Contents
11 found
Order:
  1. Deontology and Safe Artificial Intelligence.William D’Alessandro - forthcoming - Philosophical Studies:1-24.
    The field of AI safety aims to prevent increasingly capable artificially intelligent systems from causing humans harm. Research on moral alignment is widely thought to offer a promising safety strategy: if we can equip AI systems with appropriate ethical rules, according to this line of thought, they'll be unlikely to disempower, destroy or otherwise seriously harm us. Deontological morality looks like a particularly attractive candidate for an alignment target, given its popularity, relative technical tractability and commitment to harm-avoidance principles. I (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. What We Owe to Ourselves: Essays on Rights and Supererogation.Daniel Muñoz - 2019 - Dissertation, MIT
    Some sacrifices—like giving a kidney or heroically dashing into a burning building—are supererogatory: they are good deeds beyond the call of duty. But if such deeds are really so good, philosophers ask, why shouldn’t morality just require them? The standard answer is that morality recognizes a special role for the pursuit of self-interest, so that everyone may treat themselves as if they were uniquely important. This idea, however, cannot be reconciled with the compelling picture of morality as impartial—the view that (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. Targeted Killing and the Criminal Law.Alec Walen - 2019 - In Larry Alexander & Kimberly Kessler Ferzan (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Ethics and the Criminal Law. Springer Verlag. pp. 753-771.
    The moral justification for targeted killing turns on it being justified as an act of self-defense. That justification can be assessed by addressing five questions: Is the targeted person a threat who lacks the right to threaten? Has the targeted person forfeited some of her claim not to be killed? Even if the answer to the first two questions is positive, is targeted killing a necessary and proportionate response? Is the evidence in favor of targeted killing high enough to meet (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4. Patient centred diagnosis: sharing diagnostic decisions with patients in clinical practice.Zackary Berger, J. P. Brito, Ns Ospina, S. Kannan, Js Hinson, Ep Hess, H. Haskell, V. M. Montori & D. Newman-Toker - 2017 - British Medical Journal 359:j4218.
    Patient centred diagnosis is best practised through shared decision making; an iterative dialogue between doctor and patient, whichrespects a patient’s needs, values, preferences, and circumstances. -/- Shared decision making for diagnostic situations differs fundamentally from that for treatment decisions. This has important implications when considering its practical application. -/- The nature of dialogue should be tailored to the specific diagnostic decision; scenarios with higher stakes or uncertainty usually require more detailed conversations.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5. Making Sense of Medicine: Bridging the Gap between Doctor Guidelines and Patient Preferences.Zackary Berger - 2016 - Rowman & Littlefield.
    The more we know about medicine, the more we realize that many health questions have no one true answer. Realizing this, and thinking carefully about how medicine asks patients to treat their conditions, leads us to some questions. How reliable are the guidelines that might form the basis of doctors’ advice? Is it wrong, after all, to base an approach to medicine on patients’ preferences? And, given that there is often a distance between the treatment a doctor advises and what (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. Patient Autonomy in Talmudic Context: The Patient’s ‘‘I Must Eat’’ on Yom Kippur in the Light of Contemporary Bioethics.Zackary Berger & Joshua Cahan - 2016 - Journal of Religion and Health 5 (5):5.
    In contemporary bioethics, the autonomy of the patient has assumed considerable importance. Progressing from a more limited notion of informed consent, shared decision making calls upon patients to voice the desires and preferences of their authentic self, engaging in choice among alternatives as a way to exercise deeply held values. One influential opinion in Jewish bioethics holds that Jewish law, in contradistinction to secular bioethics, limits the patient's exercise of autonomy only in those instances in which treatment choices are sensitive (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. Hate and Punishment.Antti Kauppinen - 2014 - Journal of Interpersonal Violence:1-19.
    According to legal expressivism, neither crime nor punishment consists merely in intentionally imposing some kind of harm on another. Crime and punishment also have an expressive aspect. They are what they are in part because they enact attitudes toward others—in the case of crime, some kind of disrespect, at least, and in the case of punishment, society’s condemnation or reprobation. Punishment is justified, at least in part, because (and when) it uniquely expresses fitting condemnation or other retributive attitude. What makes (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  8. Wrongdoing Without Motives: Why Victor Tadros is Wrong About Wrongdoing and Motivation. [REVIEW]Alec Walen - 2013 - Law and Philosophy 32 (2-3):217-240.
    Victor Tadros defends a subjective, intention-focused interpretation of the means principle (MP), according to which to use another as a means is to form plans or intentions in which the other serves as a tool for advancing one's ends. My thesis here is that Tadros's defense of the subjective interpretation of the MP is unsuccessful. To make that case I argue for three claims. First, the subjective interpretation has implausibly harsh implications in certain cases, implying that certain people would be (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9. Deontology, individualism, and uncertainty, a reply to Jackson and Smith.Ron Aboodi, Adi Borer & and David Enoch - 2008 - Journal of Philosophy 105 (5):259-272.
    How should deontological theories that prohibit actions of type K — such as intentionally killing an innocent person — deal with cases of uncertainty as to whether a particular action is of type K? Frank Jackson and Michael Smith, who raise this problem in their paper "Absolutist Moral Theories and Uncertainty" (2006), focus on a case where a skier is about to cause the death of ten innocent people — we don’t know for sure whether on purpose or not — (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  10. Doing, allowing, and disabling: Some principles governing deontological restrictions. [REVIEW]Alec Walen - 1995 - Philosophical Studies 80 (2):183 - 215.
  11. Dying Patients: Who's in Control?James F. Childress - 1989 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 17 (3):227-231.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation