positive indicators of poor outcome distorts research on novel techniques for neuroprognostication, allowing biases to persist in prognostic tests. We finally highlight a particular risk that a precautionary bias towards early withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment may be amplified. We conclude with guidelines about how researchers can mitigate the epistemic problems of SFPs, to achieve more responsible innovation of neuroprognostication for patients in coma. (shrink)

Worker well-being is a hot topic in organizations, consultancy and academia. However, too often, the buzz about worker well-being, enthusiasm for new programs to promote it and interest to research it, have not been accompanied by universal enthusiasm for scientific measurement. Aim to bridge this gap, we address three questions. To address the question ‘What is worker well-being?’, we explain that worker well-being is a multi-facetted concept and that it can be operationalized in a variety of constructs. We propose a (...) four-dimensional taxonomy of worker well-being constructs to illustrate the concept’s complexity and classify ten constructs within this taxonomy. To answer the question ‘How can worker well-being constructs be measured?’, we present two aspects of measures: measure obtrusiveness (i.e., the extent to which obtaining a measure interferes with workers’ experiences) and measure type (i.e., closed question survey, word, behavioral and physiological). We illustrate the diversity of measures across our taxonomy and uncover some hitherto under-appreciated avenues for measuring worker well-being. Finally, we address the question ‘How should a worker well-being measure be selected?’ by discussing conceptual, methodological, practical and ethical considerations when selecting a measure. We summarize these considerations in a short checklist. It is our hope that with this study researchers – working in organizations, in academia or both – will feel more competent to find effective strategies for the measurement worker well-being and eventually make policies and choices with a better understanding of what drives worker well-being. (shrink)

This is a review of David Sobel's monograph, From Valuing to Value: A Defense of Subjectivism.

Recurrent microdeletions and microduplications of a 600-kb genomic region of chromosome 16p11.2 have been implicated in childhood-onset developmental disorders. We report the association of 16p11.2 microduplications with schizophrenia in two large cohorts. The microduplication was detected in 12/1,906 cases and 1/3,971 controls from the initial cohort, and in 9/2,645 cases and 1/2,420 controls of the replication cohort. The 16p11.2 microduplication was associated with a 14.5-fold increased risk of schizophrenia ) in the combined sample. A meta-analysis of datasets for multiple psychiatric (...) disorders showed a significant association of the microduplication with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and autism. In contrast, the reciprocal microdeletion was associated only with autism and developmental disorders. Head circumference was larger in patients with the microdeletion than in patients with the microduplication. © 2009 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved. (shrink)

Accession Number: ATLA0001712265; Hosting Book Page Citation: p 652-664.; Language(s): English; General Note: Bibliography: p 663-664.; Issued by ATLA: 20130825; Publication Type: Essay.

There have undoubtedly been ample reasons to discourage a translator from approaching this commentary on the Metaphysics. The reasons stem mainly from the lack of a critical text. As is well enough known, such a text is at present in preparation by the Dominicans. Until it appears, attempts even at discussing the many disconcerting problems about the commentary run the risk of proving futile. In consequence, discussions have fallen off in recent years. As Rowan is careful to point out in (...) his introduction, there is sufficient evidence not only that errors have been made through simple negligence in the editions of the commentary, but also that "all sorts of liberties" may have been taken with the text. What we have at present, moreover, might possibly be a running text based on redactions dating from different years in St. Thomas' teaching career. If one may judge from the way Rowan presents the different views, he personally prefers hypotheses that simplify the situation and allow the text now available to be considered as a single continuous writing left in its present form by Aquinas himself. (shrink)

Nonmedical sex selection refers to the discretionary use of technology to fulfill the parental desire for offspring of a certain sex, rather than use of technology for the purpose of avoiding X-linked genetic conditions. The ASRM has not taken a firm position on the ethical permissibility of nonmedical sex selection but rather encourages individual clinics to develop and publicise their own policies on the subject. The autonomy of both the parents and the providers ought to be considered. Providers should consider (...) the potential societal implications of reinforcing inaccurate gender stereotypes or the possibility of creating distorted sex ratios. As reproductive technologies continue to advance, it is essential for clinicians to carefully consider the short and long-term repercussions of using technology to select for particular traits. This chapter explores these ethical considerations with the aim of providing guidance to providers who may be faced with the decision of whether to participate in prenatal sex selection for nonmedical reasons. (shrink)

