Consequentialist Framework Research Articles

Sport-related concussion (SCR) prevention and the nature of sport: possibilities and limitations

ABSTRACT Concussions are traumatic brain injuries that can result from a blow to the head or a jolt to the body. Athletes in many sports are exposed to concussion risks. There is a growing concern in sport and society about sport-related concussions (SRC) and an increasing awareness of the importance of proper diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. A traditional, reactive approach emphasizes sound protocols in cases of suspected SRC. A proactive approach involves identifying various causes of SRC and implementing preventive measures. For example, to reduce SRC prevalence in Canadian youth ice hockey, a ban on body checking has been introduced. When a preventive SRC measure implies a change in the main rules of a sport, it impacts its nature and alters how it is played. This can lead to tensions between SRC prevention and sporting concerns. By employing an extended consequentialist framework that includes normative analyses of the values of sport, I will examine the possibilities and limitations of preventive SRC measures in terms of constitutive rule changes. More specifically, I will propose a consequentialist framework to determine the conditions under which athlete exposure to SRC risks in a given sport can be considered unacceptable, acceptable, and even valuable.

An Epistemic Version of Pascal's Wager

Abstract Epistemic consequentialism is the view that epistemic goodness is more fundamental than epistemic rightness. In this article, I examine the relationship between epistemic consequentialism and theistic belief. I argue that in an epistemic consequentialist framework, there is an epistemic reason to believe in God. Imagine having an unlimited amount of time to ask an omniscient being anything you wanted. The potential epistemic benefits would be enormous. Considerations like these point to an epistemic version of Pascal's wager. I compare and contrast the epistemic wager with the traditional wager, and argue that the epistemic wager has several notable advantages.

Workplace Spirituality: Exploring the Meaning and Purpose of Life Through Work

There is enormous literature citing the importance of workplace spirituality. This article focuses on the concept of spirituality and to understand its role in workplace using narrative review methodology. A few definitions of spirituality and workplace spirituality are examined and common features in those definitions are identified. Existing literature on why spirituality at workplace is vital is reviewed. The arguments against and for the workplace spirituality are expressed. The core purpose of the paper is to understand the concept of spirituality and how it manifests at the workspace, whether it should be nurtured or discouraged with respect to its impact on the employee and the organisation (consequentialist framework) or because of the individuals search for meaning, purpose, transcendence and divinity (spiritual-philosophical framework).The result indicate that spiritual-philosophical framework should be the primary reason for organisations to promote workplace spirituality. The reasons for, and implications of the same are discussed.

What is the point of behavioural public policy? A contractarian approach

AbstractMany proponents of behavioural public policy work within a broadly consequentialist framework. From this perspective, the ultimate aim of public policy is to maximise utility, happiness, welfare, the satisfaction of preferences, or similar; and the behavioural aspect of public policy aims to harness a knowledge of human psychology to make this maximisation more effective. In particular, behavioural insights may be crucial to help policy-makers ‘save us from ourselves’ by helping citizens avoid falling into non-rational choices, for example, through framing effects, failures of will-power, and so on. But an alternative reading of the psychological literature is that human thoughts and actions are not biased from a rational standard, but are simply systematically inconsistent. If so, then utility and similar notions are not well defined either for individuals or as an objective of public policy. I argue that a different, contractarian viewpoint is required: that the determination of public policy is continuous with the formation of agreements we make with each other at all scales, from momentary social interactions, to linguistic and social conventions, to collective decisions by groups and organisations. Behavioural factors do not over-ride, but can (among many other factors) inform, our collective decision-making process. The point of behavioural insights in public policy is primarily to inform and enrich public debate when deciding the rules by which we should like to live.

A Consequentialist Framework for Prevention

A Consequentialist Framework for Prevention

Development of Cheating Dilemma as a Thought Experiment in Assessing the Student’s Ethical Decision Making

Thought experiments give each individual the opportunity to critically evaluate, examine their knowledge, and come up with the best possible solution while keeping in mind societal ethical norms and the implications of their actions. Given that students are continuously confronted with ethical decision-making throughout their studies, new thought experiments may be devised to assist them in assessing and improving their decision-making abilities. New Cheating Dilemmas have been constructed by taking into account numerous ideas such as utilitarianism, right-based theory, the doctrine of double effect, and employing components of the well-known thought experiments like the Trolley Problem and Fat-Man Problem. In this study, the Self-Cheating and Peer-Cheating dilemma tests were established to see if they provide the same chances for thought experiments to be employed in the academic integrity issue of cheating for students. Factors influencing college students' ethical decision-making in reaction to cheating have been explored. Various variants of the developed cheating problems were analyzed using the duty and consequentialist framework. The findings result in actions and policies that will be designed to improve awareness regarding the importance of academic integrity for students

