The European Legacy, Volume 17, Issue 5, Page 693-694, August 2012.

The European Legacy, Volume 17, Issue 3, Page 404, June 2012.

The European Legacy, Volume 17, Issue 3, Page 405, June 2012.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The National Commission on AIDSDonald S. Goldman (bio) and Jeff Stryker (bio)A decade after the first cases were recognized in the United States, AIDS continues to vex policymakers and fascinate the public. It has been said that AIDS acts as a prism, refracting a spectrum of controversial topics. For bioethicists, these topics include: equity in the allocation of resources for treatment and research; forgoing life-sustaining care and proxy decision (...) making; informed consent in the context of HIV testing and screening; the ethical duties of health care workers to provide care for persons with HIV disease; and competing obligations of health care professionals to patients and to third parties who may be put at risk.The Role of CommissionsIf AIDS is the quintessential case study for bioethicists, it is a potential quagmire for politicians. The association of HIV disease with drug use and sexual behavior makes it a topic that all but the most courageous (or the most homophobic) politicians shy away from. A frequent political response is to form a commission.Alexander Capron, who was executive director of the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine, has described some roles commissions play: a watchdog, overseeing the work of particular government agencies; a crucible, providing a means for "publicly hammering out conclusions on controversial issues when consensus, both in the public and in the relevant disciplines, is not yet apparent"; and "a lightning rod for public concern—or viewed less charitably, dumping ground for an issue that is too difficult for the ordinary political process to handle" (Capron 1983, p. 9).Nearly every state has created a gubernatorial-level task force or commission on AIDS. The National Commission on AIDS was established under the Health Omnibus Program Extension (HOPE) Act of 1988, which was signed by President Reagan on November 4, 1988. The official charter of the commission was approved August 2, 1989 and its original two-year term was extended for a third year. The mission statement crafted by the commission to reflect its Congressional mandate reads: [End Page 339]The National Commission on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome is an independent body of 15 members created to advise the President and Congress. The Commission seeks to build a broad public understanding on the magnitude, scope and urgency of the HIV/AIDS epidemic; provide and inspire leadership at all levels of both the public and private sectors; empower individuals and communities; and advocate for effective, cooperative and non-discriminatory resources required for prevention, comprehensive care, and the research necessary to halt the epidemic.As the mission statement implies, the National Commission on AIDS has viewed itself from the outset not only as a crucible for policy analysis, but also as a forum for those affected by HIV disease. In site visits and hearings the commissioners have met with hundreds of people living with HIV disease, and with caregivers on the front lines. This odyssey has taken the commission on visits to homeless shelters in New York City; to "shooting galleries" where intravenous drug users congregate in Seattle; to Native American communities in four states; to private homes in rural Georgia; and to hospitals, HIV antibody testing centers, drug treatment clinics, and hemophilia treatment centers throughout the nation. It quickly became clear during the commission's travels that HIV disease cannot be understood outside the context of the racism, homophobia, poverty and unemployment that provide the medium that fosters its spread. It also became apparent that issues of HIV prevention, care and treatment, and clinical research are inextricably intertwined and must be dealt with as such.Early InitiativesUnder the leadership of Chairperson June Osborn and Vice-chairperson David Rogers, the commission decided that the problems it saw in its first few meetings were too urgent to await a full-length annual report. Hence the commission entered the fray with a series of brief interim reports on particular aspects of AIDS. These reports enabled the commission to draw attention to urgent problems of limitations in access to health care and to underscore the plight of people with HIV disease who might otherwise garner little media attention, such as prisoners and drug users (National Commission... (shrink)

Computer-simulated scenarios have been part of psychological research on problem solving for more than 40 years. The shift in emphasis from simple toy problems to complex, more real-life oriented problems has been accompanied by discussions about the best ways to assess the process of solving complex problems. Psychometric issues such as reliable assessments and addressing correlations with other instruments have been in the foreground of these discussions and have left the content validity of complex problem solving in the background. In (...) this paper, we return the focus to content issues and address the important features that define complex problems. (shrink)

Metaphysics is the thoroughly empirical science. Every item of experience must be evidence for or against any hypothesis of speculative cosmology, and every experienced object must be an exemplar and test case for the categories of analytic ontology. Technically, therefore, one example ought for our present theme to be as good as another. The more dignified examples, however, are darkened with a patina of tradition and partisanship, while some frivolous ones are peculiarly perspicuous. Let us therefore imagine three lollipops, made (...) by a candy man who buys sticks from a big supplier and molds candy knobs on them. Lollipop No. 1 has a red round peppermint head, No. 2 a brown round chocolate head, No. 3 a red square peppermint head. The circumstance here which mainly provokes theories of subsistence and inherence is similarity with difference: each lollipop is partially similar to each other and partially different from it. If we can give a good account of this circumstance in this affair we shall have the instrument to expose the anatomy of everything, from an electron or an apple to archangels and the World All. (shrink)