The internet is widely used for health information and support, often by vulnerable people. Internet-based research raises both familiar and new ethical problems for researchers and ethics committees. While guidelines for internet-based research are available, it is unclear to what extent ethics committees use these. Experience of gaining research ethics approval for a UK study (SharpTalk), involving internet-based discussion groups with young people who self-harm and health professionals is described. During ethical review, unsurprisingly, concerns were raised about the vulnerability of (...) potential participants. These were dominated by the issue of anonymity, which also affected participant safety and consent. These ethical problems are discussed, and our solutions, which included: participant usernames specific to the study, a closed website, private messaging facilities, a direct contact email to researchers, information about forum rules displayed on the website, a ‘report’ button for participants, links to online support, and a discussion room for forum moderators. This experience with SharpTalk suggests that an approach to ethics, which recognises the relational aspects of research with vulnerable people, is particularly useful for internet-based health research. The solutions presented here can act as guidance for researchers developing proposals and for ethics committees reviewing them. (shrink)

In the United States, unmet needs for infertility treatment are high, and the proportion of patients that are “underserved” exceeds that in most other fields (ASRM Ethics Committee, https://www.asrm.org/about-us/initiatives/diversity-task-force/dei/asrm-task-force-on-diversity-equi ty-and-inclusion-issues-statement-recommendations/, 2021). Infertility may be detrimental to an individual or family’s health, social status, family stability and psychological wellness (ASRM Ethics Committee, https://www.asrm.org/about-us/initiatives/diversity-task-force/dei/asrm-task-force-on-diversity-equi ty-and-inclusion-issues-statement-recommendations/, 2021). This chapter explores the disparities that prevent equitable access to treatment and impact treatment outcomes in the U.S. The most salient barrier to treatment access is financial; many patients (...) lack access due to its high cost and limited coverage by insurance. Only a portion of U.S. states mandate coverage of infertility testing and treatment, and several state mandates carry significant restrictions (RESOLVE, https://resolve.org/learn/financial-resources-for-family-building/insurance-coverage/insurance-cover age-by-state/, 2021). In addition to financial barriers, this chapter explores ethnic, racial, and geographic barriers to care. Reproductive justice demands that persons have equitable opportunities to have children when they wish to and are free from serious medical contraindications (SisterSong, https://www.sistersong.net/reproductive-justice, 2022). Physicians have an ethical obligation to engage with payors, employers, and policymakers to advocate for equitable and affordable care. In addition, REI clinics should recruit a diverse and informed workforce, require cultural competence trainings, identify cost-effective infertility treatments and research how to improve treatment outcomes across diverse populations (ASRM Ethics Committee, https://www.asrm.org/about-us/initiatives/diversity-task-force/dei/asrm-task-force-on-diversity-equi ty-and-inclusion-issues-statement-recommendations/, 2021). (shrink)

Patients with underlying medical conditions are at a higher risk of peripartum complications that may compromise both their health and that of the eventual child. Reproductive autonomy is the primary consideration supporting an individual’s right to access fertility treatment. However, health care providers have a duty to support the well-being of their patients and in certain cases may limit patient autonomy to prevent harm. Comorbidities may affect the health of a future child and may restrict the future parent’s ability to (...) care for the child. These concerns must in turn be balanced to avoid prioritizing ableist notions of proper parenting to determine access to fertility treatment. Reproductive endocrinologists should consult maternal fetal medicine physicians and specialists in the patient’s condition to ensure that decisions regarding the provision of fertility treatment are grounded in evidence rather than stereotypes about patients with disabilities. Pregnancy remains a reasonable option for many patients with comorbidities with appropriate monitoring by subspecialists and significant counseling about risks and alternatives to pregnancy. (shrink)

Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) make possible a range of alternative family structures (i.e., families with single, unmarried or LGBTQ+ parents). However, some practices still decline provision of ART to single and diverse sexuality and gender (DSG) individuals. Fertility clinics across the United States vary in terms of the options they provide to these patients (Wu et al., Fertil Steril 108(1):183–191, 2017). Those clinics who appropriately favor equal access to fertility services, regardless of marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity, emphasize (...) that single and DSG individuals often desire biologically related children and have the autonomy to seek out fertility care to support those interests. They emphasize justice (i.e., that different treatment is only justified when there is a morally relevant difference between cases) and the “right to reproduce” (De Wert et al., Hum Reprod Oxf Engl 29(9):1859–1865, 2014). Clinics who do not support equal access to fertility treatment question the welfare of children born into alternative family structures, despite clear evidence to undermine this concern, and inappropriately prioritize professional autonomy (APA, Published online 2004; van Rijn-van Gelderen, J Adolesc 40:65–73, 2015; Farr, Dev Psychol 53(2):252–264, 2017; Goldberg et al., J Fam Psychol 27(3):431–442, 2013). Marital status, sexual orientation and gender identity do not impact parenting ability and thus physicians have an ethical duty to treat unmarried and DSG individuals in the same manner as heterosexual married couples when determining which services to provide (ASRM Ethics Committee, Fertil Steril 116(2):326–330, 2021). (shrink)

This chapter explores ethical issues pertinent to third party reproduction, including autonomy, beneficence and non-maleficence. Use of a gestational carrier is one path forward when individuals who wish to become parents to genetically related children are unable to gestate for a variety of medical or social reasons. The practice is controversial and illegal in some countries. While in a neutral setting, individuals can autonomously consent to gestate for another intended parent, critics of the practice suggest that in certain social, economic, (...) and geographic scenarios, offering compensation to gestational carriers undermines truly voluntary informed consent. The most compelling argument in support of third-party reproduction relates to beneficence: the practice provides a family-building option for single men, same-sex male couples, and persons with uteri for whom gestating a child is unsafe or medically impossible. However, pregnancy poses physical and psychological risks to gestational carriers and potentially to future children in international settings if the identity of their legal parents is contested. It is critical that gestational carriers provide meaningful informed consent and receive appropriate medical care and that intended parents and gestational carriers secure or are afforded independent legal counsel. According to the ASRM Ethics Committee, compensation for gestational carriers is ethically permissible, although a different conclusion has been reached internationally. (shrink)

This paper offers an overview of consciousness and personal identity in eighteenth-century philosophy. Locke introduces the concept of persons as subjects of consciousness who also simultaneously recognize themselves as such subjects. Hume, however, argues that minds are nothing but bundles of perceptions, lacking intrinsic unity at a time or across time. Yet Hume thinks our emotional responses to one another mean that persons in everyday life are defined by their virtues, vices, bodily qualities, property, riches, and the like. Rousseau also (...) takes persons to be fundamentally determined by our socially-mediated emotional responses to one another, though unlike Hume or Locke, he has little interest in placing this account of persons alongside a larger discussion of the human mind and its operations. Developing this idea further, Kant argues that our moral commitments require that we must take ourselves to be free. The fundamental equality that Rousseau sought in the political order is, for Kant, a requirement that reason puts on all of us. (shrink)

Followers of Wittgenstein allegedly once held that a meaningful claim to know that p could only be made if there was some doubt about the truth of p. The correct response to this thesis involved appealing to the distinction between the semantic content of a sentence and features attaching to its use. It is inappropriate to assert a knowledge-claim unless someone in the audience has doubt about what the speaker claims to know. But this fact has nothing to do with (...) the semantic content of knowledgeascriptions; it is entirely explicable by appeal to pragmatic facts about felicitous assertion. (shrink)

The isomorphism invariance criterion of logical nature has much to commend it. It can be philosophically motivated by the thought that logic is distinctively general or topic neutral. It is capable of precise set-theoretic formulation. And it delivers an extension of ‘logical constant’ which respects the intuitively clear cases. Despite its attractions, the criterion has recently come under attack. Critics such as Feferman, MacFarlane and Bonnay argue that the criterion overgenerates by incorrectly judging mathematical notions as logical. We consider five (...) possible precisifications of the overgeneration argument and find them all unconvincing. (shrink)

Ontological monists hold that there is only one way of being, while ontological pluralists hold that there are many; for example, concrete objects like tables and chairs exist in a different way from abstract objects like numbers and sets. Correspondingly, the monist will want the familiar existential quantifier as a primitive logical constant, whereas the pluralist will want distinct ones, such as for abstract and concrete existence. In this paper, we consider how the debate between the monist and pluralist relates (...) to the standard test for logicality. We deploy this test and show that it favors the monist. (shrink)

The importance of patients taking an active role in their healthcare is recognized internationally, to improve safety and effectiveness in practice. There is still, however, some ambiguity about the conceptualization of that patient role; it is referred to interchangeably in the literature as engagement, involvement, and participation. The aim of this discussion paper is to examine and conceptualize the concepts of patient engagement, involvement, and participation within healthcare, particularly nursing. The concepts were found to have semantic differences and similarities, although, (...) from a nursing perspective, they can be summoned to illustrate the establishment of a mutual partnership between a patient and a nurse. The individualization of such processes requires the joint effort of engagement, involvement, or participation, represented by interactive actions of both the patient (asking questions, telling/speaking up, knowledge acquisition, learning, and decision‐making) and the nurse (recognizing, responding, information sharing, teaching, and collaborating). Suggesting that the concepts can be used interchangeably comes with some caution, requiring that nurses embrace patients playing a role in their health and healthcare. Further research and practice development should focus on how patients and nurses receive and respond to each other to establish patient engagement, involvement, and participation. (shrink)

Belief in propositions has had a long and distinguished history in analytic philosophy. Three of the founding fathers of analytic philosophy, Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, and G. E. Moore, believed in propositions. Many philosophers since then have shared this belief; and the belief is widely, though certainly not universally, accepted among philosophers today. Among contemporary philosophers who believe in propositions, many, and perhaps even most, take them to be structured entities with individuals, properties, and relations as constituents. For example, the (...) proposition that Glenn loves Tracy has Glenn, the loving relation, and Tracy as constituents. What is it, then, that binds these constituents together and imposes structure on them? And if the proposition that Glenn loves Tracy is distinct from the proposition that Tracy loves Glenn yet both have the same constituents, what is about the way these constituents are structured or bound together that makes them two different propositions? In The Nature and Structure of Content, Jeffrey C. King formulates a detailed account of the metaphysical nature of propositions, and provides fresh answers to the above questions. In addition to explaining what it is that binds together the constituents of structured propositions and imposes structure on them, King deals with some of the standard objections to accounts of propositions: he shows that there is no mystery about what propositions are; that given certain minimal assumptions, it follows that they exist; and that on his approach, we can see how and why propositions manage to have truth conditions and represent the world as being a certain way. The Nature and Structure of Content also contains a detailed account of the nature of tense and modality, and provides a solution to the paradox of analysis. Scholars and students working in the philosophy of mind and language will find this book rewarding reading. (shrink)

Logical monism is the claim that there is a single correct logic, the 'one true logic' of our title. The view has evident appeal, as it reflects assumptions made in ordinary reasoning as well as in mathematics, the sciences, and the law. In all these spheres, we tend to believe that there aredeterminate facts about the validity of arguments. Despite its evident appeal, however, logical monism must meet two challenges. The first is the challenge from logical pluralism, according to which (...) there is more than one correct logic. The second challenge is to determine which form of logicalmonism is the correct one. One True Logic is the first monograph to explicitly articulate a version of logical monism and defend it against the first challenge. It provides a critical overview of the monism vs pluralism debate and argues for the former. It also responds to the second challenge by defending a particularmonism, based on a highly infinitary logic. It breaks new ground on a number of fronts and unifies disparate discussions in the philosophical and logical literature. In particular, it generalises the Tarski-Sher criterion of logicality, provides a novel defence of this generalisation, offers a clearnew argument for the logicality of infinitary logic and replies to recent pluralist arguments. (shrink)

The idea of artificial intelligence for social good is gaining traction within information societies in general and the AI community in particular. It has the potential to tackle social problems through the development of AI-based solutions. Yet, to date, there is only limited understanding of what makes AI socially good in theory, what counts as AI4SG in practice, and how to reproduce its initial successes in terms of policies. This article addresses this gap by identifying seven ethical factors that are (...) essential for future AI4SG initiatives. The analysis is supported by 27 case examples of AI4SG projects. Some of these factors are almost entirely novel to AI, while the significance of other factors is heightened by the use of AI. From each of these factors, corresponding best practices are formulated which, subject to context and balance, may serve as preliminary guidelines to ensure that well-designed AI is more likely to serve the social good. (shrink)

Philosophy, science, and common sense all refer to propositions--things we believe and say, and things which are true or false. But there is no consensus on what sorts of things these entities are. Jeffrey C. King, Scott Soames, and Jeff Speaks argue that commitment to propositions is indispensable, and each defend their own views on the debate.