KANTIANS MAKE BAD FRIENDS; SUSPENDING MORAL RESPONSIBILITY IN RELATIONSHIPS

In this essay, I will briefly examine the Kantian ethical tradition as inherited by Christine Korsgaard. I argue that the Kantian is committed to a morally impractical conclusion: that she must hold others morally responsible without exception. I explain the concept of moral responsibility in the Kantian and consequentialist frameworks, and then illustrate why the Kantian’s is an impractical imperative through an examination of its interpersonal effects. I end by suggesting that a consequentialist view offers a more robust framework for moral responsibility.

Birthing Alone: An Ethical Analysis of Pandemic Policies Banning Birthing Partners

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several hospitals implemented “birthing alone” policies, banning companions (e.g., partners, family members, doulas) from accompanying individuals giving birth. We offer an ethical analysis of these policies. First, we examine them through a consequentialist framework of risks and benefits. Second, we consider the significance of birth, highlighting the unique ways in which risks, relationships, and rights are understood in the context of obstetrics. We conclude that birthing alone policies are largely unjustified, as the harm they are certain to cause outweighs their possible benefits and because they fail to take into account what matters to mothers.

The Moral Consideration of Artificial Entities: A Literature Review

Ethicists, policy-makers, and the general public have questioned whether artificial entities such as robots warrant rights or other forms of moral consideration. There is little synthesis of the research on this topic so far. We identify 294 relevant research or discussion items in our literature review of this topic. There is widespread agreement among scholars that some artificial entities could warrant moral consideration in the future, if not also the present. The reasoning varies, such as concern for the effects on artificial entities and concern for the effects on human society. Beyond the conventional consequentialist, deontological, and virtue ethicist ethical frameworks, some scholars encourage “information ethics” and “social-relational” approaches, though there are opportunities for more in-depth ethical research on the nuances of moral consideration of artificial entities. There is limited relevant empirical data collection, primarily in a few psychological studies on current moral and social attitudes of humans towards robots and other artificial entities. This suggests an important gap for psychological, sociological, economic, and organizational research on how artificial entities will be integrated into society and the factors that will determine how the interests of artificial entities are considered.

Mandated Shutdowns, the Ratchet Effect, and The Barstool Fund

Perhaps the most contentious part of the response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been the decision by governments to mandate—or effectively mandate—the shutdown of certain businesses. The justification for doing so is broadly consequentialist. The public health costs of not shutting down are so great that potential benefits from allowing businesses to open are dwarfed. Operating within this consequentialist framework, this paper identifies an underappreciated set of social costs that are a product of the present public policy that pairs mandated shutdowns with government subsidies. Such policy is prone to being an instance of what Robert Higgs calls the ratchet effect. Given that ratchets tend to be both costly and sticky, it is best to avoid allowing them to come into existence. This paper identifies a way of circumventing this particular ratchet; namely, by replacing governmental subsidies with support from private charitable funds like The Barstool Fund.

Moral risks and government policy in South Africa in the context of 4IR

South Africa, among other nations in Africa, most notably Kenya, Nigeria and Rwanda, is aiming to take a lead in the implementation of policy intended to address the challenges represented by the fourth Industrial Revolution. We take the South African Constitution’s Bill of Rights as our guide on the moral obligations of the government, from the logic of both consequentialist and deontological moral frameworks. With this in mind, we consider whether the South African government’s initiatives involve moral risks, in virtue of neglecting some threats posed by new technologies. In particular, we identify biological technologies – specifically transhumanist technologies – as posing special risks, and argue that we need to balance the need for dignity, equality and privacy, which the technologies seem to threaten, against the promise of flourishing that the technologies seem to offer.

Patients' views on end-of-life practices that hasten death: a qualitative study exploring ethical distinctions.

Assisted dying (AD) is currently of wide interest due to legislative change. Its relationship to other end-of-life practices such as palliative sedation (PS) is the subject of ongoing debate. The aim of this article is to describe the perspectives of a group of New Zealanders with life-limiting illness, who want or would consider AD, on the provision of end of life services, including assisted death, withdrawal of lifeprolonging treatment and symptom management with opioids or PS. We recruited 14 people with life-limiting illness and life expectancy of less than a year. Their mean age was 61 (range, 34-82) years and half were enrolled in Hospice. An additional six family members were also interviewed and included in analysis. We asked them about why they would consider AD if it was available. Interview transcripts were inductively analyzed consistent with thematic analysis. We compared the findings to prevailing ethical frameworks. Most of the participants viewed current palliative care practices, such as pain relief with opioids and symptom management with PS, as hastening death, in contrast to some medical research which concludes that proportional therapeutic doses do not hasten death. Some participants did not agree with the 'doctrine of double effect' ('DDE') and saw such practices as 'slow euthanasia' and 'covert euthanasia'. They implied such practices were performed without patient consent, though they did not conceive of this as murder. Participants asserted that active and passive practices for ending life were morally equivalent, and preferred to choose the time of death over other legal means for death. This article contributes to what is known about how patients perceive end-of-life practices that potentially hasten death. There is a divide in what medical ethics and most health professionals and what some patients consider active hastening death. Participants' perspective was consistent with a consequentialist framework whereas deontology often guides medical ethics at the end of life. Participants' challenge to the interpretation of legal end-of-life practices as AD represents an epistemic contest to the foundation of medical knowledge, authority and ethics and therefore carries implications for preferences in care, communication and palliative care practice.

Spare the Rod, Spoil the Society? The Moral Complexity of Caning in Singapore

You have the opportunity to decide whether or not a person gets caned, the only caveat is that they have committed a crime against you. What will you do? This essay explores the moral complexity of caning in Singapore through an exploration of corporal punishment, criminal justice, moral philosophy, and the Asian values debate; a dilemma that ultimately places concerns of society and the individual at odds. In doing so, the essay argues that the morality of caning changes on the basis of the ethical framework and modification of situation variables. Even so, the moral complexity of caning is not superficially evident. In order to thoroughly engage with all elements of this complexity, this essay begins by attempting to decipher the place of punishment within international human rights frameworks. From there, the essay explores the morality of punishment and its employ in colonial endeavors. This leads to a discussion of modernization, humanitarian ideologies, and control. By creating a framework for analyzing criminal justice in Singapore—including an outline of the intersections of criminal justice, development, and prosperity —this essay seeks to explore the balance between corporal punishment as a tool of prosperity and corporal punishment as a source of pain and degradation. When placed in consequentialist and virtue-based ethical frameworks caning in Singapore looks very different, forcing the moral actor to weigh societal concerns with concerns for individual pain, suffering, and liberties.
 Keywords: Caning, Morality, Society, Punishment.

Ethical aspects of multi-stakeholder recommendation systems

In this article we analyze the ethical aspects of multistakeholder recommendation systems (RSs). Following the most common approach in the literature, we assume a consequentialist framework to introduce the main concepts of multistakeholder recommendation. We then consider three research questions: Who are the stakeholders in a RS? How are their interests taken into account when formulating a recommendation? And, what is the scientific paradigm underlying RSs? Our main finding is that multistakeholder RSs (MRSs) are designed and theorized, methodologically, according to neoclassical welfare economics. We consider and reply to some methodological objections to MRSs on this basis, concluding that the multistakeholder approach offers the resources to understand the normative social dimension of RSs.

Progressive Pricing: The Ethical Case for Price Personalization

Price discrimination is widely considered unethical/unfair by consumers, as has been borne out by decades of psychological research and mainstream press reporting. However, little academic work has been done to investigate the ethics of price discrimination. The work that has been done to date concludes that while price discrimination is not unethical, despite widespread lay perceptions, it is at best morally neutral. We argue price discrimination is more ethical than unitary pricing, when done ‘progressively,’ meaning firms charge customers as a function of their willingness-to-pay. We introduce this specific kind of price discrimination as ‘Progressive Pricing’ and demonstrate it ethically outperforms a ‘Unitary Pricing’ scheme (where everyone pays the same price, regardless of their willingness-to-pay), at least within a broadly consequentialist framework. We do this by comparing a Unitary Pricing scheme to a Progressive one, analyzing them through the lenses of four different consequentialist ‘Social Welfare Functions’ (Utilitarian, Egalitarian, Prioritarian, and Leximin), which are used by welfare economists and philosophers to rank the distributions of different social outcomes, concluding that Progressive Pricing is preferred regardless of which Social Welfare Function(s) one finds most plausible.

God* does not exist: a novel logical problem of evil

I often tell my students that the only thing that is not controversial in philosophy is that everything else in it is controversial. While this might be a bit of an exaggeration, it does contain a kernel of truth, as many exaggerations do: philosophy is a highly contentious discipline. So it is remarkable the extent to which there is agreement in the philosophy of religion amongst theists, agnostics, and atheists alike that John Mackie’s argument for atheism is either invalid or unsound. As a result, the focus has entirely shifted from the logical problem of evil to the so-called evidential one. But I think that this is a mistake, not necessarily because I think Mackie’s argument is sound, but rather because I reject an assumption made by apparently all parties to the debate, which is that there is only one logical problem of evil. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to defend a deductive argument that God* does not exist. As far as I can tell, the basic idea of this argument is a novel one: while Mackie’s argument (and much of the discussion that occurs in its wake) has a more or less consequentialist framework, mine has a deontological one. The evil of which I will speak is that of our having been thrown into the world.

A Critical Study of Robert Nozick’s View on Utilitarianism

In this paper, I will analyze and critically evaluate 20th century American philosopher Robert Nozick’s position regarding utilitarianism; how he refutes utilitarianism with reference to two new concepts called “Experience Machine” and “Utility Monster”. I will argue that if we were given the option of entering into an experience machine as Nozick presented in his book Anarchy State and Utopia, in which we can create a new better life for ourselves, then it would be irrational to refuse the option. I will then reply to Nozick’s objection regarding utilitarianism within his concept of utility monster, where he argued that accepting the theory of utilitarianism causes the necessary acceptance of a utility monster, that is, the condition that some people would use this doctrine to justify the exploitation of others. I will argue here that giving “happy units” to weak utility monsters can bring about wonderful result. All my arguments are formed within utilitarian consequentialist framework.
 Philosophy and Progress, Vol#61-62; No#1-2; Jan-Dec 2017 P 165-176

Compassionate versus consequentialist conservation.

Ethical treatment of wildlife and consideration of animal welfare have become important themes in conservation, but ethical perspectives on how best to protect wild animals and promote their welfare are diverse. There are advantages to the consequentialist harms ethical framework applied in managing wild herbivores for conservation purposes. To minimize harms while achieving conservation goals, we argue that overabundant wild herbivores should in many cases be managed through consumptive in situ killing. Advantages of this policy are that the negative welfare states imposed on animals last only a short time; remaining animals are not deprived of positive welfare states (e.g., linked to rearing offspring); poor welfare states of animals in overabundant populations are avoided (e.g., starvation); negative welfare impacts on heterospecifics through resource depletion (i.e., competition) are prevented; harvesting meat reduces the number of (agricultural) animals raised to supply meat; and minimal costs maximize funding for other wildlife management and conservation priorities. Alternative ethical approaches to our consequentialist framework include deontology (containing animal rights) and virtue ethics, some of which underpin compassionate conservation. These alternative ethical approaches emphasize the importance of avoiding intentional killing of animals but, if no population reduction occurs, are likely to impose considerable unintentional harms on overabundant wildlife and indirectly harm heterospecifics through ineffective population reduction. If nonlethal control is used, it is likely that overabundant animals would be deprived of positive welfare states and economic costs would be prohibitive. We encourage conservation stakeholders to consider animal-welfare consequentialism as an ethical approach to minimize harms to the animals under their care as well as other animals that policies may affect while at the same time pursuing conservation goals.

Ethical Aspects of Multi-stakeholder Recommendation Systems

This article analyses the ethical aspects of multi-stakeholder recommendation systems (RSs). Following the most common approach in the literature, we assume a consequentialist framework to introduce the main concepts of multi-stakeholder recommendation. We then consider three research questions: who are the stakeholders in a RS? How are their interests taken into account when formulating a recommendation? And, what is the scientific paradigm underlying RSs? Our main finding is that multi-stakeholder RSs (MRSs) are designed and theorised, methodologically, according to neoclassical welfare economics. We consider and reply to some methodological objections to MRSs on this basis, concluding that the multi-stakeholder approach offers the resources to understand the normative social dimension of RSs.

Consequentialism and the Standard Story of Action

I challenge the common picture of the “Standard Story” of Action as a neutral account of action within which debates in normative ethics can take place. I unpack three commitments that are implicit in the Standard Story, and demonstrate that these commitments together entail a teleological conception of reasons, upon which all reasons to act are reasons to bring about states of affairs. Such a conception of reasons, in turn, supports a consequentialist framework for the evaluation of action, upon which the normative status of actions is properly determined through appeal to rankings of states of affairs as better and worse. This covert support for consequentialism from the theory of action, I argue, has had a distorting effect on debates in normative ethics. I then present challenges to each of these three commitments, a challenge to the first commitment by T.M. Scanlon, a challenge to the second by recent interpreters of Anscombe, and a new challenge to the third commitment that requires only minimal and prima facie plausible modifications to the Standard Story. The success of any one of the challenges, I demonstrate, is sufficient to block support from the theory of action for the teleological conception of reasons and the consequentialist evaluative framework. I close by demonstrating the pivotal role that such arguments grounded in the theory of action play in the current debate between evaluator-relative consequentialists and their critics.