We present a new “reason-based” approach to the formal representation of moral theories, drawing on recent decision-theoretic work. We show that any moral theory within a very large class can be represented in terms of two parameters: a specification of which properties of the objects of moral choice matter in any given context, and a specification of how these properties matter. Reason-based representations provide a very general taxonomy of moral theories, as differences among theories can be attributed to differences in (...) their two key parameters. We can thus formalize several distinctions, such as between consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories, between universalist and relativist theories, between agent-neutral and agent-relative theories, between monistic and pluralistic theories, between atomistic and holistic theories, and between theories with a teleological structure and those without. Reason-based representations also shed light on an important but under-appreciated phenomenon: the “underdetermination of moral theory by deontic content”. (shrink)

While ordinary decision theory focuses on empirical uncertainty, real decision-makers also face normative uncertainty: uncertainty about value itself. From a purely formal perspective, normative uncertainty is comparable to (Harsanyian or Rawlsian) identity uncertainty in the 'original position', where one's future values are unknown. A comprehensive decision theory must address twofold uncertainty -- normative and empirical. We present a simple model of twofold uncertainty, and show that the most popular decision principle -- maximising expected value (`Expectationalism') -- has different formulations, namely (...) Ex-Ante Expectationalism, Ex-Post Expectationalism, and hybrid theories. These alternative theories recommend different decisions, reasoning modes, and attitudes to risk. But they converge under an interesting (necessary and sufficient) condition. (shrink)

The most popular and convincing arguments for the claim that vegetarianism is morally obligatory focus on the extensive, unnecessary harm done to animals and to the environment by raising animals industrially in confinement conditions (factory farming). I outline the strongest versions of these arguments. I grant that it follows from their central premises that purchasing and consuming factoryfarmed meat is immoral. The arguments fail, however, to establish that strict vegetarianism is obligatory because they falsely assume that eating vegetables is the (...) only alternative to eating factory-farmed meat that avoids the harms of factory farming. I show that these arguments not only fail to establish that strict vegetarianism is morally obligatory, but that the very premises of the arguments imply that eating some (non-factory-farmed) meat rather than only vegetables is morally obligatory. Therefore, if the central premises of these usual arguments are true, then strict vegetarianism is immoral. (shrink)

There is a surprising disconnect between formal rational choice theory and philosophical work on reasons. The one is silent on the role of reasons in rational choices, the other rarely engages with the formal models of decision problems used by social scientists. To bridge this gap, we propose a new, reason-based theory of rational choice. At its core is an account of preference formation, according to which an agent’s preferences are determined by his or her motivating reasons, together with a (...) ‘weighing relation’ between different combinations of reasons. By explaining how someone’s preferences may vary with changes in his or her motivating reasons, our theory illuminates the relationship between deliberation about reasons and rational choices. Although primarily positive, the theory can also help us think about how those preferences and choices ought to respond to normative reasons. (shrink)

The contemporary theory of epistemic democracy often draws on the Condorcet Jury Theorem to formally justify the ‘wisdom of crowds’. But this theorem is inapplicable in its current form, since one of its premises – voter independence – is notoriously violated. This premise carries responsibility for the theorem's misleading conclusion that ‘large crowds are infallible’. We prove a more useful jury theorem: under defensible premises, ‘large crowds are fallible but better than small groups’. This theorem rehabilitates the importance of deliberation (...) and education, which appear inessential in the classical jury framework. Our theorem is related to Ladha's (1993) seminal jury theorem for interchangeable (‘indistinguishable’) voters based on de Finetti's Theorem. We also prove a more general and simpler such jury theorem. (shrink)

John Broome has developed an account of rationality and reasoning which gives philosophical foundations for choice theory and the psychology of rational agents. We formalize his account into a model that differs from ordinary choice-theoretic models through focusing on psychology and the reasoning process. Within that model, we ask Broome’s central question of whether reasoning can make us more rational: whether it allows us to acquire transitive preferences, consistent beliefs, non-akratic intentions, and so on. We identify three structural types of (...) rationality requirements: consistency requirements, completeness requirements, and closedness requirements. Many standard rationality requirements fall under this typology. Based on three theorems, we argue that reasoning is successful in achieving closedness requirements, but not in achieving consistency or completeness requirements. We assess how far our negative results reveal gaps in Broome's theory, or deficiencies in choice theory and behavioral economics. (shrink)

Through modern driver assistant systems, algorithmic decisions already have a significant impact on the behavior of vehicles in everyday traffic. This will become even more prominent in the near future considering the development of autonomous driving functionality. The need to consider ethical principles in the design of such systems is generally acknowledged. However, scope, principles and strategies for their implementations are not yet clear. Most of the current discussions concentrate on situations of unavoidable crashes in which the life of human (...) beings is existentially affected. In this paper, we argue that ethical considerations should be mandatory for any algorithmic decision of autonomous vehicles, instead of a limitation to hazard situations. Such an ethically aligned behavior is relevant because autonomous vehicles, like any other traffic participants, operate in a shared public space, where every behavioral decision impacts the operational possibilities of others. These possibilities concern the fulfillment of a road-user’s safety, utility and comfort needs. We propose that, to operate ethically in such space, an autonomous vehicle will have to take its behavior decisions according to a just distribution of operational possibilities among all traffic participants. Using an application on a partially-autonomous prototype vehicle, we describe how to apply and implement concepts of distributive justice to the driving environment and demonstrate the impact on its behavior in comparison to an advanced but egoistic decision maker. (shrink)